PDA

View Full Version : "Don't smack me Daddy, it's against my human rights"


Walrus Feeder
24-01-2006, 23:18:31
This news article is a couple of days old, but it's a topic that keeps resurfacing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4636480.stm

I don't believe there is anything wrong with smacking children when necessary, and it should be the parent that makes this decision not the Government. Not by any means is smacking always the most appropriate way to discipline a child, but how would you go about policing a ban anyway? What the people that are against it seem to fail to understand is the difference between smacking and a full blown beating. It is here that those parents who beat or shout at their kids all day who need to be dealt with, not the normal parent who is just trying to honestly bring their child up correctly. The occasional smack never seemed to do anyone any real harm, and going down the road of claiming it influences violence in later life or just nonsense. The Government has rejected these demands from 'experts' before and in every kind of opinion poll or debate I hear about it those who favour a ban are in a distinct minority.

*End Is Forever*
24-01-2006, 23:36:11
If you smacked someone else's child, you'd be straight up before a court. I have to say, personally, I don't see why common assault shouldn't be common assault just because the person you are assaulting happens to be your offspring.

Gary
25-01-2006, 00:18:46
Perhaps calling it 'common assault' is half the problem. It encourages one too think of it as wrong before any debate takes place. The big difference is, of course, that it's not just an assault, it forms part of vital training for life. All species intelligent enough to do so flips the youngsters when they cross the line. IMO it is an intellectual folly to try to ban it in our own species. Ban it and what can also fall under much the same argument ? Imprisonment in the bedroom perhaps ?

TV4Fun
25-01-2006, 06:54:31
Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
If you smacked someone else's child, you'd be straight up before a court. I have to say, personally, I don't see why common assault shouldn't be common assault just because the person you are assaulting happens to be your offspring. I think it might have something to do with the idea that a parent has the right to raise their own child, and not have someone else decide to raise them for them. For example, if you were to take your own child on a vacation somewhere, that would be fine. However, if you were to take someone else's child on a vacation, that would be considered kidnapping.

Nills Lagerbaak
25-01-2006, 09:43:11
Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
If you smacked someone else's child, you'd be straight up before a court. I have to say, personally, I don't see why common assault shouldn't be common assault just because the person you are assaulting happens to be your offspring.

Yeah, it's nothing to do with "common assault". There is a bond between parents and child much stronger than between them and anone else...so it's hardly "common" assault. And yes, it is a totally acceptable means of showing a child is doing something wrong. Beating for the sake of it, is a completely different matter...

King_Ghidra
25-01-2006, 10:23:53
you can put me in the minority

i have yet to be informed of a situation in which a smack is a better measure than a verbal rebuke or restraining the child or other action that does not involve causing physical pain

the number of parents who hit their child in a controlled way is about 0, whilst the number who hit them from their own anger or frustration is legion. I see it all the time in the streets and shops and i'm baffled by anyone claiming otherwise.

Immortal Wombat
25-01-2006, 10:31:45
Those parents smacking their child in a controlled way are exactly the parents not doing so in public. Physical punishment is only acceptable when it is effective. And when it is used only when all other measures have failed, then subsequently, the mere threat of it should be sufficient for the child to realise the severity of the offense committed. If it is not effective, (and when it become the default in-public response to the child's every transgression) then there's no point to it.

King_Ghidra
25-01-2006, 10:41:29
it's hard for me to comment on what goes on behind people's closed doors, but i'm impressed you have this insight

MattHiggs
25-01-2006, 11:02:55
Well, speaking as a parent I can understand both points of view.

Nills Lagerbaak
25-01-2006, 11:04:44
It's stupid "banning it", it's a proven tool that when used correctly will not harm the child and will actually bring them up better.... Again the Goevrnment are thinking of the minority of parents who actually abuse their children.

"Children are the only people who can be hit legally". Well duh. That's cos they are children and it's their parents smaking them. What about someone performng the heimlick manouver? Is that assault?? I think not

King_Ghidra
25-01-2006, 11:10:08
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
It's stupid "banning it", it's a proven tool that when used correctly will not harm the child and will actually bring them up better....

i'm yet to be convinced of the situation where there is not an effective alternative.

if you can manage your indignation for a second why don't you tell me one

Nills Lagerbaak
25-01-2006, 11:19:18
No need for sarcasm. A hyperactive child who is won't stop beating it's sibling is not going to to listen to verbal telling off, the louder the shouting the more they love it.

Nills Lagerbaak
25-01-2006, 11:22:23
And remember it's the "shock" of being smaked that almost "resets" the child from whatever situation they are in. Something that no about of verbal telling off will achive.

You want an example, I'd say in any case where verbal telling off doesn't work.

King_Ghidra
25-01-2006, 11:25:24
so you believe that in the hyperactive child case then simply restraining them won't work?

sorry i don't buy it, i don't see people who care for people with special needs beating their charges because they don't listen to reason

in all areas of life where physical punishment used to be seen to be acceptable - prison, the military, mental institutions, schools - the practice has been abolished. Only in happy families does the practice continue

Nills Lagerbaak
25-01-2006, 11:31:40
Well, it's a difference in what you see as acceptable parenting methods, and I'm certainly not trying to convince you.

You wouldn't hit a special needs child for the simple reason they wouldn't understand. It is impracticle to restrain a chid who is violent at all times, also it won't stop them. /you are pretty much assured that after a verbal telling off a smak will stop the most hyper of children, and they will undertand what it is for.

Funko
25-01-2006, 11:42:28
I'm with K_G on this one and he's putting that side very eloquently so I'll leave him to it.

King_Ghidra
25-01-2006, 11:51:30
we'll have to agree to disagree on the second point, nils, beause i fundamentally disagree with your idea of pain as an educating force

don't you find it interesting that every social organisation has dismissed physical punishment of adults as a method of correcting behaviour, yet children are seen to be acceptable subjects of it?

why shouldn't i beat a prisoner or schoolchild if they do something wrong, but i should beat my own child? doesn't that strike you as a strange double-standard? if you're still thinking of your answer to the common assault point earlier, then why shouldn't i beat my girlfriend if she does something wrong, we share as strong a bond as parent-child do

i think that validating the infliction of pain on humans as a control or educational measure puts you in a very bad place, and especially so when it's your own child

mr_G
25-01-2006, 12:06:36
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
we'll have to agree to disagree on the second point, nils, beause i fundamentally disagree with your idea of pain as an educating force

when i was a kid (jesjes even smaller then now) I once burned my fingers on a stove, my mum repeatedly warned me but i didn't listen.

didn't do that a second time so i must say that sometimes pain is a very good teacher.

Nills Lagerbaak
25-01-2006, 12:06:45
"then why shouldn't i beat my girlfriend if she does something wrong, we share as strong a bond as parent-child do"

Come one, that's bulshit. You may love her like you would your child, but there's not that same total dependance (well hopefully not!) - which also sets smacking you child aside from any of you othermentioned institutions.

The problems arise when physical punishment is not administered in a healthy way, and can abuse the trust / dependance relationship. When used properly it simply isn't damaging. It may not be as ideal a punishment as some of the techniques displayed on Super Nanny, but in the real world doesn't do any harm.

Funko
25-01-2006, 12:11:16
I don't agree with you Nills but say you were right, how would you judge whether people are smacking their children 'in a healthy way'?

Nills Lagerbaak
25-01-2006, 12:14:27
The same way I would judge someone verbally reprimanding their children in a "healthy way" If it is used to educate them to behave in a way I would consider healthy.

Now you ask "what do I consider healthy", well that's surely (within limits) an issue for the parents.

There is no difference for me between physical and verbal punishment (for a child /parent situation I may add). They both can be abused and both can be beneficial.

MattHiggs
25-01-2006, 12:33:54
I can understand both arguements but I'd never hit my own child, just for the fact that I'd never ever want to inflict pain on him regardless of whether it would make him better behaved or not.

He's approaching two years old now and he can be very hard work some times and you just have to take a step back and try your hardest not to get angry.

This is a great website to read if your thinking about having kids http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/discipline.html.

My fiancÚ is a trained childminder and the government are very strict on positive parenting.

MoSe
25-01-2006, 12:44:18
Totally aside Nills, even where physical punishment on children is tolerated with parsimony as an eucating method, I heard that a slap on the cheek or as mack on the head is seriously discouraged, as it's potentially harming for the brain development, and parents should aim from the neck down, preferably spanking.

Did you hear anything of that before?

Nills Lagerbaak
25-01-2006, 12:49:38
Never hear of that before. I think the idea of smaking is really the shock value, not the shear pain.

Rodgers
25-01-2006, 12:50:10
I'm not against a ban but neither am I keen to hit my (future) children.

I do agree with the idea that a smack can be well used if it is more about "shocking" the child and "resetting" a situation than it is about causing it pain. It's pretty much a last resort though.

I dont agree that the historic infliction of pain in other institutions such as prison, the army etc can be compared to every-day disciplining of a child. In terms of impact on the "victim" they are poles apart.

Rodgers
25-01-2006, 12:52:10
Originally posted by MoSe
Totally aside Nills, even where physical punishment on children is tolerated with parsimony as an eucating method, I heard that a slap on the cheek or as mack on the head is seriously discouraged, as it's potentially harming for the brain development, and parents should aim from the neck down, preferably spanking.

Did you hear anything of that before?


I was a teenager when my brother was a toddler so I had a hand disciplining him occasionally - usually a slap on the back of the legs was sufficent.

If you're hitting a childs head you've got to be mental or a sadist :clueless:

MoSe
25-01-2006, 12:59:36
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
the number of parents who hit their child in a controlled way is about 0

Well, not to deny your claim, I'd just report my case.

As far as I can recall, my dad only spanked me 2 or 3 times, and slapped me probably no more than a dozen or two times, in my life.
I think that could be described as "controlled".
I remember the spanking was not done in rage, considering the preparation it needs, and I hadn't the impression that he was enjoying administering it.
Can't say whether its was atcutally useful outside a strictly short term scope, I for sure don't hold any grudge against him for that.

I also remember the first time he reproached me by calling me "asshole" aloud in public, I was 10 or 11 (I had forgot to wear my wool socks on a skiing trip, so he first took out his and made me wear them, then as my feet were still freezing he had to bring me back to base canceling he day program... :))

Later on he used to educate me by boring me to death with his reasonable interminable lectures, they were much more painful and effective! ;)
I still recall as if it was yesterday, when he found out I had bought a stash of weed at 17, he kept calling me "hedonist" in despise
:lol:

Rodgers
25-01-2006, 13:09:54
Originally posted by King_Ghidra


the number of parents who hit their child in a controlled way is about 0...


Er, how would you know that?

King_Ghidra
25-01-2006, 13:12:08
because i'm psychic you fool, god how can we argue when you can't understand basics

MDA
25-01-2006, 13:16:24
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
we'll have to agree to disagree on the second point, nils, beause i fundamentally disagree with your idea of pain as an educating force

I agree with that too, but spankings in my childhood never left a mark - it was the shock/surprise (why I was always surprised when I'd been warned first, I'll never know) and the very public humiliation that drove the point home - and it wasn't the only way I learned right from wrong

my mother was the master of the "I'm so disappointed in you" guilt trip - which in the long run did me more good - getting spanked made me stop doing things in the short term, guilt made me reflect on why I shouldn't have done them to begin with and had a long term effect.

they were masters of the one-two punch

Venom
25-01-2006, 13:16:44
Smacking is still the most effective form of punishment. It covers all the bases in one...pain (slight), embarassment, and negative reinforcement.

It's like toddlers, you can tell them to stop running aorund all day long, but until they fall down and bang their head on the coffee table from running around the room like a tard, they're not gonna listen.

MDA
25-01-2006, 13:19:32
my office mate just informed me he chose to smack his daughter rather than let her grab the hot oven rack- highly situational, but funny

Rodgers
25-01-2006, 13:20:24
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
because i'm psychic you fool, god how can we argue when you can't understand basics


Can we carry on this argument via telepathy instead then?

King_Ghidra
25-01-2006, 13:22:08
i have been, are you not picking up my messages?!

Rodgers
25-01-2006, 13:35:35
:(

I was fully occupied working out if my next thread had already been posted by someone else or not.

MoSe
25-01-2006, 14:04:05
did some "voice" instill that doubt in your head?

notyoueither
26-01-2006, 07:32:37
Used to be that kids would sometimes do some really stupid things that might endanger themselves or others. Used to be you might not have a doctor or a hospital handy to patch people up. Used to be you needed ways of telling youngsters they did something they really shouldn't have and a whipping was the way to tell them that there was a line, and they were way across it. It was part of bringing them up, and trying to ensure that both they and their siblings survived to adulthood...

There's still a place for corporal punishment. Children are not adults, they still do incredibly stupid things from time to time due to no defect other than that they are still children and need guidance. They do not have the fully formed ability to reason out right and wrong, or consequences. There still are lines, and sometimes children need to be given a very abrupt lesson that they've crossed them.

Koshko
26-01-2006, 07:33:50
For those that talk about how spanking is so negatively detremental to a child's well being, I'd like to simply point out that odds are your grandparents or great grandparents were spanked, and they all turned out fine.

King_Ghidra
26-01-2006, 09:03:28
that's a massively retarded argument that is oft-repeated koshko

my dad was beaten and he turned out fine

he beat me and i turned out fine

i beat my kids and they'll turn out fine

the happy beaters continue into infinity

King_Ghidra
26-01-2006, 09:05:11
Originally posted by notyoueither
There's still a place for corporal punishment. Mental patients are not like adults, they still do incredibly stupid things from time to time due to no defect other than that they are still mental patients and need guidance. They do not have the fully formed ability to reason out right and wrong, or consequences. There still are lines, and sometimes mental patients need to be given a very abrupt lesson that they've crossed them.

i want you to tell me why the amended quote there is any different to your argument for hitting kids

Funko
26-01-2006, 09:07:24
Originally posted by notyoueither
There's still a place for corporal punishment. Children are not adults, they still do incredibly stupid things from time to time due to no defect other than that they are still children and need guidance. They do not have the fully formed ability to reason out right and wrong, or consequences. There still are lines, and sometimes children need to be given a very abrupt lesson that they've crossed them.

So by that argument you could continue to beat retarded people well into adulthood then?

King_Ghidra
26-01-2006, 09:07:48
great minds think alike :D

Funko
26-01-2006, 09:12:10
:lol:

Rodgers
26-01-2006, 09:14:22
:lol:

Thanks NYE for really fucking up my side of the argument here ;)

Funko
26-01-2006, 09:18:49
Originally posted by notyoueither
There's still a place for corporal punishment. Counterglow Posters are not adults, they still do incredibly stupid things from time to time due to no defect other than that they are Counterglow Posters and need guidance. They do not have the fully formed ability to reason out right and wrong, or consequences. There still are lines, and sometimes Counterglow Posters need to be given a very abrupt lesson that they've crossed them.

?

mr_G
26-01-2006, 10:04:42
huh?

Funko
26-01-2006, 10:13:13
Originally posted by notyoueither
There's still a place for corporal punishment. The Dutch are not adults, they still do incredibly stupid things from time to time due to no defect other than that they are Dutch and need guidance. They do not have the fully formed ability to reason out right and wrong, or consequences. There still are lines, and sometimes The Dutch need to be given a very abrupt lesson that they've crossed them.

mr_G
26-01-2006, 10:25:58
:lol:

will you guide me?

mr_G
26-01-2006, 10:27:43
I feel the need........................
.......................the need for an abrupt lesson

MoSe
26-01-2006, 12:13:03
To play devil's advocate, I'd point out that a child is in his natural porcess of formation and upbringing, with a long-term and not just immediate goal.
For a retard, a mental patient, a CG poster, a Dutch, that chance is past, given up, there's no hope for further progress.

Funko
26-01-2006, 12:13:51
Originally posted by MoSe
For ... a CG poster... there's no hope for further progress.

:cry:

MoSe
26-01-2006, 12:15:06
LOL, I suddenly recall someone said somthing like "If spanking wans't acceptable, God wouldn't have made us buttocks"
:lol:

Rodgers
26-01-2006, 12:51:12
You're a buttock? :confused:

MoSe
26-01-2006, 13:01:45
please, teach me the correct syntax

made us the buttocks?
made us our buttocks?

Nills Lagerbaak
26-01-2006, 13:15:03
Given us buttocks.

King_Ghidra
26-01-2006, 13:34:39
Give us this day our daily buttocks
and forgive us our spankings
as we forgive those who spank against us

Funko
26-01-2006, 13:40:50
Lead us not into masturbation

King_Ghidra
26-01-2006, 13:48:34
but deliver us into beaver
for thine is the king dong
the power and the gloryhole
our men

Venom
26-01-2006, 14:13:52
Your men? :brwncard:

Koshko
27-01-2006, 07:24:10
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
that's a massively retarded argument that is oft-repeated koshko

my dad was beaten and he turned out fine

he beat me and i turned out fine

i beat my kids and they'll turn out fine

the happy beaters continue into infinity


I make a distinction between spanking and beating.

Koshko
27-01-2006, 07:25:59
Originally posted by MoSe
please, teach me the correct syntax

made us the buttocks?
made us our buttocks?

GAVE us buttocks.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
27-01-2006, 07:32:39
Originally posted by notyoueither

There's still a place for corporal punishment. Politicians are not adults, they still do incredibly stupid things from time to time due to no defect other than that they are still politicians and need guidance. They do not have the fully formed ability to reason out right and wrong, or consequences. There still are lines, and sometimes politicians need to be given a very abrupt lesson that they've crossed them.

Now, that's all that can be done to save bits of your argument.

Funko
27-01-2006, 09:05:25
Originally posted by Koshko
I make a distinction between spanking and beating.

What is the distinction? (in some measurable form that could be applied legally).

Nills Lagerbaak
27-01-2006, 09:12:49
That's the problem...one of the maion reasons they were debating this law was because ill trained child support people were confused about the legality of what is abuse and what isn't.

You don't but ABH in the same class as murder because it's too confusing.

Funko
27-01-2006, 09:26:41
I think it's always going to be a bit subjective.

Nills Lagerbaak
27-01-2006, 09:48:40
Yeah. The thing is it's actually easier to spot someone who has been hitting their child in a overzealous manner, than spot someone who is verbally abusing and belitteling their child on a daily basis (a proctice that can actually be more damaging).

I think banning smacking is nannystateism again, except they won't actually provide the nannys will they??

Gary
27-01-2006, 09:51:39
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
Originally posted by notyoueither

There's still a place for corporal punishment. Politicians are not adults, they still do incredibly stupid things from time to time due to no defect other than that they are still politicians and need guidance. They do not have the fully formed ability to reason out right and wrong, or consequences. There still are lines, and sometimes politicians need to be given a very abrupt lesson that they've crossed them.Oh my God !!! That is so true !!!

King_Ghidra
27-01-2006, 10:33:27
it's alost a cliche to call any example of a limit on absolute freedom as an example of the nanny state

the nanny state stops you from disicplining your child the way you want, the nanny state stops you from driving after a few drinks, smoking where you want, saying what you want to who you want, killing yourself, etc, etc.

there are laws we abide by because they prevent things that impinge on others freedoms and then there are laws that we abide by because we think it's a better way to live

i completely agree nils, that mental abuse can be as or more damaging as simply hitting a child, but preventing the physical aspect is the most clear cut, obvious and easy to enforce first step of changing attitudes to the way people think it is acceptable to treat other people

stopping such things completely helps eliminate the grey area defence of 'i only tapped him' yet the kid is bruised

Immortal Wombat
27-01-2006, 10:40:45
You'd probably be surprised how clear cut the physical issue isn't, actually. They progression of banning physical contact between teacher and child, is the obvious example, since you start off with the obvious notion that teachers shouldn't be able to hit children (all good), and end up with the less obvious notion that they can't help them stand up when they've fallen, or can't put a hand on their back to steer them down the corridor to prevent them just sitting down and refusing to move. Now with teachers it doesn't matter so much, because banning all contact is easier than settling a zillion lawsuits, but with parents? The line between "holding hands" and "damaging the child's arm by vigorously pulling child along by the wrist" is not at all clear cut.

The grey area is moved into a region less damaging to the child, probably, but it's enlarged not eliminated.

Nills Lagerbaak
27-01-2006, 11:02:11
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
it's alost a cliche to call any example of a limit on absolute freedom as an example of the nanny state

the nanny state stops you from disicplining your child the way you want, the nanny state stops you from driving after a few drinks, smoking where you want, saying what you want to who you want, killing yourself, etc, etc.

there are laws we abide by because they prevent things that impinge on others freedoms and then there are laws that we abide by because we think it's a better way to live

i completely agree nils, that mental abuse can be as or more damaging as simply hitting a child, but preventing the physical aspect is the most clear cut, obvious and easy to enforce first step of changing attitudes to the way people think it is acceptable to treat other people

stopping such things completely helps eliminate the grey area defence of 'i only tapped him' yet the kid is bruised


People who beat their children in a harmful way are in the moinority. Banning smacking might make the life of child support and anti-abuse prosecuters easier, but it criminalises a whole load of law abiding parents, which is why I won't suport it. That is the nanny state element to it, it implies indirectly that people are not capable of administering physical punishment in an appropriate way, when in fact the majority of people are.

Funko
27-01-2006, 11:13:26
I think it implies that corporal punishment is wrong and other methods of discipline should be used.

Nills Lagerbaak
27-01-2006, 11:24:45
That, I think is a matter for parents to decide. I am happy to say damaging a child mentaly or phsically is wrong, so that should not be allowed. However there is no evidence to suggest an authorotative smack does any harm. Can't just over simplify things and lump it all in with "Corporal Punishment".

Corporal punishment has been rightly banned in society as a whole, however there is a limit to the power the state should have over a parents right to bring up a child. I think that at the moment the balance is right.

MoSe
27-01-2006, 12:14:02
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
there are laws we abide by because they prevent things that impinge on others freedoms

and then

there are laws that we abide by because we think it's a better way to live

Indeed. As I already happened to discuss on CG, my personal but very strong opinion is that only the former should be a state matter.

I find OUTRAGEOUS that there IS any law about what you include in your second point, as long as you first point is not involved, this should be left to the individuals.

I of courst think that beating a child goes into point one, and understand what you say about grey area.
But then, will be parents allowed to TOUCH their children? Wouldn't any contact then fall under the category of physical attack? If not, then we're back again at detemining where's the line... for instance, will a mother who grabs her son by the wrist to drag him across a road be suable?
EDIT:
I hadn't read IW post, he made my same point in a much clearer and effective way
:)

MoSe
27-01-2006, 12:16:28
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
authorotative smack

:lol:

that sounds SO Chuck Norris!

Chris
27-01-2006, 12:19:54
You should all be smacked.

And quite severly.

MoSe
27-01-2006, 12:21:30
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
the nanny state stops you from ... killing yourself, etc, etc.


?
do you prosecute suicides?

Scabrous Birdseed
27-01-2006, 12:41:58
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Those parents smacking their child in a controlled way are exactly the parents not doing so in public. Physical punishment is only acceptable when it is effective. And when it is used only when all other measures have failed, then subsequently, the mere threat of it should be sufficient for the child to realise the severity of the offense committed. If it is not effective, (and when it become the default in-public response to the child's every transgression) then there's no point to it.

Let's carry this argument through to its logical conclusion, shall we?

A measure of punishment is only effective as long as the child clearly connects it to doing something bad. If it's done too often, too spuriously, from anger etc., it is not only cruel but also bad parenting and a failure on the parents part.

So if "all other measures have failed", parents have been unable to make those lesser measures effective. Parents who shout at their kids in public are, admittedly, one step below those who beat them in public but since it doesn't usually work anyway this is a measure they've royally messed up by overuse already.

So essentially a parent whose voice measures have failed (and thus needs to spank their child) is already a less-than-ideal parent. In fact, people whose last resort is raising their voice are also not great parents. My mother, when dealing with her grandchidren better than I've ever seen anyonedeal with kids, uses dissapointment (which is a first resort for many) as her last resort! The first resort generally involves explaining the rationality of the action to the child, treated with love as an equal.

Immortal Wombat
27-01-2006, 12:52:17
Exactly. The first resort is a reprimand/explanation, not a punishment.

"So essentially a parent whose voice measures have failed (and thus needs to spank their child) is already a less-than-ideal parent."
Or has a less than ideal child. Both scenarios are likely.

MoSe
27-01-2006, 13:01:26
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
So essentially a parent whose voice measures have failed is already a less-than-ideal parent.
that is, like 99% of the parents, which are just humans?

Scabrous Birdseed
27-01-2006, 13:03:15
Probably.

So wombat, you wholly blame the parent whose smacking punishment has failed through overuse, but not necessarily the parent whose shouting punishment has failed?

MoSe
27-01-2006, 13:04:13
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
My mother, when dealing with her grandchidren better than I've ever seen anyonedeal with kids

I'd say that I've seen almost ANY grandmother dealing with their grandchildren better than almost ANY mother with their kids...
that's an unfair comparison! :p

Scabrous Birdseed
27-01-2006, 13:05:27
She treated me like an early grandchild (She was 42 when she had me) and I was spoilt like hell, but I turned out fine. :D

Gary
27-01-2006, 13:05:53
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
So essentially a parent whose voice measures have failed (and thus needs to spank their child) is already a less-than-ideal parent.Or maybe has less than ideal offspring ? Sure it'd be nice if a little talk always worked, but it doesn't. And even if we took the, unlikely to be true, view that a sufficiently skilled parent could always achieve results by talking it over, it's unreasonable to expect all parents to be that skilled. A small smack does the job quite effectively in most cases.

Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
The first resort generally involves explaining the rationality of the action to the child, treated with love as an equal.And that will be the first resort for most parents. It's when the child decides "oh this one is a soft touch I can carry on with just a little talk, what a push over" that it all falls down.

Take an example. A few decades back to 'play a teacher up' while they were in the classroom, was a rare event. When they'd gone out maybe, but almost never while they were there. Then those opposed to physical discipline made convincing arguments to say this wasn't right and physical punishment must be stopped. What occurred ? Now teachers say how the job is so difficult as they can not instil discipline in pupils that aren't interested in anything other than their right to do what they wish. This should tell us we have gone too far trying to set a non violent example and protecting rights. The result has been a deterioration in behaviour that then has to be tolerated as natural high spirits or something. There is your logical conclusion.

Gary
27-01-2006, 13:06:59
Damn cross posts, especially from IW :p :p :p

Scabrous Birdseed
27-01-2006, 13:11:08
Generally where there's less than ideal offspring less than ideal parent behaviour isn't far away...

I accept this isn't true in all cases, but generally children treated with personal care, respect and love will act pretty fucking nice.

Gary
27-01-2006, 13:13:46
Dunno, my parents always had exemplary kids.

Scabrous Birdseed
27-01-2006, 13:17:22
You can do the same test with adult behaviour if you like.

Where there are very strict, seemingly arbitrary rules you'll always find someone who tries to break them. It's a natural, independent, rebellious streak in people.

Where there are no rules and no standards whatsoever things tend to collapse into chaos pretty quickly.

What is needed to get people to behave correctly is mutual trust, values, civic spirit, belief in humanitarian ideals. And how are you ever going to teach that with the essentially "do as I say, not as I do" approach of corporal punishment?

Immortal Wombat
27-01-2006, 13:24:28
I didn't intend to blame anyone. My point was if a punishment is not working, then stop using it. If the threat of spanking does work (and that will require evidence of a followed-through threat) then use that.

But of course, your mother has the best idea. No punishment is usually a desirably step in the first place.

Immortal Wombat
27-01-2006, 13:31:29
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
What is needed to get people to behave correctly is mutual trust, values, civic spirit, belief in humanitarian ideals. And how are you ever going to teach that with the essentially "do as I say, not as I do" approach of corporal punishment?
Perhaps I have been unclear. I was raised with mutual trust and yadda yadda, and I was smacked on at least three occasions I remember. This wasn't institutionalised corporal punishment, this was "We have explained why that is wrong, and we have asked you not to do that, and we have told you not to do that, and we have told you again in more forceful tones not to do that, and we have threatened to smack you if you do that, and then you did that again and could have really hurt your sister, and now I will smack you, and you will not do it again."

It was the punishment nuke, and it only worked because I couldn't turn round and say "you're breaching my human rights, I'm calling the NSPCC"

Gary
27-01-2006, 13:48:55
Personally, I wouldn't equate "do as I say, not as I do" with "corporal punishment".

Granted you're not expecting kids to dish out punishments for bad behaviour, but that's understood as being the prerogative of the teacher. Teachers should set a good example in their behaviour, which is a case of, "do as I do".

Funko
27-01-2006, 14:02:33
Originally posted by Gary
Take an example. A few decades back to 'play a teacher up' while they were in the classroom, was a rare event. When they'd gone out maybe, but almost never while they were there. Then those opposed to physical discipline made convincing arguments to say this wasn't right and physical punishment must be stopped. What occurred ? Now teachers say how the job is so difficult as they can not instil discipline in pupils that aren't interested in anything other than their right to do what they wish. This should tell us we have gone too far trying to set a non violent example and protecting rights. The result has been a deterioration in behaviour that then has to be tolerated as natural high spirits or something. There is your logical conclusion.

When I was at school 15 odd years ago the teachers couldn't use corporal punishment but they could still totally keep control of a class.

Some teachers are better than others, some kids worse than others.

I don't think smacking/not smacking is the issue. There have always been naughty kids.

It's a much more complex problem than that.

MoSe
27-01-2006, 14:03:25
doooooooooo
asi
doooooooooo

Koshko
28-01-2006, 05:41:13
Originally posted by Funko
What is the distinction? (in some measurable form that could be applied legally).

That's a tough subjective call. You'd have to take into account where they are spanked, how many times they have been spanked, how often they get spanked, the hand positioning of the parent doing the spanking, and the state of the parent spanking.

Spanking out of pure anger isn't good. Neither is spanking until large bruising or welts occurs. Ditto for closed-fist 'spanking'. Ditto for a spank to the head.

A slap to a misbehaving kid's arm would be considered a spank technically, and I wouldn't call that abuse. I wouldn't call a clothed butt spanking abuse either.

Finally you also need to take into account the child's reaction to spanking. If you have to spank a child more than a couple of times for the same kind of situation, then spanking isn't being effective and the parent should try something different. I was very occasionally spanked when I was real young, and I learned right off not to do what I did anymore, and I hold no grudges for it.

Koshko
28-01-2006, 05:44:35
Originally posted by MoSe
?
do you prosecute suicides?

Well there are 'suicide' laws in places. Also many Life Insurance Policies can be nullified if the person's death is ruled a suicide.

JAMiAM
28-01-2006, 08:08:35
So...how many of the experts here actually have children?

When you do, and you've dealt with the variety of situations that arise in parenting, then you can speak with some modicum of authority about how it "should" be done. Until you've raised your own, then all this blather is just farting in the wind.

Lazarus and the Gimp
28-01-2006, 08:14:03
I've got two, and have never struck either of them.

Like any normal children, they test the boundaries and sometimes do dumb stuff. However they are generally well behaved, and don't have any confused examples of whether violence is acceptable.

Besides, when you can bellow like I can, smacking would be letting the off lightly.

Alexander's Horse
29-01-2006, 11:25:44
I smack my kids all the time - saves time.

I don't think I could ever strike a little girl though, no.

Walrus Feeder
29-01-2006, 12:54:12
Wow, pretty in-depth discussion I started here. Seems to be enough people commented to make a poll out of. Check out my new thread just for that.

Beta1
29-01-2006, 15:22:44
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
You'd probably be surprised how clear cut the physical issue isn't, actually. They progression of banning physical contact between teacher and child, is the obvious example, since you start off with the obvious notion that teachers shouldn't be able to hit children (all good), and end up with the less obvious notion that they can't help them stand up when they've fallen, or can't put a hand on their back to steer them down the corridor to prevent them just sitting down and refusing to move. Now with teachers it doesn't matter so much, because banning all contact is easier than settling a zillion lawsuits, but with parents? The line between "holding hands" and "damaging the child's arm by vigorously pulling child along by the wrist" is not at all clear cut.

The grey area is moved into a region less damaging to the child, probably, but it's enlarged not eliminated.

This actually prompted me to check. I have the latest legal handbook for teachers and pretty much everything you've said regarding teachers contact with children is incorrect. The law specifically states teachers can use reasonable contact with pupils and gives steering a child down a corridor and removing a child who wil not leave a room as legitamate examples. In addition we have the right to use reasonable force to prevent injury to ourselves or other pupils.

Which is good because I had to do just that last week.

Immortal Wombat
29-01-2006, 16:38:45
Ah, then I apologise. From what my mother has told me of the matter, there is enough tension that teachers are often unwilling to get into situations where there could be disagreement over the definition of "reasonable".

Chris
29-01-2006, 16:54:40
Cbeast smack for this ghey thread.

Beta1
29-01-2006, 17:25:32
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Ah, then I apologise. From what my mother has told me of the matter, there is enough tension that teachers are often unwilling to get into situations where there could be disagreement over the definition of "reasonable".

fair enough - there does seem to be a lot of missunderstanding. Also the tendancy to cry abuse at every incident does mean that many teachers wont put themselves in that situation. Certainly if I dont have another member of staff in the room there is no way I would take the risk. Sad isnt it - out desire to protect a small number of children from abuse may do that but leave a lot of other children subjected to assaults form other children because we are too hesitant to act.

Obviously we can't go around smacking the crap out of the kids however much some of them need it

Koshko
29-01-2006, 23:21:54
No but we can smack the crap out of crappy parents.

Alexander's Horse
30-01-2006, 00:01:37
parents will always have the drop on you

Cumber
30-01-2006, 03:47:22
I don't believe physical punishment is NECESSARY to raise kids 'well' (however you define that), so in theory no harm if it's banned, but I don't know if some situations would not be better if the parents have it as an option.

Alexander's Horse
30-01-2006, 07:38:15
yeah but they grow up soft and unprepared for life, which will spank them frequently

Cumber
30-01-2006, 07:47:26
On what do you base that? Being used to someone hitting you when you do something you're not supposed to is hardly necessary preparation in and of itself for later life, so how does it transfer to actually useful preparation, and why can ONLY being spanked give this preparation to children?

Furthermore, even if we accept that thesis, how often do children need to be spanked in order to not grow up unprepared for life? Is spanking a child once at the age of 4 adequate preparation? How bout once a year?

Gary
30-01-2006, 09:08:28
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I've got two, and have never struck either of them.Maybe why they they think it's ok to scratch 'R' on mummy's car ;)

Gary
30-01-2006, 09:09:42
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I don't think I could ever strike a little girl though, no. Sexist !

Gary
30-01-2006, 09:12:53
Originally posted by Cumber
how often do children need to be spanked7:30 am and 6 pm seems reasonable. Possibly with Sundays' off.

King_Ghidra
30-01-2006, 09:25:29
:lol:

notyoueither
31-01-2006, 06:27:30
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
i want you to tell me why the amended quote there is any different to your argument for hitting kids

Nonsense.

Kids aren't mentally diabled adults. They are not 64 Fords. They are certainly not politicians.

Try addressing the argument, and not posing meaningless red herrings.

Cumber
31-01-2006, 07:33:36
notyoueither: saying "kids aren't mentally disabled adults" is missing the point of KG's response. Kids don't have to be mentally disabled adults for his criticism to be a good one. He was pointing out that your argument, as stated, applies equally well to mental patients (it being based on the premise "[x]s are not like adults, they do incredibly stupid things etc", which is true of both children and mental patients). If the premise applies equally to both cases, so should the conclusion. If the conclusion doesn't apply to both cases, then there's obviously a problem in your deduction of conculsion from premise. That problem will either be that there are unstated assumptions involved, which once included in your argument will defuse KG's criticism, or that your argument is a load of donkey crap. ;)

notyoueither
31-01-2006, 08:01:17
No, it doesn't apply equally well to mental patients, or the general adult population for that matter. In neither case are you trying to mold the behavour of personalities that are growing.

You might as well discuss the proper care and feeding of a 64 Ford, if you wish to completely sidestep the issues.

There is no comparison to raising children. Not cars, not politicians, not adults with disabilities.

notyoueither
31-01-2006, 08:04:35
What do you do with a 24 year old mentally disabled person who points a rifle at someone?

What do you do with a 10 year old who does the same thing?

One you lock up. The other you put the fear of God, or the wrath of Dad into, and a good talking to might not cut it.

MoSe
31-01-2006, 10:19:18
Originally posted by MoSe
To play devil's advocate, I'd point out that a child is in his natural process of formation and upbringing, with a long-term and not just immediate goal.
For a retard, a mental patient, a CG poster, a Dutch, that chance is past, given up, there's no hope for further progress.

Originally posted by notyoueither
No, it doesn't apply equally well to mental patients, or the general adult population for that matter. In neither case are you trying to mold the behavour of personalities that are growing.

You might as well discuss the proper care and feeding of a 64 Ford, if you wish to completely sidestep the issues.

There is no comparison to raising children. Not cars, not politicians, not adults with disabilities.

thank you for proving once more that even when I say exactly the SAME things as other posters here, my posts get systematically and prejudicially and scientifically ignored
;)
:cool:

Funko
31-01-2006, 10:24:52
I didn't ignore either of those posts, I just disagree that the smacking is necessary.

Gary
31-01-2006, 11:21:46
That's because you need a smack

Alexander's Horse
31-01-2006, 11:26:45
Originally posted by Gary
7:30 am and 6 pm seems reasonable. Possibly with Sundays' off.

My fifth grade teacher sometimes hit the whole class after roll call, lined us up around the wall and hit us with a leather strap.

His reasoning was we'd all do something wrong during the day so why not get it out of the way?

mr_G
31-01-2006, 11:28:41
Originally posted by Funko
I didn't ignore either of those posts, I just disagree that the smacking is necessary.
jesjes just like gouging

Cumber
31-01-2006, 12:16:44
Originally posted by notyoueither
No, it doesn't apply equally well to mental patients, or the general adult population for that matter. In neither case are you trying to mold the behavour of personalities that are growing.

You might as well discuss the proper care and feeding of a 64 Ford, if you wish to completely sidestep the issues.

There is no comparison to raising children. Not cars, not politicians, not adults with disabilities.

See? That would be that unstated assumption I mentioned.

Now we have, it's okay to use physical punishment when dealing with children because:
a) they don't have fully formed adult minds
b) you're trying to mold their future behaviour
c) they're capable of learning from the physical punishment

Still not sure you've ruled out the mental patient comparison there.

MoSe
31-01-2006, 12:21:25
The mental patient's condition is a *disease*, and either it's hopeless, or it's curable and you apply *cures*, not education methods.

The child is in a natural process of formation.

___
I don't mean with that, that I support smacking.
I was just following your approach, which I like.

MoSe
31-01-2006, 12:23:02
OTOH

Originally posted by Cumber
it's okay to use physical punishment when dealing with CG Posters because:
a) they don't have fully formed adult minds
b) you're trying to mold their future behaviour
c) they're capable of learning from the physical punishment


Originally posted by Cumber
it's okay to use physical punishment when dealing with Dutch because:
a) they don't have fully formed adult minds
b) you're trying to mold their future behaviour
c) they're capable of learning from the physical punishment


I think both could apply as well!

:smoke:

Cumber
31-01-2006, 12:33:05
Usually people with mental disabilities can be educated, just not to the same extent that normal people can, or it is harder, or whatver. It is not true that people are either normal and can learn, or mentally disabled and cannot recieve any education.

MoSe
31-01-2006, 13:08:21
I'm not informed on mental disabilites, so I don't want to delve into the discussion.

I was just making the *general* consideration that you (probably?) can't compare the education method for a subject in its natural process of development, with the education method you have to apply (in coordination with a MEDICAL CURE or after it) for a subject whose development process and potential has been hindered or limited by a disease or a disability.

King_Ghidra
31-01-2006, 13:29:07
the specific capabilities of a mental patient or a 64 ford are not important, what is important is that apparently they are worthy of diffferent treatment to children, as cumber said, the 'unstated assumption' point

what i have been trying to get at for some time is that the argument for smacking primarly rests on this unstated assumption that there is some specific quality to children that makes physical punishment a suitable method of instilling control or fear or good behaviour or whatever

i would like to know what this specific quality is which is distinct from simply being 'different to adults' - because mental patients and 64 fords are different to adults too yet apparently they do not possess this same quality as children either

so far the only thing which i can seem to filter from the various arguments put forward is that children are in their formative process, thus the act of smacking them can influence their future behaviour in some way. if that is the quality then the argument is badly flawed because clearly adults are also subject to this kind of behavioural influence and accordingly, would learn from being smacked

Nills Lagerbaak
31-01-2006, 14:05:03
Adults would learn from this behaviour, but the difference between adults, mentals, and 64 fords is that they are not being beaten by someone they share an intimate trust and dependence with, which is why a parent hitting a child is not "common assualt" like it would be in any other situation.
Obviously a parent damaging their child, is like has been said, different.

Cumber
31-01-2006, 14:15:44
a) So if an institution full of mentally disabled adults have been looked after by the same small group of people their entire lives and have developed "an intimate trust and dependence" with their carers, they should be allowed to by subject to physical violence as discipline?

b) So if a child's parents die or whatver, and the child's care is taken over by another person the child doesn't know so well, you believe that that person should not be allowed to use smacking as a punishment?

c) Why does having an intimate trust of and dependence on someone make it okay for them to hit you? Honest question here; I haven't got an argument for the counter position, but on the face of it that sounds like it would make it less healthy/acceptable to me!

Nills Lagerbaak
31-01-2006, 14:31:45
My point it this:

I am not for or against physical punishment. I believe there is no argument for banning it, as I don't think it does a child any harm when used correctly, but over and above that I think a responsible parent should not be dictated to, on how to bring up their children.

As I said before one of the main reasons they were talking about banning it was to make child support agencies' jobs easier (when prosecuting people). I don' think this, either, is good enough reason for a ban.

King_Ghidra
31-01-2006, 14:41:51
you don't think it does a child any harm when used 'correctly' (whatever that might mean) but equally you can't explain why it should be used at all against a child and not against an adult

you seem to be distancing yourself from your strange argument that intimacy is a factor in whether physical correction is approrpiate, but until you can justify why smacking a child is appropriate and smacking an adult is not, why should anyone take your arguments on this subject seriously?

i think adults (be they 'responsible' or not) should be dictated on how to bring up their children when the bringing-up-techniques they deem acceptable include doing things that seem to contradict other laws or behavioural standards, and this is very much one of those cases

*End Is Forever*
31-01-2006, 14:48:45
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
Adults would learn from this behaviour, but the difference between adults, mentals, and 64 fords is that they are not being beaten by someone they share an intimate trust and dependence with, which is why a parent hitting a child is not "common assualt" like it would be in any other situation.
Obviously a parent damaging their child, is like has been said, different.

I wonder if this argument was used a few years ago to justify domestic violence... :mad:

Nills Lagerbaak
31-01-2006, 14:58:11
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
you don't think it does a child any harm when used 'correctly' (whatever that might mean) but equally you can't explain why it should be used at all against a child and not against an adult

you seem to be distancing yourself from your strange argument that intimacy is a factor in whether physical correction is approrpiate, but until you can justify why smacking a child is appropriate and smacking an adult is not, why should anyone take your arguments on this subject seriously?

i think adults (be they 'responsible' or not) should be dictated on how to bring up their children when the bringing-up-techniques they deem acceptable include doing things that seem to contradict other laws or behavioural standards, and this is very much one of those cases

I don't think the state has any right to tell parents they should not smack their children, I don't think you should be able to smack adults. I can't make it any clearer.

Parents smacking their children doesn't offend my sense of "decent" society, in fact quite the opposite.

Cumber
31-01-2006, 15:03:23
Just because somerthing does not harm "when used correctly" doesn't mean it shouldn't be restricted by the government. For most things that are illegal you could find some legitimate correct use that does no harm.

Responsible parents should not be dictated to on how to bring up their children... of course they should! There are all sorts of things that are unacceptable for parents to do in the raising of their children. What you're really saying is "parents should be allowed to raise their children however they want within certain standards of acceptability" (the "responsible parent" phrase you use is shorthand for "a parent who does not stray outisde those bounds of acceptability). But the standards of acceptability are what we're discussing here: whether or not a parent who smacks their child is a responsible parent!

I don't know if there's a truly convincing argument either way. My standard principles dictate that anything that doesn't adversely affect another person should definitely be legal. The crux of the issue is that the status of a child as a "person" is murky. Children do not have all the same rights as adults (in practice if not in law), and they shouldn't have. Parents need to have power over their children in a way that would be unacceptable for one adult to have power over another.

But the thing about making child support agencies jobs easier is more complex than you make out. If people who really are abusing their kids can avoid penalty by claiming it as reasonable discipline, society might very well be better off if some good parents have to use different methods in a few cases, but the abusive parents can actually be caught. Furthermore, many parents themselves might be stuck in the grey area not really knowing when they've crossed the line between reasonable discipline and abuse. Having a clear legal definition means the parents can know what's acceptable and what's not more clearly too. And it would make it harder for child support agencies to incorrectly judge acceptable safe punishment as abuse, and destroy families.

Sometimes it is less harmful to draw a clear-cut line somewhat more restrictively than to draw a vague line that is less restrictive.

Cumber
31-01-2006, 15:05:53
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
Parents smacking their children doesn't offend my sense of "decent" society, in fact quite the opposite.

And what this discussion is about is thinking about why that jives with your sense of "decent" society. If there are no reasons why your sense of "decent" society says that parents should hit their children, perhaps its not a very good sense?

Japher
31-01-2006, 15:08:06
sometimes, when they are naughty, they want to be spanked

http://www.talentonline.co.nz/dance-shows/modern-sydney/naughty-School-Girl.jpg

King_Ghidra
31-01-2006, 15:11:21
http://www.counterglow.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32871

Nills Lagerbaak
31-01-2006, 15:12:09
I agree with what you're both saying. It's just try telling generations of people, who clearly see physical discipline as a good reson why their societies have lees crime, better respect etc. etc. Whether that is true or not, I don't know, but to criminalise these people...well it's something I wouldn't do.

In theory every parent can learn the discipline techniques that are non-violent and just as effective at controlling children, however in the real world this won't happen.

Japher
31-01-2006, 15:15:42
IMO, children of my generation (GenX) are better behaved then children of the generations after us, and it is our stupid generation as well as the one before, that thinks it isn't good to punish your kids in a physical way. It is then, in turn, those kids who don't get any physical punishment that end up shooting their teachers...

Poor Parenting is certainly the major issue. I am sure that there are better non-violent methods to repremand your kid with, but as Nills points out, bad parents aren't going to bother to learn these ways. At least us with bad parents still got discipline, even if it did leave a mark or two... and a slight twitch... and a fear of wooden kitchen utensils....

Cumber
31-01-2006, 15:24:54
Maybe you could get around the generations issue by making the laws but making them toothless for now (you can get caught and convicted for hitting your children, but nothing happens), and having penalties as for assault start heppening in 20 years time? (this sounds very unlike the sort of law a politician would dream up though)

It's murky. I really don't know what's best. I like discussion though.

MoSe
31-01-2006, 17:00:01
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
why smacking a child is appropriate and smacking an adult is not

... who said that smacking an adult is not appropriate?????
;)
sometimes, when I can't stop my mother from opening my email, especially bank account reports, despite I've been trying to teach her for over a decade now, I think that maybe she would understand some basic form of physical punishment.
BTW, she's 68.

Funko
31-01-2006, 17:00:47
Don't they have passwords in Italy?

mr_G
31-01-2006, 17:02:41
Originally posted by Funko
Don't they have passwords in Italy? jesjes one, they all use the same the schtjoepits

MoSe
31-01-2006, 17:04:16
sorry, the 'e' slipped in inadvertently...
I wanted to say just mail, paper mail.