Smacking your child

[Hamilton Saint]

Of course it does but in my opinion identifying when a child is being abused and when they are being disciplined is quite straight forward.

 

In your opinion, perhaps, but there are some parents who just don't get it. For them, discipline = abuse. Children need protection occasionally from those who have no idea how to bring up children. Parental rights, therefore, cannot be absolute.

[Hokie]

I've been reading this thread but inserting "wife" for "children" in the discussion. Makes it interesting test of ideas.

[Lazlo78]

I am sure that in Nazi Germany or North Korea the State had different definitions of what is acceptable. I am responsible for my children and not the State.

 

Here I was, foolishly hoping we'd get to page 2 without proving Godwin's Law, but with the finish line in sight, we fell short :-/

 

Do you approve this far reaching autonomy in other situation - violence between spouses for instance? If she's a bit thick or stubborn you could beat some sense into her, and that would never be the state's business... No? So it's only the children that are bereft of any kind of basic rights or protection against parents, poor buggers...

[Lazlo78]

I've been reading this thread but inserting "wife" for "children" in the discussion. Makes it interesting test of ideas.

 

Ha, you beat me to it! (pun intended)

[Hamilton Saint]

In this country teachers are legally obliged to report situations where they have a strong suspicion that a student of theirs is being abused or neglected. If they do not report, and it emerges later that a serious case of abuse could have been stopped if they had responded quickly, they are liable to prosecution.

 

It can be a difficult call sometimes. Cuts and bruises would seem straight-forward, right? But what about a child saying that they "get bashed about by their Dad"? That would require reporting.

 

The consequences can be traumatic. Teachers and parents can be dragged through horrible ordeals because of bureaucratic bungling. The system doesn't always process these cases wisely.

 

But, all things considered, there have to be legal safeguards set up to protect vulnerable children.

[CB Saint]

In your opinion, perhaps, but there are some parents who just don't get it. For them, discipline = abuse. Children need protection occasionally from those who have no idea how to bring up children. Parental rights, therefore, cannot be absolute.

 

Doesnt uk law already legislate against this. The parameters of discipline were defined in the childrens act. Just because some parents are too stupid to know the difference, why should we criminalise all the other parents who do.

[trousers]

It would never occur to me to lecture other parents on the best way of raising their children.

[Turkish]

Why do people keep going on about children being abused when the thread is about disciplining erring children with a light slap? It seems a lot of people are struggling with the difference which is a little worrying.

[Bearsy]

It starts with a light slap. They call it a "gateway slug".

 

Is it ever cool to smack around other people's kids?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

In your opinion, perhaps, but there are some parents who just don't get it. For them, discipline = abuse. Children need protection occasionally from those who have no idea how to bring up children. Parental rights, therefore, cannot be absolute.

 

It is quite evident when a child is being abused.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Here I was, foolishly hoping we'd get to page 2 without proving Godwin's Law, but with the finish line in sight, we fell short :-/

 

Do you approve this far reaching autonomy in other situation - violence between spouses for instance? If she's a bit thick or stubborn you could beat some sense into her, and that would never be the state's business... No? So it's only the children that are bereft of any kind of basic rights or protection against parents, poor buggers...

 

You are using extremes to justify your argument. It is quite evident when a child is being abused. The state has no place in people's home. As it happens my wife wears the trousers!

[Lazlo78]

It is quite evident when a child is being abused.

 

Define abuse in this context, please...

[Frank's cousin]

Why do people keep going on about children being abused when the thread is about disciplining erring children with a light slap? It seems a lot of people are struggling with the difference which is a little worrying.

 

No Turkish,

 

We are all aware you try and pick one or two isolated subquotes and use this to make a subsequent provocative statement designed often to wind up the poster, but I agree this can contribute to a debate as it stimultaes a response....

 

BUT you are missing several points.

 

Abuse v light slap - yep there is a big difference in terms of damage or harm caused, but legislation is designed to protect kids from extremes and often what you would consider drachonian is the only way to ensure that kids dont slip thorugh the net

 

Its interesting to see that 99.9% of those who claim that a smack is not harmful, tend to include 'well it never did me any harm' - would be interested if there are any out there that do smack their kids who were NOT smacked themselves... doubt there would be many. Its accepted that this is a cycle.

 

Also its simply not necessary. Yes young children will not comprehend a detailed discussion about rights and wrongs, but they pick up alot more form tone of voice and what we say than we give them credit for. Yes a smack will work, no doubt, but the child is then responding to fear, or the fear of potential pain. If a child runs into the road, our anger is usually really at our selves because like all parents it is impossible to be totally in control of them 100% despite the fact we know we should be - and the child has not done anything wrong in that case anyway, it simply did not know any better - so punishment seems the wrong way to deal with this anyway.

 

Smacking IMHO, is simply a way of quickening up the learning process to suit our own timescale - because it does work to a degree. But as said its simply not necessary, if you have patience - an essential of any parent.

 

So given the choice of large adult a smacking small child or threatening small child with smack versus acknowledging small kids do wrong things and having the patience to repeatedly talk to them about right and wrong as they grow up and learn to reason, I know which I prefer.

 

I was smacked as a child, as well as 'clips' around the ear and on even caned at school - despite the lack of 'harm' caused, it did not teach me anything... that came from being told what I had done wrong and why it was wrong.

[CB Saint]

Define abuse in this context, please...

 

In the case of disciplining a child any smack hard enough to mark the child is illegal. As to abuse, a one off smack that leave a mark feels more like an assault whereas a regular occurance of smacks / hits / punches that leave marks is abuse IMO.

[Saint86]

This oft-expressed argument that 'My parents hit me and it never did me any harm is nonsense' - especially when it's followed by the statement 'So now I hit my kids, too.' The harm it did you was to persuade you that it was a legitimate and effective method of discipline.

 

Think about it; the worst experiences you had in childhood with ineffective teaching were the ones where you were physically abused. [some of you may be too young to have had teachers who hit you, pulled your sideburns, threw chalk at you, etc.] The best discipline you received was not based on punishment and hitting at all, it was based on love, respect and knowledge. Good teaching and good parenting is based on respect, not fear and punishment. And, of course, pyschological abuse is even worse than physical abuse.

 

The Victorians used to cane the kids at school and what a disaster that was. Oh wait they conquered the work and pioneered engineering, health care, modern sports,democracy and education. Physical discipline is bad!

[Frank's cousin]

You are using extremes to justify your argument. It is quite evident when a child is being abused. The state has no place in people's home. As it happens my wife wears the trousers!

 

Uhm know what you are trying to say, but would a slap around the face to a spouce be acceptable? It does all depend on you definition of abuse - which given that it can also be psychological - eg fear of violence rather than violence itself, is teaching kids whats right and wrong based on 'fear' of a future smack the best solution for the child? Or is the unspoken truth that its simply easier for us parents to deal with it in that way? Its quicker afterall, and they can go cry in their rooms to think about what they have done wrong leaving us free to do what we want to do?

[Frank's cousin]

The Victorians used to cane the kids at school and what a disaster that was. Oh wait they conquered the work and pioneered engineering, health care, modern sports,democracy and education. Physical discipline is bad!

 

eh... you are suggesting a causal link between victorian dicipline in those public schools and the evolution of society? sorry but totally without any foundation. That evolution was natural consequence of the the post industrial revoltion. To use your analogy you could argue we must have been really backward as why did we not pioneer all those things centuries earlier when 'dicipline' was even morre 'robust'?

[Frank's cousin]

The Victorians used to cane the kids at school and what a disaster that was. Oh wait they conquered the work and pioneered engineering, health care, modern sports,democracy and education. Physical discipline is bad!

 

eh... you are suggesting a causal link between victorian dicipline in those public schools and the evolution of society? sorry but totally without any foundation. That evolution was natural consequence of the the post industrial revoltion. To use your analogy you could argue we must have been really backward as why did we not pioneer all those things centuries earlier when 'dicipline' was even morre 'robust'?

[pap]

Some proper sh!t being talked on this thread by people on different sides of the debate, from the judgmental "we don't hit our kids" crowd to the "abuse is easy to spot" line being trumpeted by others.

 

Corporal punishment has been around for centuries, and even when it was still legal, was a mild form of punishment compared to the measures we used to take, or others still do take. Newer techniques seem to revolve around depriving the kid of something of material value, which comes with its own problems.

 

I realise that I haven't finished raising the pair of mine yet, so there are no guarantees that I've done a decent job. However, I do agree with Turkish that kids need boundaries. They also need an authority figure. Now, I'm not suggesting that those two things are impossible to achieve without corporal punishment. I can actually look to my own experience of raising kids for that. Like I said in my earlier post, it has been an extremely infrequently used sanction.

 

I simply cannot accept the argument that mild corporal punishment leaves kids in a fearful state of their parents. Once again, I'm drawing on my own experience here - but I'm more than willing to solicit the opinions of others.

 

So turning this on its head. How many of you were subjected to corporal punishment as kids? Of those, how many of you are scared of your mum or dad?

[pap]

Some proper sh!t being talked on this thread by people on different sides of the debate, from the judgmental "we don't hit our kids" crowd to the "abuse is easy to spot" line being trumpeted by others.

 

Corporal punishment has been around for centuries, and even when it was still legal, was a mild form of punishment compared to the measures we used to take, or others still do take. Newer techniques seem to revolve around depriving the kid of something of material value, which comes with its own problems.

 

I realise that I haven't finished raising the pair of mine yet, so there are no guarantees that I've done a decent job. However, I do agree with Turkish that kids need boundaries. They also need an authority figure. Now, I'm not suggesting that those two things are impossible to achieve without corporal punishment. I can actually look to my own experience of raising kids for that. Like I said in my earlier post, it has been an extremely infrequently used sanction.

 

I simply cannot accept the argument that mild corporal punishment leaves kids in a fearful state of their parents. Once again, I'm drawing on my own experience here - but I'm more than willing to solicit the opinions of others.

 

So turning this on its head. How many of you were subjected to corporal punishment as kids? Of those, how many of you are scared of your mum or dad?

[Frank's cousin]

... they used to cut of kids hands for stealing an apple because they were hungry... we know recognise this as barbaric. Socienty evolves and violence becomes LESS acceptable the more civilised it becomes - just seems odd, that some still feel its fine to smack kids - whose only crime is lack of knowledge.

[Frank's cousin]

... they used to cut of kids hands for stealing an apple because they were hungry... we know recognise this as barbaric. Socienty evolves and violence becomes LESS acceptable the more civilised it becomes - just seems odd, that some still feel its fine to smack kids - whose only crime is lack of knowledge.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Uhm know what you are trying to say' date=' but would a slap around the face to a spouce be acceptable? It does all depend on you definition of abuse - which given that it can also be psychological - eg fear of violence rather than violence itself, is teaching kids whats right and wrong based on 'fear' of a future smack the best solution for the child? Or is the unspoken truth that its simply easier for us parents to deal with it in that way? Its quicker afterall, and they can go cry in their rooms to think about what they have done wrong leaving us free to do what we want to do?[/quote']

 

Umm no Frank I am saying that you are using the 1% to argue the case for the 99%. Frank please do not be offended but what you are saying is something that is based on twenty five years of thinking and lets be honest the evidence of youth behaviour is not exactly favouring your claims. Anyway you miss the main point of what I am saying - you bring up your kids how you want to and I will bring mine up how I think is best.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Uhm know what you are trying to say' date=' but would a slap around the face to a spouce be acceptable? It does all depend on you definition of abuse - which given that it can also be psychological - eg fear of violence rather than violence itself, is teaching kids whats right and wrong based on 'fear' of a future smack the best solution for the child? Or is the unspoken truth that its simply easier for us parents to deal with it in that way? Its quicker afterall, and they can go cry in their rooms to think about what they have done wrong leaving us free to do what we want to do?[/quote']

 

Umm no Frank I am saying that you are using the 1% to argue the case for the 99%. Frank please do not be offended but what you are saying is something that is based on twenty five years of thinking and lets be honest the evidence of youth behaviour is not exactly favouring your claims. Anyway you miss the main point of what I am saying - you bring up your kids how you want to and I will bring mine up how I think is best.

[trousers]

As it happens my wife wears the trousers!

 

News to me

[trousers]

As it happens my wife wears the trousers!

 

News to me

[Frank's cousin]

Some proper sh!t being talked on this thread by people on different sides of the debate, from the judgmental "we don't hit our kids" crowd to the "abuse is easy to spot" line being trumpeted by others.

 

Corporal punishment has been around for centuries, and even when it was still legal, was a mild form of punishment compared to the measures we used to take, or others still do take. Newer techniques seem to revolve around depriving the kid of something of material value, which comes with its own problems.

 

Would argue that newer 'techiques' are the same as the old ones that worked - teaching through respect, dicussion etc... teh smack may 'reinforce' and quicken the pace, but as mentioned is this not really only for our benefit?

I realise that I haven't finished raising the pair of mine yet, so there are no guarantees that I've done a decent job. However, I do agree with Turkish that kids need boundaries. They also need an authority figure.

 

Boundaries? I would suggest they need to know what is right and wrong and why - and yes that takes time to install as well as patience. But through teh learning process, kids learn where these boundaries lie...its surely part of their development?

 

Authority figure - totally agree, but this comes from the respect you have taught them, If authority is only possible through hitting kids, then it suggest not enough time has been spent on the teaching process... something is wrong with that IMHO.

Now, I'm not suggesting that those two things are impossible to achieve without corporal punishment. I can actually look to my own experience of raising kids for that. Like I said in my earlier post, it has been an extremely infrequently used sanction.

 

I simply cannot accept the argument that mild corporal punishment leaves kids in a fearful state of their parents. Once again, I'm drawing on my own experience here - but I'm more than willing to solicit the opinions of others.

 

Certainly at an early age it did, and later (12/13) it just caused resentment and anger, nothing really learned from it, just that you dont want to get caught!

 

So turning this on its head. How many of you were subjected to corporal punishment as kids? Of those, how many of you are scared of your mum or dad?

 

 

...

[Frank's cousin]

Some proper sh!t being talked on this thread by people on different sides of the debate, from the judgmental "we don't hit our kids" crowd to the "abuse is easy to spot" line being trumpeted by others.

 

Corporal punishment has been around for centuries, and even when it was still legal, was a mild form of punishment compared to the measures we used to take, or others still do take. Newer techniques seem to revolve around depriving the kid of something of material value, which comes with its own problems.

 

Would argue that newer 'techiques' are the same as the old ones that worked - teaching through respect, dicussion etc... teh smack may 'reinforce' and quicken the pace, but as mentioned is this not really only for our benefit?

I realise that I haven't finished raising the pair of mine yet, so there are no guarantees that I've done a decent job. However, I do agree with Turkish that kids need boundaries. They also need an authority figure.

 

Boundaries? I would suggest they need to know what is right and wrong and why - and yes that takes time to install as well as patience. But through teh learning process, kids learn where these boundaries lie...its surely part of their development?

 

Authority figure - totally agree, but this comes from the respect you have taught them, If authority is only possible through hitting kids, then it suggest not enough time has been spent on the teaching process... something is wrong with that IMHO.

Now, I'm not suggesting that those two things are impossible to achieve without corporal punishment. I can actually look to my own experience of raising kids for that. Like I said in my earlier post, it has been an extremely infrequently used sanction.

 

I simply cannot accept the argument that mild corporal punishment leaves kids in a fearful state of their parents. Once again, I'm drawing on my own experience here - but I'm more than willing to solicit the opinions of others.

 

Certainly at an early age it did, and later (12/13) it just caused resentment and anger, nothing really learned from it, just that you dont want to get caught!

 

So turning this on its head. How many of you were subjected to corporal punishment as kids? Of those, how many of you are scared of your mum or dad?

 

 

...

[pap]

... they used to cut of kids hands for stealing an apple because they were hungry... we know recognise this as barbaric. Socienty evolves and violence becomes LESS acceptable the more civilised it becomes - just seems odd' date=' that some still feel its fine to smack kids - whose only crime is lack of knowledge.[/quote']

 

Using this line of argument, any punishment that you mete out to kids is barbaric.

 

It's just a lack of knowledge after all, right? Why should Timmy be deprived of his XBox if it's mummy and daddy's fault for not raising him right?

[pap]

... they used to cut of kids hands for stealing an apple because they were hungry... we know recognise this as barbaric. Socienty evolves and violence becomes LESS acceptable the more civilised it becomes - just seems odd' date=' that some still feel its fine to smack kids - whose only crime is lack of knowledge.[/quote']

 

Using this line of argument, any punishment that you mete out to kids is barbaric.

 

It's just a lack of knowledge after all, right? Why should Timmy be deprived of his XBox if it's mummy and daddy's fault for not raising him right?

[trousers]

you bring up your kids how you want to and I will bring mine up how I think is best.

 

^ This

[trousers]

you bring up your kids how you want to and I will bring mine up how I think is best.

 

^ This

[Frank's cousin]

Umm no Frank I am saying that you are using the 1% to argue the case for the 99%. Frank please do not be offended but what you are saying is something that is based on twenty five years of thinking and lets be honest the evidence of youth behaviour is not exactly favouring your claims. Anyway you miss the main point of what I am saying - you bring up your kids how you want to and I will bring mine up how I think is best.

 

Uhm. not offended, but need to disagree. There are undoubtedly many who will point to current youth behaviour and link this directly to the reduction in 'discipline' in the home. And lack of discipline is naturally a contributor, but discipline done not need to involve corporal punsihment.

 

The current situation is an amalgum of social change and I am sure social historians and anthrapologists would be able to identify where it 'all went wrong' - my personal perspective is the whole post 70s rapid change that left whole communitees destroyed and broken, but thats another issue.

 

Naturrally, this whole debate always becomes heated as its impossible to hold my opinion without it coming across as acusational that those who smack their kids are bad parents... or that its somehow someone elses business how you bring up your kids. I guess we need to focus on it from a societal perspective and ask the questions as to whether we believe that its necessary.

 

My point would be: Is it possible to bring up kids properly, teaching them right from wrong, respect etc, the necessary boundaries and discipline without smacking them? In my opinion yes. I dont believe thsoe that smack their kids are suddenly all bad parents or worse, afterall I love mine and they smacked me and I like to think did an OK job, but I do ask the question as to whether its necessary given that there are workable alternatives.

[Frank's cousin]

Umm no Frank I am saying that you are using the 1% to argue the case for the 99%. Frank please do not be offended but what you are saying is something that is based on twenty five years of thinking and lets be honest the evidence of youth behaviour is not exactly favouring your claims. Anyway you miss the main point of what I am saying - you bring up your kids how you want to and I will bring mine up how I think is best.

 

Uhm. not offended, but need to disagree. There are undoubtedly many who will point to current youth behaviour and link this directly to the reduction in 'discipline' in the home. And lack of discipline is naturally a contributor, but discipline done not need to involve corporal punsihment.

 

The current situation is an amalgum of social change and I am sure social historians and anthrapologists would be able to identify where it 'all went wrong' - my personal perspective is the whole post 70s rapid change that left whole communitees destroyed and broken, but thats another issue.

 

Naturrally, this whole debate always becomes heated as its impossible to hold my opinion without it coming across as acusational that those who smack their kids are bad parents... or that its somehow someone elses business how you bring up your kids. I guess we need to focus on it from a societal perspective and ask the questions as to whether we believe that its necessary.

 

My point would be: Is it possible to bring up kids properly, teaching them right from wrong, respect etc, the necessary boundaries and discipline without smacking them? In my opinion yes. I dont believe thsoe that smack their kids are suddenly all bad parents or worse, afterall I love mine and they smacked me and I like to think did an OK job, but I do ask the question as to whether its necessary given that there are workable alternatives.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

News to me

 

Thank god fo that

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

News to me

 

Thank god fo that

[Frank's cousin]

Using this line of argument, any punishment that you mete out to kids is barbaric.

 

It's just a lack of knowledge after all, right? Why should Timmy be deprived of his XBox if it's mummy and daddy's fault for not raising him right?

 

Sorry Pap, but not sure I get your point here.

 

'any punishment is barbaric' - of course not, punishment is not barbaric - but it was used to illustrate how societies become more civilised and less accepting of violent punishment'

 

Of course its necessary to reinforce positive behaviours through appropriate 'punishments' - just suggesting that there are appropriate punishments that dont involve smacking, that's all.

[Frank's cousin]

Using this line of argument, any punishment that you mete out to kids is barbaric.

 

It's just a lack of knowledge after all, right? Why should Timmy be deprived of his XBox if it's mummy and daddy's fault for not raising him right?

 

Sorry Pap, but not sure I get your point here.

 

'any punishment is barbaric' - of course not, punishment is not barbaric - but it was used to illustrate how societies become more civilised and less accepting of violent punishment'

 

Of course its necessary to reinforce positive behaviours through appropriate 'punishments' - just suggesting that there are appropriate punishments that dont involve smacking, that's all.

[pap]

Sorry Pap, but not sure I get your point here.

 

'any punishment is barbaric' - of course not, punishment is not barbaric - but it was used to illustrate how societies become more civilised and less accepting of violent punishment'

 

Of course its necessary to reinforce positive behaviours through appropriate 'punishments' - just suggesting that there are appropriate punishments that dont involve smacking, that's all.

 

Your point was that kids get into bother because of lack of knowledge, a responsibility that ultimately lies with the parents. Consequently, smacking a kid for what they don't know is wrong.

 

If that is your point, then it follows that any punishment meted out is always going to be undeserved, and therefore completely unnecessary. Any unnecessary punishment is therefore barbaric.

 

My point duly explained, I'd like to know why any punishment of the kids is justified if its always the parents' fault. Surely any corrective action is wrong if they know not what they do?

[pap]

Sorry Pap, but not sure I get your point here.

 

'any punishment is barbaric' - of course not, punishment is not barbaric - but it was used to illustrate how societies become more civilised and less accepting of violent punishment'

 

Of course its necessary to reinforce positive behaviours through appropriate 'punishments' - just suggesting that there are appropriate punishments that dont involve smacking, that's all.

 

Your point was that kids get into bother because of lack of knowledge, a responsibility that ultimately lies with the parents. Consequently, smacking a kid for what they don't know is wrong.

 

If that is your point, then it follows that any punishment meted out is always going to be undeserved, and therefore completely unnecessary. Any unnecessary punishment is therefore barbaric.

 

My point duly explained, I'd like to know why any punishment of the kids is justified if its always the parents' fault. Surely any corrective action is wrong if they know not what they do?

[Frank's cousin]

Your point was that kids get into bother because of lack of knowledge, a responsibility that ultimately lies with the parents. Consequently, smacking a kid for what they don't know is wrong.

 

If that is your point, then it follows that any punishment meted out is always going to be undeserved, and therefore completely unnecessary. Any unnecessary punishment is therefore barbaric.

 

My point duly explained, I'd like to know why any punishment of the kids is justified if its always the parents' fault. Surely any corrective action is wrong if they know not what they do?

 

Think you have misinterpreted what I have said here or used my one example etc... Of course kids do things that are wrong - If they are still naive about why this is wrong, they need to be told and hopefully they learn form this.. this is what I mean by that point. If they repeat what is wrong after having been told, eg not learnt that lesson, then punsihment is often needed. My argument is that this punishment needs to be inforced with the rational message, and also does not need to involve smacking as other forms are available. Hope that clears it up.

 

Yes kids do learn from punishment, when reinforced with explanation... but this the punishment does not need to involve smacking.

 

The cut the hand off example was illustrative of the concept of how societies attitudes change to what is considered acceptable to 'teach a lesson'

 

Sorry Pap, but please read the other posts as it will give a better idea as to where i am coming from, and acknowledgement that this type of debate is always potential fractious as opinion from my perspective is always going to be seen as some sort of moral critique of those that smack their kids. Its not, I am just advocating the fact that alternatives do exist, and as they do, why is it still necessary to smack?

[Frank's cousin]

Your point was that kids get into bother because of lack of knowledge, a responsibility that ultimately lies with the parents. Consequently, smacking a kid for what they don't know is wrong.

 

If that is your point, then it follows that any punishment meted out is always going to be undeserved, and therefore completely unnecessary. Any unnecessary punishment is therefore barbaric.

 

My point duly explained, I'd like to know why any punishment of the kids is justified if its always the parents' fault. Surely any corrective action is wrong if they know not what they do?

 

Think you have misinterpreted what I have said here or used my one example etc... Of course kids do things that are wrong - If they are still naive about why this is wrong, they need to be told and hopefully they learn form this.. this is what I mean by that point. If they repeat what is wrong after having been told, eg not learnt that lesson, then punsihment is often needed. My argument is that this punishment needs to be inforced with the rational message, and also does not need to involve smacking as other forms are available. Hope that clears it up.

 

Yes kids do learn from punishment, when reinforced with explanation... but this the punishment does not need to involve smacking.

 

The cut the hand off example was illustrative of the concept of how societies attitudes change to what is considered acceptable to 'teach a lesson'

 

Sorry Pap, but please read the other posts as it will give a better idea as to where i am coming from, and acknowledgement that this type of debate is always potential fractious as opinion from my perspective is always going to be seen as some sort of moral critique of those that smack their kids. Its not, I am just advocating the fact that alternatives do exist, and as they do, why is it still necessary to smack?

[pap]

Think you have misinterpreted what I have said here or used my one example etc... Of course kids do things that are wrong - If they are still naive about why this is wrong, they need to be told and hopefully they learn form this.. this is what I mean by that point. If they repeat what is wrong after having been told, eg not learnt that lesson, then punsihment is often needed. My argument is that this punishment needs to be inforced with the rational message, and also does not need to involve smacking as other forms are available. Hope that clears it up.

 

Yes kids do learn from punishment, when reinforced with explanation... but this the punishment does not need to involve smacking.

 

The cut the hand off example was illustrative of the concept of how societies attitudes change to what is considered acceptable to 'teach a lesson'

 

Sorry Pap, but please read the other posts as it will give a better idea as to where i am coming from, and acknowledgement that this type of debate is always potential fractious as opinion from my perspective is always going to be seen as some sort of moral critique of those that smack their kids. Its not, I am just advocating the fact that alternatives do exist, and as they do, why is it still necessary to smack?

 

That's the problem with this debate. People are operating based on extremes. I'm hardly approaching this debate from the perspective of a perennial kid slapper. It's an extreme, always has been, and oddly enough, was employed when they were f**king out of order (one occasion the eldest went for her mother). She knew she was completely in the wrong there, refused to go upstairs when confronted, and was slapped on the arse on her way upstairs.

 

Now, in that specific circumstance - with a teenage child trying to establish physical superiority over her mother, can you think of a more appropriate response than what she got? Should I have sat down and politely explained that it is wrong to go for her mum? She knows that already.

 

I'm sorry, but the punishment needs to fit the crime. You can make all sorts of judgments on me if you think I'm out of order. You can suggest that I could have denied her access to material things. I've used all that and more when it has been appropriate. The lesson, as far as I see it, is that if you go to extremes, you can expect "extremes" back ( provided of course, you think slapping a child on the arse on the way up the stairs is extreme ).

[pap]

Think you have misinterpreted what I have said here or used my one example etc... Of course kids do things that are wrong - If they are still naive about why this is wrong, they need to be told and hopefully they learn form this.. this is what I mean by that point. If they repeat what is wrong after having been told, eg not learnt that lesson, then punsihment is often needed. My argument is that this punishment needs to be inforced with the rational message, and also does not need to involve smacking as other forms are available. Hope that clears it up.

 

Yes kids do learn from punishment, when reinforced with explanation... but this the punishment does not need to involve smacking.

 

The cut the hand off example was illustrative of the concept of how societies attitudes change to what is considered acceptable to 'teach a lesson'

 

Sorry Pap, but please read the other posts as it will give a better idea as to where i am coming from, and acknowledgement that this type of debate is always potential fractious as opinion from my perspective is always going to be seen as some sort of moral critique of those that smack their kids. Its not, I am just advocating the fact that alternatives do exist, and as they do, why is it still necessary to smack?

 

That's the problem with this debate. People are operating based on extremes. I'm hardly approaching this debate from the perspective of a perennial kid slapper. It's an extreme, always has been, and oddly enough, was employed when they were f**king out of order (one occasion the eldest went for her mother). She knew she was completely in the wrong there, refused to go upstairs when confronted, and was slapped on the arse on her way upstairs.

 

Now, in that specific circumstance - with a teenage child trying to establish physical superiority over her mother, can you think of a more appropriate response than what she got? Should I have sat down and politely explained that it is wrong to go for her mum? She knows that already.

 

I'm sorry, but the punishment needs to fit the crime. You can make all sorts of judgments on me if you think I'm out of order. You can suggest that I could have denied her access to material things. I've used all that and more when it has been appropriate. The lesson, as far as I see it, is that if you go to extremes, you can expect "extremes" back ( provided of course, you think slapping a child on the arse on the way up the stairs is extreme ).

[Lazlo78]

The lesson, as far as I see it, is that if you go to extremes, you can expect "extremes" back

 

I agree! But wouldn't that also be an argument against slapping children?

[Lazlo78]

The lesson, as far as I see it, is that if you go to extremes, you can expect "extremes" back

 

I agree! But wouldn't that also be an argument against slapping children?

[Frank's cousin]

That's the problem with this debate. People are operating based on extremes. I'm hardly approaching this debate from the perspective of a perennial kid slapper. It's an extreme, always has been, and oddly enough, was employed when they were f**king out of order (one occasion the eldest went for her mother). She knew she was completely in the wrong there, refused to go upstairs when confronted, and was slapped on the arse on her way upstairs.

 

Now, in that specific circumstance - with a teenage child trying to establish physical superiority over her mother, can you think of a more appropriate response than what she got? Should I have sat down and politely explained that it is wrong to go for her mum? She knows that already.

 

I'm sorry, but the punishment needs to fit the crime. You can make all sorts of judgments on me if you think I'm out of order. You can suggest that I could have denied her access to material things. I've used all that and more when it has been appropriate. The lesson, as far as I see it, is that if you go to extremes, you can expect "extremes" back ( provided of course, you think slapping a child on the arse on the way up the stairs is extreme ).

 

First up Pap, not judging you, and I dont think you are out of order... Its not my place anyway to 'judge' - merely presenting an opinion. The example you describe I cant comment on, mine not yet at that age -( Have the joys of teenagers still to come ). Anyway, you answered your own question really - you say shes KNOWS she in the wrong, beacuse you as good parents (not meaning to sound patronizing) have taught her that... but like all teenagers going through that hideous phase, is reactionary and probably will know she is in the wrong and regret it when in a calmer frame of mind.

 

My point is that there is probably much worse teenage behaviour out there becuase those lessons were not given by parents, who probably did just smack and not take the time to explain...and repeat, and repeat with the patience that you as good parents obviously showed.

 

Again in a non judgemental way - Do you think the smack will have added to her understanding that this was wrong and decrease the liklihood of it happening again? I guess the crux of my opinion is that I dont think it would, but acknowledge a suitable punsihment is necessary - what that might be, no idea, as I say still got those 'joys' to come.

[Frank's cousin]

That's the problem with this debate. People are operating based on extremes. I'm hardly approaching this debate from the perspective of a perennial kid slapper. It's an extreme, always has been, and oddly enough, was employed when they were f**king out of order (one occasion the eldest went for her mother). She knew she was completely in the wrong there, refused to go upstairs when confronted, and was slapped on the arse on her way upstairs.

 

Now, in that specific circumstance - with a teenage child trying to establish physical superiority over her mother, can you think of a more appropriate response than what she got? Should I have sat down and politely explained that it is wrong to go for her mum? She knows that already.

 

I'm sorry, but the punishment needs to fit the crime. You can make all sorts of judgments on me if you think I'm out of order. You can suggest that I could have denied her access to material things. I've used all that and more when it has been appropriate. The lesson, as far as I see it, is that if you go to extremes, you can expect "extremes" back ( provided of course, you think slapping a child on the arse on the way up the stairs is extreme ).

 

First up Pap, not judging you, and I dont think you are out of order... Its not my place anyway to 'judge' - merely presenting an opinion. The example you describe I cant comment on, mine not yet at that age -( Have the joys of teenagers still to come ). Anyway, you answered your own question really - you say shes KNOWS she in the wrong, beacuse you as good parents (not meaning to sound patronizing) have taught her that... but like all teenagers going through that hideous phase, is reactionary and probably will know she is in the wrong and regret it when in a calmer frame of mind.

 

My point is that there is probably much worse teenage behaviour out there becuase those lessons were not given by parents, who probably did just smack and not take the time to explain...and repeat, and repeat with the patience that you as good parents obviously showed.

 

Again in a non judgemental way - Do you think the smack will have added to her understanding that this was wrong and decrease the liklihood of it happening again? I guess the crux of my opinion is that I dont think it would, but acknowledge a suitable punsihment is necessary - what that might be, no idea, as I say still got those 'joys' to come.

[pap]

I agree! But wouldn't that also be an argument against slapping children?

 

As I've said before, I know people who will slap their kid as a default disciplinary device. When that's the case, of course the reverse argument can be used.

 

Slapping and/or screaming at your kids all this just isn't productive. For one thing, what's your escalation strategy if it doesn't work?

 

What the hell do you do when they can fight back?

 

It's a tool for a specific job, shouldn't be overused and shouldn't constitute abuse when it does.

[pap]

I agree! But wouldn't that also be an argument against slapping children?

 

As I've said before, I know people who will slap their kid as a default disciplinary device. When that's the case, of course the reverse argument can be used.

 

Slapping and/or screaming at your kids all this just isn't productive. For one thing, what's your escalation strategy if it doesn't work?

 

What the hell do you do when they can fight back?

 

It's a tool for a specific job, shouldn't be overused and shouldn't constitute abuse when it does.