Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Spare the Rod.

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Bduffman wrote: »
    How come for many people hitting a child as punishment is acceptable but hitting a adult as punishment is not?

    I don't know many adults that get sent to the naughty step either.


  • Options
    #153
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I don't know many adults that get sent to the naughty step either.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Yeah, its much easier to get my kicks beating up children instead of adults. Feckin adults always hitting back! feckin hard too!! Same goes for eating them. Like this fully grown man I tried to cook in a nice tomato and red wine sauce there the other day. You know what he did? He hit me! Still have the shiner from the cheeky fecker. And he wouldn't climb in the pot, the swine! Cooking a child is so much easier though, I mean, just make the lid heavier and they aint getting out of that pot. MMMMM tasty.

    So guys, how long do you simmer your children for?

    Don't you just hate it when a question is avoided using puerile humour. Soooooo anyhoo. Why do you hit children as a punishment but not adults?


  • Options
    #154
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I don't know many adults that get sent to the naughty step either.

    That's because people who send children to bed early, or make them sit on the naughty step, only do so because they can't get away with doing it to adults.


  • Options
    #155
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    PDN wrote: »
    That's because people who send children to bed early, or make them sit on the naughty step, only do so because they can't get away with doing it to adults.

    Much the same as hitting then. Except one involves physical violence.


  • Options
    #156
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Bduffman wrote: »
    Don't you just hate it when a question is avoided using puerile humour. Soooooo anyhoo. Why do you hit children as a punishment but not adults?

    It wasn't an attempt at puerile humour. Who said I hit children?
    Bduffman wrote: »
    Much the same as hitting then. Except one involves physical violence.

    And mental anguish is inconsequential, I guess.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    sonicthebadger*
    Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    An interesting (if not controversial) reads found here, here and here. Counter perspectives here, here and here.

    The first of these is an article from the Daily Mail, so I wouldn't believe a word of it; the second is very interesting, I'd like to read the original paper; the third says CP is useful for improving compliance to behavioural rules, but goes on to state that CP is not likely to be needed with shy children and is likely to traumatise them. It goes on to say "There is no evidence that spanking is either a more or a less effective deterrent than other punishment methods with young children".
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Yeah, its much easier to get my kicks beating up children instead of adults. Feckin adults always hitting back! feckin hard too!! Same goes for eating them. Like this fully grown man I tried to cook in a nice tomato and red wine sauce there the other day. You know what he did? He hit me! Still have the shiner from the cheeky fecker. And he wouldn't climb in the pot, the swine! Cooking a child is so much easier though, I mean, just make the lid heavier and they aint getting out of that pot. MMMMM tasty.

    So guys, how long do you simmer your children for?

    45 minutes a pound of course.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I don't know many adults that get sent to the naughty step either.

    Aren't you a mod? Infractions? That's giving someone a time out for breaking the rules is it not?


  • Options
    #158
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    sonicthebadger* wrote: »
    Aren't you a mod? Infractions? That's giving someone a time out for breaking the rules is it not?

    Yes, but that's because we treat you like children. :)


  • Options
    #159
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    sonicthebadger* wrote: »
    The first of these is an article from the Daily Mail, so I wouldn't believe a word of it; the second is very interesting, I'd like to read the original paper; the third says CP is useful for improving compliance to behavioural rules, but goes on to state that CP is not likely to be needed with shy children and is likely to traumatise them. It goes on to say "There is no evidence that spanking is either a more or a less effective deterrent than other punishment methods with young children".

    So what if it is from the Daily Mail? AFAIK, the research is independent of the paper - they were simply doing what paper do: reporting news. Besides, you should not take the links I provided as an exhaustive list or even examples of the most recent research. I simply chose 3 from either side that were floating around the internet.
    sonicthebadger* wrote: »
    Aren't you a mod? Infractions? That's giving someone a time out for breaking the rules is it not?

    Did I claim that there were no consequences for adults misbehaving? I think if you reread my post you will see the point I was making.


  • Options
    #160
    sonicthebadger*
    Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, but that's because we treat you like children. :)

    Ha ha! Yes indeed, and sometimes we need it. But it's effective and it's not smacking right?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    So what if it is from the Daily Mail? AFAIK, the research is independent of the paper - they were simply doing what paper do: reporting news. Besides, you should not take the links I provided as an exhaustive list or even examples of the most recent research. I simply chose 3 from either side that were floating around the internet.

    Did I claim that there were no consequences for adults misbehaving? I think if you reread my post you will see the point I was making.

    The Daily Mail has a habit of making up news, I would no sooner trust it than trust The Sun. I'm not taking your list as exhaustive, three links hardly seems exhaustive. More a sampling. I do get that, I didn't mean to offend you by reading and commenting on them.

    I don't believe you did claim there were no concequences for adults misbehaving, I also don't think I was saying that at all. In fact I don't know where you got that idea or what it is you're responding to... are you sure it was something I posted?


  • Options
    #161
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    sonicthebadger* wrote: »
    Ha ha! Yes indeed, and sometimes we need it. But it's effective and it's not smacking right?

    As soon as I perfect the art of virtual smacking then that will change. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Bduffman wrote: »
    How come for many people hitting a child as punishment is acceptable but hitting a adult as punishment is not?
    In many societies CP was/is an acceptable punishment for adults.

    If society feels squeamish about whipping an adult (smacking as per parental or school discipline would be laughable), imprisonment is a ready option. And physical force is used if they do not comply. It gets very nasty from there.

    With kids light CP is just as good or better for the child than isolation/loss of privilege - it is quicker. And in an emergency, more effective. But if one wants to keep CP as a last resort, that is up to them.

    _________________________________________________________________
    Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.


  • Options
    #163
    sonicthebadger*
    Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    In many societies CP was/is an acceptable punishment for adults.

    If society feels squeamish about whipping an adult (smacking as per parental or school discipline would be laughable), imprisonment is a ready option. And physical force is used if they do not comply. It gets very nasty from there.

    With kids light CP is just as good or better for the child than isolation/loss of privilege - it is quicker. And in an emergency, more effective. But if one wants to keep CP as a last resort, that is up to them.

    In many societies cutting people's heads off is an acceptable form of dealing with criminals, or for petty crime like a spot of thevery or bad mouthing the government the chopping off of a hand is good enough. There's many societies I'm glad I don't live in.

    You make a bold and sweeping statement:
    "With kids light CP is just as good or better for the child than isolation/loss of privilege - it is quicker. And in an emergency, more effective."
    and make no effort whatsoever to back it up or describe where this assertion comes from.

    Allow me to refute in the same style: "CP is bad, m'kay..."

    Both our points are fairly worthless and we can exchange them all day.


  • Options
    #164
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    It wasn't an attempt at puerile humour. Who said I hit children?
    Well I didn't mean you specifically - I should have stated "if ONE hits children..." it was a question to anyone who does.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    And mental anguish is inconsequential, I guess.
    If a loss of privileges for a chiuld results in 'mental anguish' then the parent of that child has bigger problems - i.e. an very over-sensitive child.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    In many societies CP was/is an acceptable punishment for adults.

    If society feels squeamish about whipping an adult (smacking as per parental or school discipline would be laughable), imprisonment is a ready option. And physical force is used if they do not comply. It gets very nasty from there.

    With kids light CP is just as good or better for the child than isolation/loss of privilege - it is quicker. And in an emergency, more effective. But if one wants to keep CP as a last resort, that is up to them.
    Yes - CP is quicker - so is that why it is used? Because its quicker? Easier maybe? Whoever said parenthood should be easy? The fact is that for many parents it is the easy way out becasue they don't want to embark on a more difficult and time-consuming path.


  • Options
    #165
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Bduffman wrote: »
    The fact is that for many parents it is the easy way out becasue they don't want to embark on a more difficult and time-consuming path.

    On what authority do you assert that?


  • Options
    #166
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    JimiTime wrote: »
    On what authority do you assert that?

    Simple logic. Hitting is quick, instant (although certainly not proven to work). Other forms of punishment (non-violent beneficial ones) generally take longer & require more effort.


  • Options
    #167
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Bduffman wrote: »
    Simple logic. Hitting is quick, instant (although certainly not proven to work)

    Define proof?
    . Other forms of punishment (non-violent beneficial ones) generally take longer & require more effort.

    And the proof that this is better and more effective than smacking?

    Also, there is absolutely NO logic in your PRESUMPTION below:

    The fact is that for many parents it is the easy way out becasue they don't want to embark on a more difficult and time-consuming path.

    The FACT is, that even if smacking is bad etc, you are being nothing but presumtuous in stating that parents who do smack are doing it for an easy way out. You speak like you have this incredible insight, when its nothing more than presumtion.


  • Options
    #168
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Define proof?
    Why do you want me to define a word that you can look up in a dictionary?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    And the proof that this is better and more effective than smacking?
    I never stated anywhere that it is more effective. But if you are trying to justify hitting children I think the onus is on you to provide evidence that hitting is more effective. It is my opinion though that other methods are better because it doesn't involve violence.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Also, there is absolutely NO logic in your PRESUMPTION below:

    The fact is that for many parents it is the easy way out becasue they don't want to embark on a more difficult and time-consuming path.

    The FACT is, that even if smacking is bad etc, you are being nothing but presumtuous in stating that parents who do smack are doing it for an easy way out. You speak like you have this incredible insight, when its nothing more than presumtion.
    Well if thats the case it is equally true that you are assuming that parents are hitting their kids because it is more effective than anything else - a stance that you can't prove either. But if we cannot agree on which method is more effective, we can at least agree that hitting is easier & quicker - true? And it is hardly beyond the realms of possibility that many parents use it for that reason.


  • Options
    #169
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    sonicthebadger* wrote: »
    In many societies cutting people's heads off is an acceptable form of dealing with criminals, or for petty crime like a spot of thevery or bad mouthing the government the chopping off of a hand is good enough. There's many societies I'm glad I don't live in.

    You make a bold and sweeping statement:
    "With kids light CP is just as good or better for the child than isolation/loss of privilege - it is quicker. And in an emergency, more effective."
    and make no effort whatsoever to back it up or describe where this assertion comes from.

    Allow me to refute in the same style: "CP is bad, m'kay..."

    Both our points are fairly worthless and we can exchange them all day.
    Sorry not to get back to you before now.

    The assertion comes from raising 3 kids to adulthood, and seeing many others do the same. Firm but kind discipline, including physical punishment, has worked better than any of the non-physical punishment examples I have witnessed.

    _________________________________________________________________
    Proverbs 13:24 He who spares his rod hates his son,
    But he who loves him disciplines him promptly.


  • Options
    #170
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Bduffman wrote: »
    Yes - CP is quicker - so is that why it is used? Because its quicker? Easier maybe? Whoever said parenthood should be easy? The fact is that for many parents it is the easy way out becasue they don't want to embark on a more difficult and time-consuming path.
    From my experience, CP is more effective in some circumstances, but it is also quicker in almost all circumstances. The latter is good for both parent and child, as prolonged punishment (loss of privilege, confinement) can unnecessarily focus on the past. Repentance and a new start are to be desired daily.

    Also, there is nothing wrong with a parent taking the quicker option as such. Time is precious, for all in the family.

    _________________________________________________________________
    Proverbs 29:1 He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck,
    Will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.


Advertisement