Smacking yes or no

Frank Black

sunflower27 wrote: »

Yeah, but no, but yeah but no but.... look at your own anger and use of obscenities to get your point across.



That just had to be pointed out :D

Apologies if the use of the word 'sh;t' as an adjective has offended you.
You can replace it with 'poor' or 'bad' if your sensibilities are so delicate.

Not sure why you think I'm angry though.

_Kaiser_

I blame Sky...

Seriously, I do.. as well as all the cool US shows and movies we started getting 24/7 in the late 80s when it launched, came 24/7 news and talk shows etc which brought with them this PC, touchy-feely, therapy-needing lifestyle that has us to a point where on this thread we have people comparing a light smack to a out-of-control child where all other attempts have failed, to being interned in Guantanamo or something!

The net result of this is you have parents afraid to discipline their kids for fear that they will be emotionally scarring the child/be sued/arrested or something. The child in question then quickly realises that they are in control and the behaviour worsens. Just look at the increases in anti-social behaviour generally in the last 30 years. I'm not saying that we didn't have scumbags in the 70s/80s too, but nowhere near to the same extent or so young.

You CANNOT apply logic and reason to a child like you would an adult for the simple reason that they're not yet mature enough to grasp WHY their behaviour is wrong. Of course I'm not saying that you should immediately resort to slapping either but if words have failed and the behaviour is still continuing it may be necessary - and by that I don't mean "beating" them or "walloping" them with wooden spoons, or belts or whatever.. I'm amazed that some people here can't see the difference!

Like most of the older posters in this thread I got the occasional slap as a child if I pushed my luck and it certainly hasn't scarred me for life, but it did teach me a healthy respect for the rules, my parents and others and property - something which is very obviously lacking in a lot of kids these days!

kunst nugget

hoodwinked wrote: »

the bolded part is it in a nutshell, other mothers around here are the exact same, and they are definitely raising sociopaths of the future,

i hate saying anything about a child but one of them in the time i've been living here has yet to say/do something that is not evil or designed to hurt others. at 7 years of age he's been known to tell children of single parents "your daddy ran away because he doesn't love you and your mom is going to run away from you too" or "when you are asleep im going to climb in your window with a knife and stab you" and these responses came from a trivial act, the latter i heard from my window during a game of catch where he was caught and didn't want to be.

he has repeatedly harassed private neighbours living locally too,

you say anything to his mother (or the other mothers living local) and you get:

"its not him/her its you, you just hate children"
"get away from my door"
"My *** would never say/do that you must have him/her confused with ***"
"Boys will by boys"
"girls will be girls"
or my personal favourite "are you discriminating against him/her because he/she has behavioral issues/autism'"

And these people would automatically become non-sh¡t parents if they smacked their kids? (Which they actually could be doing unbeknownst to you…)

anncoates

Without being smart, I think you need to assess the performance of your parents at an older age than even your 30s and especially not your 20s (when I think you over analyse everything and are at your most chronically self absorbed) and preferably when you have kids yourself.

Obviously not talking about if your parents were genuine horrors but more the parents most of us had and/or are: normal people trying to do the hardest job there isr under pressure with every move scrutinised by their own kids.

As for smacking, I've given the odd smack on the arse down the years but not that much as it's not really effective with my kids. The problem with saying light physical chastisement is harmful is that it's anecdotal. That is, every person that claims to be harmed by it has an opposite number that wasn't, including me. There really is no consensus.

Nippledragon

Don't..."smack"...do..."smack"...that..."smack"...again..."smack"...ya, ya , ya little skittherarshe ya!

Nothing wrong with a clip around the lug to cut out any jig-acting, did most of us no harm.

suicide_circus

Smacking kids as a disciplinary tool has been used for millennia not because we are an inherently brutal species but because it is effective.

Logic and reasoning only work when a person understands and excepts them. Children frequently do neither.

coffee_cake

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

That being said, there is a line you don't cross. Don't slap a child if your very angry, if you leave a mark, it's to hard. For me it's about the threat, not the actual slap. I don't condone people going all Rambo on there child, your harming your child physically and mentally.

And as long as the rod is no thicker than your thumb

OldNotWIse

kunst nugget wrote: »

And these people would automatically become non-sh¡t parents if they smacked their kids? (Which they actually could be doing unbeknownst to you…)

No. It's just a coincidence that society's tolerance of smacking children is inversely proportional to bad behaviour.

hoodwinked

kunst nugget wrote: »

And these people would automatically become non-sh¡t parents if they smacked their kids? (Which they actually could be doing unbeknownst to you…)

nope the mother of the boy (delinquent) in particular beats the crap out of him, and does cruel things to him like promising him something and then denying it over some trivial thing he does. we have seen her raise her hand to him more than once, and once a neighbour was in her house when she literally pulled him backwards off a counter unit so hard he flew across the room into a wall


we on the other hand set realistic expectations of our daughter while pulling her up on every negative behaviour she displays, and she is an exemplary three year old we get numerous comments from strangers and friends of relatives alike on how well mannered and well behaved she is.

i think it comes from a stable home where good behaviour is the example set rather than us acting the maggot but screaming at her to be good.

Shenshen

suicide_circus wrote: »

Smacking kids as a disciplinary tool has been used for millennia not because we are an inherently brutal species but because it is effective.

Logic and reasoning only work when a person understands and excepts them. Children frequently do neither.

That same argument covers spousal abuse, slavery, any kind of warfare... any shape or form of violence you can think of, really.

All of this was believed to be beneficial for millenia, but that's no reason to believe it actually is.

kunst nugget

suicide_circus wrote: »

Logic and reasoning only work when a person understands and excepts them. Children frequently do neither.

If you discipline your kids properly then they'll understand the logic and reasoning behind why you're punishing them if you need to do it?

Here's a question for parents with kids in creches? Would you think it is acceptable for the people minding your kids to smack your child?

Crooked Jack

Shenshen wrote: »

The recurring phrase in this thread seems to be "it did me no harm"....

Is that the best that can be said for physically interacting with a child in a violent manner, "it does no harm"?

Surely an effective means of parenting should actually do some good rather than settle for not doing harm?

Can you believe this bullsh!t. This is why nobody is taking your argument seriously. We're talking about a quick slap for being a brat.
This reminds me of that thread where some girl was calling a hug from a drunk friend "forced sexual contact."

coffee_cake

It wasn't a "hug" from a "friend", it was guy pressing his whole body against her from behind and refusing to stop
Jaysus

We nicknamed one guy 'Back Hugs' because of how, when he gets drunk, he'll sometimes grab the girls for unwelcome back hugs for example.

Ush1

If a bouncer or maybe a policeman can't reason with someone, should they restrain and lock them up, or just start hitting them?

suicide_circus

Shenshen wrote: »

That same argument covers spousal abuse, slavery, any kind of warfare... any shape or form of violence you can think of, really.

All of this was believed to be beneficial for millenia, but that's no reason to believe it actually is.

Comparing a smack on the bum to slavery is hysterical nonsense. But yes, just because it happened for millennia dosnt mean its right, but i believe in this case it is. Children are not mini adults, they are not always capable of understand adult logic and boundaries.

Shenshen

OldNotWIse wrote: »

No. It's just a coincidence that society's tolerance of smacking children is inversely proportional to bad behaviour.

Is it, though?

I understand that crime statistics have been pretty much on a downward trend for years, if not decades now. Especially violent crime has been on a steady, very noticeable decline.

We live in fairly peaceful times right now, no wars, no "troubles", compared to, say, 30 years ago, or if you want the absolute extreme, compared to 70 years ago in Europe.

Yet people keep harping on about "the good old time" when people knew how to behave - I'm honestly not quite sure what time exactly they are referring to.

Shenshen

suicide_circus wrote: »

Comparing a smack on the bum to slavery is hysterical nonsense. But yes, just because it happened for millennia dosnt mean its right, but i believe in this case it is. Children are not mini adults, they are not always capable of understand adult logic and boundaries.

So because the adult is incapable of using child logic and retraint, it's ok to beat the kid instead?

movingsucks

I was smacked as a child as were most of my siblings.
Mostly we were smacked for hitting each other, fighting over toys or saying "I hate you" to each other etc

I didn't do us any harm... but it didn't do us any good either because the next day we'd just be killing each other again.
All it taught me was whoever shouts the loudest and hits the hardest "wins".

Pointless.

Crooked Jack

If your kids are being good, give them a smak

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5034/5824444202_27e8f4c1d3_o.jpg

Crooked Jack

bluewolf wrote: »

It wasn't a "hug" from a "friend", it was guy pressing his whole body against her from behind and refusing to stop
Jaysus

It was a hug from a friend, the OP clarified it several times in the thread and you still got these types of hysterical statements.

Frank Black

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The net result of this is you have parents afraid to discipline their kids for fear that they will be emotionally scarring the child/be sued/arrested or something. The child in question then quickly realises that they are in control and the behaviour worsens. Just look at the increases in anti-social behaviour generally in the last 30 years. I'm not saying that we didn't have scumbags in the 70s/80s too, but nowhere near to the same extent or so young.

Your post perfectly sums up the general confusion of the pro-slapping brigade.
Parents who are 'afraid to discipline their kids' drive me mental - I know a number of these and their kids are little terrors. But disciplining your child doesn't need to involve hitting them. Some people seem to have huge problems trying to get their heads around this concept.

The other link people seem to be making is increases in anti-social behaviour being directly linked with the reduction in parents hitting their kids.
I haven't seen any evidence to back up such claims of a direct causation between the two, I doubt if any posters claiming such causation have either, but I strongly suspect that the 'scumbags' you refer to
are not exclusively children who've been raised by parents who don't believe in smacking their kids.

Ush1

suicide_circus wrote: »

Comparing a smack on the bum to slavery is hysterical nonsense. But yes, just because it happened for millennia dosnt mean its right, but i believe in this case it is. Children are not mini adults, they are not always capable of understand adult logic and boundaries.

Neither are lots of adults, since we're talking logic, would you apply the same reasoning to dealing with an adult that was not capable of understanding logic at a particular moment?

OldNotWIse

Shenshen wrote: »

Is it, though?

I understand that crime statistics have been pretty much on a downward trend for years, if not decades now. Especially violent crime has been on a steady, very noticeable decline.

We live in fairly peaceful times right now, no wars, no "troubles", compared to, say, 30 years ago, or if you want the absolute extreme, compared to 70 years ago in Europe.

Yet people keep harping on about "the good old time" when people knew how to behave - I'm honestly not quite sure what time exactly they are referring to.

Well, children are hardly responsible for wars.

I am only 29 so dont remember the "good old days" but I will say this. I certainly never treated grownups the way some kids do nowadays when I was a kid. We might ahve done "nick nacks" and laughed at them behind their backs or whatever but children have changed in the last 20 years. You see them acting the maggot in shops, trying to steal stuff, racially abusing the security guard trying to stop them. I dont know how many times I have had stuff thrown at me randomly when walking home in the evenings, from groups of 9 or 10 year olds. And I am not the only one who has experienced this. Now, nobody can say for sure if its because of no smacking (in fact I suspect a lot of these kids probably get hidings from their parents). But they definitely have changed.

OldNotWIse

Frank Black wrote: »

Your post perfectly sums up the general confusion of the pro-slapping brigade.
Parents who are 'afraid to discipline their kids' drive me mental - I know a number of these and their kids are little terrors. But disciplining your child doesn't need to involve hitting them. Some people seem to have huge problems trying to get their heads around this concept.

The other link people seem to be making is increases in anti-social behaviour being directly linked with the reduction in parents hitting their kids.
I haven't seen any evidence to back up such claims of a direct causation between the two, I doubt if any posters claiming such causation have either, but I strongly suspect that the 'scumbags' you refer to
are not exclusively children who've been raised by parents who don't believe in smacking their kids.

agree.

kunst nugget

suicide_circus wrote: »

Comparing a smack on the bum to slavery is hysterical nonsense. But yes, just because it happened for millennia dosnt mean its right, but i believe in this case it is. Children are not mini adults, they are not always capable of understand adult logic and boundaries.

I have a special needs cousin who has trouble understanding logic and boundaries sometimes. Is it okay for me to smack her to keep her in line?

OldNotWIse

Ush1 wrote: »

Neither are lots of adults, since we're talking logic, would you apply the same reasoning to dealing with an adult that was not capable of understanding logic at a particular moment?

No but sometimes its so tempting lol

Ush1

OldNotWIse wrote: »

No but sometimes its so tempting lol

Exactly, we start to get to the nub of the issue. People hit kids because it's easy. They're small and don't usually hit back.

It's the most basic form of domination of someone that you can physically over power them.

People don't stop hitting teenagers because they are now applying a fantastic logic to every situation, it's usually just that they are big and you might not feel as inclined to hit another human of that size.

I reckon anyway...

OldNotWIse

Ush1 wrote: »

Exactly, we start to get to the nub of the issue. People hit kids because it's easy. They're small and don't usually hit back.

It's the most basic form of domination of someone that you can physically over power them.

People don't stop hitting teenagers because they are now applying a fantastic logic to every situation, it's usually just that they are big and you might not feel as inclined to hit another human of that size.

I reckon anyway...

My Mam still gave my brother a clatter when he was towering over her lol

I remember one night he came home drunk and she walloped him and he just started laughing. Hilarious.

kunst nugget

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Well, children are hardly responsible for wars.

I am only 29 so dont remember the "good old days" but I will say this. I certainly never treated grownups the way some kids do nowadays when I was a kid. We might ahve done "nick nacks" and laughed at them behind their backs or whatever but children have changed in the last 20 years. You see them acting the maggot in shops, trying to steal stuff, racially abusing the security guard trying to stop them. I dont know how many times I have had stuff thrown at me randomly when walking home in the evenings, from groups of 9 or 10 year olds. And I am not the only one who has experienced this. Now, nobody can say for sure if its because of no smacking (in fact I suspect a lot of these kids probably get hidings from their parents). But they definitely have changed.

I'm 35. When I was 10, I nicked stuff in shops while acting the maggot along with other kids and kids threw sh¡t at me in the streets and fought with me. I'm not condoning mine or the other kids actions but they are hardly new phenomenons. Should I think about purchasing these rose-tinted glasses everyone else seems to be wearing?

sunflower27

Frank Black wrote: »

Apologies if the use of the word 'sh;t' as an adjective has offended you.
You can replace it with 'poor' or 'bad' if your sensibilities are so delicate.

Not sure why you think I'm angry though.

Your need to use obscenities and your tone. Verrrrrrrrry threatening.