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
Discipline or abuse
Options
Comments
-
Generally when this topic comes up and someone says that they were hit by parents and possibly hit their own children I think of being a teacher (in loco parentis!)... If they say it never did them any harm I ask Is it ok for a teacher to hit your kids? No it aint, its assault on a minor.
Corporal Punishment is an out of date word for backward societies. We've moved on, we don't punish a child's body to teach their mind. If that was the case I'd just save myself the bother and have all the kids in my classes fitted with electric shock neck collars to 'teach them'...
If I lost a finger and said it taught me to switch the lawnmower off before cleaning... would I advocate free finger amputations being given out with every lawnmower bought...
In the general scheme of things, the loss of a finger 'never did me any long term harm' ... so therefore is it a valuable method of teaching/learning.
Don't hit, find another way, other parents can do it, why can't you.
It's very easy to dismiss corporal punishment as being an outdated practice and label it as abusive or assault in today's society. I have no doubt that 25-30 years from now if there is a debate on non physical means of punishment we will have still more opinionated liberals stating that grounding a kid is wrong as it's forceful incarceration and denying children their freedom or that loss of privileges for children is denying them there basic human rights and so and so on.Where does it all stop?
I remember watching the London riots a few years ago on tv and seeing youngsters of 12/13 louting and causing thousands of pounds of damage and terror to communities and I couldn't help but think at the time that those kids could have really done with a belt to their behinds. Not exactly PC I know by today's standards but maybe it would have taught them respect and manners0 -
The parent/child relationship is not the same as a teacher/child relationship. The law already differentiates between corporal punishment at home and in school. In Ireland corporal punishment is not allowed in school but is allowed at home. There are many things a parent is allowed to do that a teacher is not.
Also we have not moved on as it is still legal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_home
Losing a finger is a permanent injury that does cause you harm, you no longer have the use of your finger. A parent cutting off a childs finger would not be considered moderate punishment but actual abuse. A sore behind for two hours leaves no permanent injury.
I know plenty of kids forced to go to sports because their parents believe it will educate them in having a healthy lifestyle. The parents do not want their children to become too sedentary and so force the children to go to sports. The children are forced to engage in sports they do not want to do and can incur injuries, do you worry about these injuries when the children have not given consent? Or do you believe a parent could not force a child to participate in a sport without the childs permission?
leaving the law aside, on a parental choice basis would you mind if I gave your child a sore bum for 2 hours in class the same as you would do at home?
And.. if the law changed would you then be against corpral punishment in the home as its the law.
If the law also changed to allowing corporal punishment in schools would you be all fine and dandy with it as its the law (and only a sore bum for 2hrs!)
You might think the last point is hypothetical nonsense but it goes to the core of how humans treat each other with respect... look at how Sharia law and stoning was reintroduced in some countries... ah shur its the law isn't it?0 -
Would you mind if I broke your child's arm as a teaching strategy?
There is a big difference, one is incidental injury the other is intentional injury. If you can't understand the difference then god help the next person who bumps into you on the street.
I don't believe in breaking arms at all. If a parent broke their child's arm I would consider it abuse. If I had a child I would not let you physically discipline my child as you are not the parent. I would bathe my own child but I wouldn't let you bathe the child either.0 -
It's very easy to dismiss corporal punishment as being an outdated practice and label it as abusive or assault in today's society. I have no doubt that 25-30 years from now if there is a debate on non physical means of punishment we will have still more opinionated liberals stating that grounding a kid is wrong as it's forceful incarceration and denying children their freedom or that loss of privileges for children is denying them there basic human rights and so and so on.Where does it all stop?
I remember watching the London riots a few years ago on tv and seeing youngsters of 12/13 louting and causing thousands of pounds of damage and terror to communities and I couldn't help but think at the time that those kids could have really done with a belt to their behinds. Not exactly PC I know by today's standards but maybe it would have taught them respect and manners
It stops with adults assaulting (or educating as you might call it) their children.
Sure ya london riots caused by lack of bum smacking, next thing you'll be advocating is mandatory conscription into the bloody army.0 -
I don't believe in breaking arms at all. If a parent broke their child's arm I would consider it abuse. If I had a child I would not let you physically discipline my child as you are not the parent. I would bathe my own child but I wouldn't let you bathe the child either.
So then praytell what is wrong with me using the same educational tool that you employ..is a daddy smack more special than a teacher smack. I'm willing to learn you know! Is it the force/speed/angle that makes it unique...
Why the hell would I be bathing your child in school anyway?
Actually speaking of loco parentis, would you prefer a child in a creche to keep a dirty nappy on all day ? Or is handing over of parental duties a completely different argument in that case.0 -
Advertisement
-
It stops with adults assaulting (or educating as you might call it) their children.
Sure ya london riots caused by lack of bum smacking, next thing you'll be advocating is mandatory conscription into the bloody army.
We are not talking about conscription into the army and nor did I state that the riots in London were caused by "a lack of bum smacking as you put it"0 -
I know plenty of kids forced to go to sports because their parents believe it will educate them in having a healthy lifestyle. The parents do not want their children to become too sedentary and so force the children to go to sports. The children are forced to engage in sports they do not want to do and can incur injuries, do you worry about these injuries when the children have not given consent? Or do you believe a parent could not force a child to participate in a sport without the childs permission?
Injuries occur in sport. Big deal. We know this. Injuries occur in a lot of human activities. Trying to compare and equate children suffering sports injuries to the deliberate and intentional inflicting of pain on a child through corporal punishment is bonkers. But, seeing as you want to, at least in sport it's child vs. child, both with free will and free to manoeuvre and avoid and challenge. Not really similar to a grown adult taking a belt or a spoon to a child.0 -
.....
sorry, there's just so much wrong with your post I can't even begin to start with it.
do you have kids? I do, two of my own and I've raised a 3rd and I can tell you now, categorically that there is NEVER EVER under any circumstances any need to intentionally cause physical pain to a child to "teach" them anything, there is just no need for it. ever.
anyone who is intentionally physically hurting their child is doing so utterly needlessly because there are plenty of other effective, but non-violent ways of disciplining a child no matter how that child is misbehaving. I'd say ask a teacher, but we already have one here and they do it every single day with other peoples kids and more of them than you'll ever have to handle on your own in your whole life.
you can try and sugar coat it all you want, but that is what it comes down to. needless violence committed by an adult against a small defenseless child. so please tell me again how you can justify needlessly causing a child physical pain?
A meta-analysis of 88 research studies by Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff of Columbia University testifies to many long and short-term dangers of corporal punishment and concludes that corporal punishment of children is “associated with all child constructs, including higher levels of immediate compliance and aggression and lower levels of moral internalization and mental health.”
the full study can be found HERE but this is the summary.Gershoff examined hundreds of studies and presented the results of meta-analyses of the association between parental physical punishment and child and adult outcomes. She found that in childhood physical punishment was positively associated with aggression, delinquent and antisocial behavior, and being the victim of physical abuse; it was negatively associated with the quality of the parent-child relationship, mental health, and more internalization (child's internalizing of socially acceptable behavior); and associations with immediate compliance were mixed. When measured in adulthood, physical punishment was positively associated with aggression, criminal and antisocial behavior, and adult abuse of one's own child or spouse; physical punishment was negatively associated with mental health.
Gershoff also summarized the various demographic and risk factors which are more likely to be associated with use of physical punishment: being single, separated, or divorced; excessive stress from negative life events; maternal depression; lower income, education, and job status; southern part of the United States; and conservative religious beliefs and affiliation.0 -
0
-
moc moc a moc wrote: »Don't be a stooge. Equal rights come hand in hand with equal responsibility.
explain like i'm stupid how men and women are physically equal
if they aren't they their reactions should be weighted noi?0 -
Advertisement
-
Pawwed Rig wrote: »How about do not hit anyone instead?
ok but the context here was hitting a woman
i didn't say don't hit women but batter away at the lads0 -
So then praytell what is wrong with me using the same educational tool that you employ..is a daddy smack more special than a teacher smack. I'm willing to learn you know! Is it the force/speed/angle that makes it unique...
Why the hell would I be bathing your child in school anyway?
Actually speaking of loco parentis, would you prefer a child in a creche to keep a dirty nappy on all day ? Or is handing over of parental duties a completely different argument in that case.
Because the relationship between teacher and student is different between parent and child. Your argument is that just because a parent engages in certain behaviour with their child that inherently a teacher should be able to engage in the same behaviour. This is a flawed argument which I have already pointed out by using the bathing example. A parent has the right to bathe their child as they are the parent yet a teacher would not have this same right to behaviour. Simply put a parent should be able to discipline their child in ways a teacher cannot.
Apart from physical discipline do you believe teachers have the right to engage in all other behaviour a parent does with their child?Injuries occur in sport. Big deal. We know this. Injuries occur in a lot of human activities. Trying to compare and equate children suffering sports injuries to the deliberate and intentional inflicting of pain on a child through corporal punishment is bonkers. But, seeing as you want to, at least in sport it's child vs. child, both with free will and free to manoeuvre and avoid and challenge. Not really similar to a grown adult taking a belt or a spoon to a child.
The big deal is the deal you made about physical discipline. You said you would be very worried about the effects of a sore behind on a child, if it is the physical injury I have said sprots injuries are worse. If it is the psychological effect of being physically hurt against their will then what about those kids that are forced into sports by their parents? Do you believe a parent that forces their child to do sports is abusing them? The child does not want to play, they are being forced to against their will and they will probably receive a worse injury than a sore behind. Is that child abuse in your eyes as well? Or is it no big deal because it's sports and it's not big deal about the parent forcing a child to against their will because the parent is acting in what they believe is the best interests of the child?sorry, there's just so much wrong with your post I can't even begin to start with it.
do you have kids? I do, two of my own and I've raised a 3rd and I can tell you now, categorically that there is NEVER EVER under any circumstances any need to intentionally cause physical pain to a child to "teach" them anything, there is just no need for it. ever.
anyone who is intentionally physically hurting their child is doing so utterly needlessly because there are plenty of other effective, but non-violent ways of disciplining a child no matter how that child is misbehaving. I'd say ask a teacher, but we already have one here and they do it every single day with other peoples kids and more of them than you'll ever have to handle on your own in your whole life.
you can try and sugar coat it all you want, but that is what it comes down to. needless violence committed by an adult against a small defenseless child. so please tell me again how you can justify needlessly causing a child physical pain?
A meta-analysis of 88 research studies by Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff of Columbia University testifies to many long and short-term dangers of corporal punishment and concludes that corporal punishment of children is “associated with all child constructs, including higher levels of immediate compliance and aggression and lower levels of moral internalization and mental health.”
the full study can be found HERE but this is the summary.
No I don't have kids, I am speaking from experience as someone that was phsyically disciplined by my parents when I was a child. May I ask you if you were physically disciplined as a child?
Your argument is based on the assumption that a parent physically disciplining a child does so because they believe nothing else will work, as you believe there are other alternatives this justifies your belief that it should never ever be used. Your assumption is flawed, for my parents it was never because they felt there was no alternative but rather in certain situations it was more efficient than the alternatives. They believed it would teach me a more realistic view of the world. They would try and be reasonable with me but if I still acted out and did not respond to them in a reasonable manner then it could result in violence. This is closer to real life than a child who have never been physically disciplined. If you go out into the city and act in an unreasonable manner the chance of encountering violence is quite high. I do not go through my life expecting other people to react to me with calm reassuring words no matter how unreasonable I am being, I expect if I behaved in such a way someone would eventually be violent towards me.
Do you have the same view regarding other parenting choices? Take breastfeeding for example. All the scientific research points out how it is significantly better for the well being of the child and the mother yet some mother choose not to. Do you accept it as a parents choice or do you say there is never ever an excuse to formula feed an infant when there are better alternatives in breastmilk? Breastmilk is objectively better for the infants well being but I believe it is a personal parenting choice just like I do not advocate that physical discipline should be used by all parents but rather it is just another parental choice.0 -
Because the relationship between teacher and student is different between parent and child. Your argument is that just because a parent engages in certain behaviour with their child that inherently a teacher should be able to engage in the same behaviour. This is a flawed argument which I have already pointed out by using the bathing example. A parent has the right to bathe their child as they are the parent yet a teacher would not have this same right to behaviour. Simply put a parent should be able to discipline their child in ways a teacher cannot.
Apart from physical discipline do you believe teachers have the right to engage in all other behaviour a parent does with their child?
Actually teachers and care givers (like in a creche etc.) have a duty to act in the interests of a child as a parent does. it's called loco parentis (look it up)..
Sooo if your chld soiled themselves in a creche you would go charging in giving out about how somebody dared to change and clean your child? Similarly in primary school and an accident happens (as they do!) would you be happy for the child to sit there all day in soiled clothes..
So consequently your bathing example is flawed.. Of course a teacher wouldn;t be allowed to bathe a child just for the sake of it.. it's acting reasonably as a parent would at home..
Now the question still remains, say if he clocks were rewound (pre 1984) and corporal punishment was 'ok' .... would you mind if i 'disciplined' your child the same way you do at home?
Never did you any harm eh! so what about your kids? not so easy is it..0 -
Actually teachers and care givers (like in a creche etc.) have a duty to act in the interests of a child as a parent does. it's called loco parentis (look it up)..
Sooo if your chld soiled themselves in a creche you would go charging in giving out about how somebody dared to change and clean your child? Similarly in primary school and an accident happens (as they do!) would you be happy for the child to sit there all day in soiled clothes..
So consequently your bathing example is flawed.. Of course a teacher wouldn;t be allowed to bathe a child just for the sake of it.. it's acting reasonably as a parent would at home..
Now the question still remains, say if he clocks were rewound (pre 1984) and corporal punishment was 'ok' .... would you mind if i 'disciplined' your child the same way you do at home?
Never did you any harm eh! so what about your kids? not so easy is it..
Acting in the interests of the child yes, acting in the exact same way as a parent is not the same. Do you believe a teacher has the rights to send a student to bed without dinner? Take away their TV or game time? Ground them for the weekend? I wouldn't complain about a creche cleaning a child as that is part of the contract. It is part of the services provided. Schools do not provide corporal punishment officially so I do not see what your point is. I do not believe my bathing example is entirely flawed. A child can be 4 or 5 when they enter primary school. If such a child got dirty I do not believe any teacher would completely undress the child and bathe them in a bathtub like a parent would, do you?Just because a parent has the right to do something in their home does not automatically mean a teacher has the right to the same behaviour in their classroom.
Once again I do not have children, I am speaking as someone who was physically disciplined growing up.
I personally do not believe in corporal punishment in the classroom. As it is a parental choice I believe it should be left up to the parents to decide if it is something they want part of the childs upbringing. I do not believe in religious doctrine in schools either for similar reasons. I believe religion is a parental choice that should be kept out of the classroom.
In case you missed my question from my last post I will ask it again. Do you believe parents that choose to formula feed their children as opposed to breast milk are wrong? All the scientific studies show breastmilk is objectively better for the health of the child so according to your opposition to corporal punishment there is never ever a need for it as to you it is objectively better to avoid corporal punishment.0 -
Acting in the interests of the child yes, acting in the exact same way as a parent is not the same.
The clue is in the second word loco parentis.. look it up(please)Do you believe a teacher has the rights to send a student to bed without dinner?
Assuming it might be on a school trip (as I don;t really see the possibility of a parent going into your home and sending your child to bed without dinner)..If the parent gives consent for the teacher to do so and it doesn;t have any adverse health impact on the child then YES ...Take away their TV or game time?
Yes with the above stipulations ..again loco parentis
YES .. similar analogy would be taking away privileges at lunch time or removing extra curricular activities ... again consent would be implied no adverse health impactGround them for the weekend?I wouldn't complain about a creche cleaning a child as that is part of the contract. It is part of the services provided.
It's much more than contract .. it's duty of care, even if it weren;t in the contract you would be negligent in doing so.Schools do not provide corporal punishment officially so I do not see what your point is.
I'm not making a point I'm asking a question to see what your TRUE views are..
..
If corporal punishment was OK (as it was pre 1984).. would you have any problem with a teacher administering physical punishment the exact same way you might at home?
You say no! because of parental choice... just because it is parental choice doesn;t make it right.. this is what the debate is about. Is it discipline or abuse? For you at home it's discipline ... however if it was the same incident and a teacher in school administered it you would call that abuse (I presume!). Yet when you send your child to school you expect another adult to act the same way you would at home...
As for the breast feeding analogy attempt... the above logic (which is what I assume you would concur with) is like saying that you can bottle feed your child at home but if you send the child to the creche you would expect it to be breast fed...I do not believe my bathing example is entirely flawed. A child can be 4 or 5 when they enter primary school. If such a child got dirty I do not believe any teacher would completely undress the child and bathe them in a bathtub like a parent would, do you?
Ahhh! so how does the child get magically clean when you pick them up. Dunno maybe I'm wrong and some Primary teacher could set me straight...
Clean the child or let them be the whole day till home time?Just because a parent has the right to do something in their home does not automatically mean a teacher has the right to the same behaviour in their classroom.
That is what the debate is centered on ... but you seem to take the position that at home it's Discipline but for someone acting in accordance with the parents wishes it would be abuse.... despite the fact that you would approve of the action...
You still have to explain what the difference between the slap of the parent's hand is and the Teacher's hand is.. Is it the angle/force what?? You can;t just say 'oh it's different because I'm the parent' .. both cases have the same causes and effect.
And again you were disciplined at home and it didn;t do you any harm...
Were you disciplined at school? I presume so... No harm there either I suppose... so you would you be in any way troubled if it was re-introduced in school? Going by your line of logic , it shouldn;t trouble you in any way (never did you any harm).. but yet you do seem troubled by it. There's a bit of a discrepency in your logic.Once again I do not have children, I am speaking as someone who was physically disciplined growing up.
I personally do not believe in corporal punishment in the classroom. As it is a parental choice I believe it should be left up to the parents to decide if it is something they want part of the childs upbringing.[...]
See above last pointI do not believe in religious doctrine in schools either for similar reasons. I believe religion is a parental choice that should be kept out of the classroom.
But if you teach your child religion at home and it is taught in schools why would you have a problem with it. Following that line..
if you teach your child to read/write at home you could have an issue with a teacher doing it in school!!.
That also is for a completely different debate too (and there are many on here) so thata's really going down a rabbit holeIn case you missed my question from my last post I will ask it again. Do you believe parents that choose to formula feed their children as opposed to breast milk are wrong? All the scientific studies show breastmilk is objectively better for the health of the child
Again, that is muddying the waters with another debate. If it's not then we could start talking about parental choice and abortion which wouldn;t really do the thread any favours.
But seeing as we are quoting science... do you have any scientific studies to show that hitting your child is better than not hitting them... apart from the 1 case study you presented of "it did me no harm'. You may have noticed another poster has mentioned studies to show that it DOES have a detrimental effect..
Would that 'science' change your mind now ??so according to your opposition to corporal punishment there is never ever a need for it as to you it is objectively better to avoid corporal punishment.
Yes, just talk to your child and analyse what's wrong . There is a reason behind every misbehavior... it's your job as a parent to find out the reason.. not resort to physical abuse.0 -
The clue is in the second word loco parentis.. look it up(please)
Assuming it might be on a school trip (as I don;t really see the possibility of a parent going into your home and sending your child to bed without dinner)..If the parent gives consent for the teacher to do so and it doesn;t have any adverse health impact on the child then YES ...
Yes with the above stipulations ..again loco parentis
YES .. similar analogy would be taking away privileges at lunch time or removing extra curricular activities ... again consent would be implied no adverse health impact
It's much more than contract .. it's duty of care, even if it weren;t in the contract you would be negligent in doing so.
I have looked it up and it is not a carte blanche for teachers to behave in any way a parent would. It transfers some responsbilities and rights but not all. You genuinely believe a teacher can behave in any way a parent would be allowed to behave? You genuinely believe if a parent sent their child to secondary school and heard that a teacher had stripped the child naked and bathed them that the parent would be fine with it as the teacher can simply claim loco parentis? How do you explain how in Ireland it is legal for a parent to peform corporal punishment but it is not legal for a teacher to do it? Clearly there are separate rights between a parent and a teacher and I do not understand why you are insisting anything a parent can do to their child a teacher can do the same.I'm not making a point I'm asking a question to see what your TRUE views are..
..
If corporal punishment was OK (as it was pre 1984).. would you have any problem with a teacher administering physical punishment the exact same way you might at home?
You say no! because of parental choice... just because it is parental choice doesn;t make it right.. this is what the debate is about. Is it discipline or abuse? For you at home it's discipline ... however if it was the same incident and a teacher in school administered it you would call that abuse (I presume!). Yet when you send your child to school you expect another adult to act the same way you would at home...
I have already written my views. Corporal punishment is morally ok in my book for parents. I do not view it as wrong and I do not believe it negatively impacted my development as it was done to me. I do not automatically grant a teacher the same rights as a parent, I have no clue why you assume they have identical rights hence it makes perfect sense to me that a parent can do something that a teacher can not.
If the debate is about the morality of it then why are you bringing teachers into the debate? What difference do teachers make if I have the believe that a parent engaging in corporal punishment is not morally wrong?As for the breast feeding analogy attempt... the above logic (which is what I assume you would concur with) is like saying that you can bottle feed your child at home but if you send the child to the creche you would expect it to be breast fed...
Not at all, whatever choice the parent makes they provide for the child. If you choose to breastfeed your child you provide bottled breastmilk when the child goes to creche. The same as my stance that if a parent chooses to engage in corporal punishment it is not up to the school to provide it as it is the parents choice. If a child behaves poorly a teacher advises the parent and the parent can peform the corporal punishment at home. Your stance is that anything a parent chooses a teacher has the same rights, under your stance if a mother chooses to breastfeed her child and places the child in the creche the carer can claim loco parentis and breastfeed the child herself?Ahhh! so how does the child get magically clean when you pick them up. Dunno maybe I'm wrong and some Primary teacher could set me straight...
You can clean someone without resorting to a full bath. I don't know about you but when I was a child in primary school no teacher ever gave me a bath. If I got dirty they would use towels to clean me and that was the extent of it and certainly not a naked bath like my parents would.
If you learned teachers were giving your children naked baths would you be okay with it? Can you admit that parents and teachers can have differing levels of acceptence in peforming the same duty in caring for the child?That is what the debate is centered on ... but you seem to take the position that at home it's Discipline but for someone acting in accordance with the parents wishes it would be abuse.... despite the fact that you would approve of the action...
You still have to explain what the difference between the slap of the parent's hand is and the Teacher's hand is.. Is it the angle/force what?? You can;t just say 'oh it's different because I'm the parent' .. both cases have the same causes and effect.
It is not the slap but the hand that delivers it that is important. When I was disciplined as a child I trusted my parents were doing so out of love, I had a trust in my parents. I did not have this same level of trust with teachers. The same applies for many aspects of education. As I already mentioned I do not believe schools should be teaching children religion, I believe that is a personal decision for the parents. I do not trust schools to teach morality as it is subective so should be the parents alone, the same applies to corporal punishment.And again you were disciplined at home and it didn;t do you any harm...
Were you disciplined at school? I presume so... No harm there either I suppose... so you would you be in any way troubled if it was re-introduced in school? Going by your line of logic , it shouldn;t trouble you in any way (never did you any harm).. but yet you do seem troubled by it. There's a bit of a discrepency in your logic.
But if you teach your child religion at home and it is taught in schools why would you have a problem with it. Following that line..
if you teach your child to read/write at home you could have an issue with a teacher doing it in school!!.
That also is for a completely different debate too (and there are many on here) so thata's really going down a rabbit hole
I received no corporal punishment in primary school at all. In secondary school I was physically abused but it was minor and did me no harm. Within the first month of secondary school the vice principal grabbed me in the corridor and shoved me into the wall and I fell on the ground. I was called into the principals office and given an official warning. The vice principal accused me of punching another student which was untrue. I class it as physical abuse because he immediately pushed me into the wall without talking to me first. My parents would always talk to me and give me chances to behave reasonably before using physical discipline. I learned from the vice principal it is very different when physical violence is doled out for the sake of it without reason or discussion first.Again, that is muddying the waters with another debate. If it's not then we could start talking about parental choice and abortion which wouldn;t really do the thread any favours.
Why is it acceptable for you to muddy the waters by debating loco parentis and insisting that if a parent is allowed do it then a teacher should? Yet when I want to bring up a comparison you won't answer?
If the debate is about the morality yet you insist on debating a teachers right to corporal punishment why can't I ask if you condemn or condone the parents right to choose breastfeeding?
There is never any need for a parent to voluntarily choose to forumla feed their child yes or no?But seeing as we are quoting science... do you have any scientific studies to show that hitting your child is better than not hitting them... apart from the 1 case study you presented of "it did me no harm'. You may have noticed another poster has mentioned studies to show that it DOES have a detrimental effect..
Would that 'science' change your mind now ??
I read the study did you? The study was to analyse any behavioural change in a child that receives corporal punishment, it also stated that it wanted to do so in an unbiased way as many past studies were clearly biased against corporal punishment. The study also said a comparible study needs to be done on those children that do not receive corporal punishment to see if the rates of behavioural change are similar or disimilar. It basically admits there has never been an unbiased comparison between children who receive corporal punishment and those that do not. That hardly sounds definitive and conclusive to me.
Also I have never once said that hitting your child is better than not hitting them. I have said it should be a parental decision and no one elses, I also reject the claim that it is definitively immoral and damaging.Yes, just talk to your child and analyse what's wrong . There is a reason behind every misbehavior... it's your job as a parent to find out the reason.. not resort to physical abuse.
Resort, need, have to. These are all words no one has claimed. I have already said my parents never felt they had to, or they needed to, or felt it was their only resort. My parents chose to, they believed in certain situations corporal punishment is an effective teaching technique. As the recipient to their punishment I personally agree with them.0 -
The big deal is the deal you made about physical discipline. You said you would be very worried about the effects of a sore behind on a child, if it is the physical injury I have said sprots injuries are worse. If it is the psychological effect of being physically hurt against their will then what about those kids that are forced into sports by their parents? Do you believe a parent that forces their child to do sports is abusing them? The child does not want to play, they are being forced to against their will and they will probably receive a worse injury than a sore behind. Is that child abuse in your eyes as well? Or is it no big deal because it's sports and it's not big deal about the parent forcing a child to against their will because the parent is acting in what they believe is the best interests of the child?
Moving the goalposts here does your argument no good. Again, trying to equate children and sport with a parent hitting their child in a ritualistic manner to inflict physical pain is bonkers. You have moved the goalposts and brought in many abstract examples. You see no problem with deliberately and thoughtfully hitting children to discipline them, as you put it.
There is a lot of areas in parenting that we can agree with and disagree with. I wouldn't be one for "forcing" a child into a sport that they did not want to do. I do believe that encouragement, and a bit of push can help a child. Children can need this from time to time.
I don't like to pry too much, but you did say that you were physically disciplined, and you have been open and honest about that. I get the impression that as a child you were a gentle sort, easy sort and lovely child. Now, why would it be that your parents felt that at times you needed to be physically hit/beaten? Did you at times go crazy mad, and cause major problems for your parents? This is what I am trying to understand. What is it that a child would/could do for a parent to feel that the only solution was to be beat them with a belt or spoon?0 -
Moving the goalposts here does your argument no good. Again, trying to equate children and sport with a parent hitting their child in a ritualistic manner to inflict physical pain is bonkers. You have moved the goalposts and brought in many abstract examples. You see no problem with deliberately and thoughtfully hitting children to discipline them, as you put it.
There is a lot of areas in parenting that we can agree with and disagree with. I wouldn't be one for "forcing" a child into a sport that they did not want to do. I do believe that encouragement, and a bit of push can help a child. Children can need this from time to time.
I don't like to pry too much, but you did say that you were physically disciplined, and you have been open and honest about that. I get the impression that as a child you were a gentle sort, easy sort and lovely child. Now, why would it be that your parents felt that at times you needed to be physically hit/beaten? Did you at times go crazy mad, and cause major problems for your parents? This is what I am trying to understand. What is it that a child would/could do for a parent to feel that the only solution was to be beat them with a belt or spoon?
You see it's this generalisation and assumption that discipline with a belt or a wooden spoon is a brutal violent beating and an act of assault on a child. You talk about what is it that a child could do for a parent to feel that such punishment is necessary. You clearly classify any form of corporal punishment as abuse and are rigid in your opinion. Generations previous to us administered discipline this way and no one batted an eye. A lot of cultures still use corporal punishment in the school system and at home and what are they all, a nation of abusers assaulting their children regularly and leaving them damaged and dysfunctional adults? I don't think so.
We always hear the extreme examples of corporal punishment and hear the horror stories about physical punishment but no one wants to listen when someone says you know what, I got the belt/wooden spoon growing up and it taught me a lesson. Such punishment learned me right from wrong and before anyone patronises me and says it was abuse you just didn't realise it, it wasn't. I would have called it discipline ask then and still do today and what's more I have the best relationship with my parents .0 -
yes I was, by my father, never by my mother, although it was always my mother I was afraid of despite her never having laid a hand on me my whole life, which pretty much proves my point.No I don't have kids, I am speaking from experience as someone that was phsyically disciplined by my parents when I was a child. May I ask you if you were physically disciplined as a child?
he did it (and I have spoken to him about it since) for exactly the same reasons you are advocating it, because it had been done to him as a child and "it never did him any harm". except it did. aside from any psychological damage it may have done, it instilled in him (much as I assume it did for his father, and his father etc. going back countless generations) the belief that it is okay to physically hit a child to "discipline" them, which is it not.
and that's not just my belief, it is the belief of just about every child welfare group in the developed world and of the 88 separate studies from all over the world on physically disciplining children that were used in the meta-analysis i posted previously that you have conveniently ignored because it doesn't suit your cause.Your argument is based on the assumption that a parent physically disciplining a child does so because they believe nothing else will work, as you believe there are other alternatives this justifies your belief that it should never ever be used. Your assumption is flawed, for my parents it was never because they felt there was no alternative but rather in certain situations it was more efficient than the alternatives. They believed it would teach me a more realistic view of the world. They would try and be reasonable with me but if I still acted out and did not respond to them in a reasonable manner then it could result in violence. This is closer to real life than a child who have never been physically disciplined. If you go out into the city and act in an unreasonable manner the chance of encountering violence is quite high. I do not go through my life expecting other people to react to me with calm reassuring words no matter how unreasonable I am being, I expect if I behaved in such a way someone would eventually be violent towards me.
all well and good except that it clearly isn't the case if you read ANY of the studies into corporal punishment in the home. it doesn't work and it does harm, whether you believe it or not, that's the simple fact of the matter and your insistence the "it didn't do you any harm" is exactly the problem that perpetuates the issue.
there simply is NEVER a valid reason for hitting kids when other non-violent methods work perfectly fine. when you have kids, you'll discover that they will learn plenty enough about the dangers of the real world from school and those around them without any need for you having to beat it into them.Do you have the same view regarding other parenting choices? Take breastfeeding for example. All the scientific research points out how it is significantly better for the well being of the child and the mother yet some mother choose not to. Do you accept it as a parents choice or do you say there is never ever an excuse to formula feed an infant when there are better alternatives in breastmilk? Breastmilk is objectively better for the infants well being but I believe it is a personal parenting choice just like I do not advocate that physical discipline should be used by all parents but rather it is just another parental choice.
breast feeding is actually something i feel very strongly about and in the best interests of the child, they *should* breastfeed if possible and not breastfeeding does carry significant risks to the long term health and well being of that child. statistically less than 10% of women genuinely can't breastfeed, but plenty give up because it can be VERY hard. my wife spent almost a month in prolonged agony worse than childbirth (her words) trying to breastfeed our youngest before she finally got it sorted and I wouldn't blame any woman for having given up long before that, but choosing how to feed your child is not comparable to hitting them because one way or another a child needs feeding regardless of how it's done, whereas striking a defenseless child is an indefensible abuse of the parent/child relationship which does statistically measurable harm and no measurable good to those being hit.
you are choosing specifically to cause physical harm to a child when there is no measurable benefit at all, but there IS proven, measurable harm to that child and that is what it boils down to, pretty much a textbook definition of abuse.0 -
I have looked it up and it is not a carte blanche for teachers to behave in any way a parent would. It transfers some responsbilities and rights but not all. You genuinely believe a teacher can behave in any way a parent would be allowed to behave? You genuinely believe if a parent sent their child to secondary school and heard that a teacher had stripped the child naked and bathed them that the parent would be fine with it as the teacher can simply claim loco parentis? How do you explain how in Ireland it is legal for a parent to peform corporal punishment but it is not legal for a teacher to do it? Clearly there are separate rights between a parent and a teacher and I do not understand why you are insisting anything a parent can do to their child a teacher can do the same.
I have already written my views. Corporal punishment is morally ok in my book for parents. I do not view it as wrong and I do not believe it negatively impacted my development as it was done to me. I do not automatically grant a teacher the same rights as a parent, I have no clue why you assume they have identical rights hence it makes perfect sense to me that a parent can do something that a teacher can not.
If the debate is about the morality of it then why are you bringing teachers into the debate? What difference do teachers make if I have the believe that a parent engaging in corporal punishment is not morally wrong?
Not at all, whatever choice the parent makes they provide for the child. If you choose to breastfeed your child you provide bottled breastmilk when the child goes to creche. The same as my stance that if a parent chooses to engage in corporal punishment it is not up to the school to provide it as it is the parents choice. If a child behaves poorly a teacher advises the parent and the parent can peform the corporal punishment at home. Your stance is that anything a parent chooses a teacher has the same rights, under your stance if a mother chooses to breastfeed her child and places the child in the creche the carer can claim loco parentis and breastfeed the child herself?
You can clean someone without resorting to a full bath. I don't know about you but when I was a child in primary school no teacher ever gave me a bath. If I got dirty they would use towels to clean me and that was the extent of it and certainly not a naked bath like my parents would.
If you learned teachers were giving your children naked baths would you be okay with it? Can you admit that parents and teachers can have differing levels of acceptence in peforming the same duty in caring for the child?
It is not the slap but the hand that delivers it that is important. When I was disciplined as a child I trusted my parents were doing so out of love, I had a trust in my parents. I did not have this same level of trust with teachers. The same applies for many aspects of education. As I already mentioned I do not believe schools should be teaching children religion, I believe that is a personal decision for the parents. I do not trust schools to teach morality as it is subective so should be the parents alone, the same applies to corporal punishment.
I received no corporal punishment in primary school at all. In secondary school I was physically abused but it was minor and did me no harm. Within the first month of secondary school the vice principal grabbed me in the corridor and shoved me into the wall and I fell on the ground. I was called into the principals office and given an official warning. The vice principal accused me of punching another student which was untrue. I class it as physical abuse because he immediately pushed me into the wall without talking to me first. My parents would always talk to me and give me chances to behave reasonably before using physical discipline. I learned from the vice principal it is very different when physical violence is doled out for the sake of it without reason or discussion first.
Why is it acceptable for you to muddy the waters by debating loco parentis and insisting that if a parent is allowed do it then a teacher should? Yet when I want to bring up a comparison you won't answer?
If the debate is about the morality yet you insist on debating a teachers right to corporal punishment why can't I ask if you condemn or condone the parents right to choose breastfeeding?
There is never any need for a parent to voluntarily choose to forumla feed their child yes or no?
I read the study did you? The study was to analyse any behavioural change in a child that receives corporal punishment, it also stated that it wanted to do so in an unbiased way as many past studies were clearly biased against corporal punishment. The study also said a comparible study needs to be done on those children that do not receive corporal punishment to see if the rates of behavioural change are similar or disimilar. It basically admits there has never been an unbiased comparison between children who receive corporal punishment and those that do not. That hardly sounds definitive and conclusive to me.
Also I have never once said that hitting your child is better than not hitting them. I have said it should be a parental decision and no one elses, I also reject the claim that it is definitively immoral and damaging.
Resort, need, have to. These are all words no one has claimed. I have already said my parents never felt they had to, or they needed to, or felt it was their only resort. My parents chose to, they believed in certain situations corporal punishment is an effective teaching technique. As the recipient to their punishment I personally agree with them.
Ah yess the old teaching technique argument.. Like THIS
More than 670,000 copies of the Pearls’ self-published book are in circulation, and it is especially popular among Christian home-schoolers, who praise it in their magazines and on their Web sites. The Pearls provide instructions on using a switch from as early as six months to discourage misbehavior and describe how to make use of implements for hitting on the arms, legs or back, including a quarter-inch flexible plumbing line that, Mr. Pearl notes, “can be rolled up and carried in your pocket.”
I presume you would find this sick.. as it mentions a 6month old.. So what is the difference with a 12month old.. or bring it forward a bit 2yr old..6 year old..18yr old 28 yr old
When exactly is it a good time to hit your child? And why that age in particular?
Don;t forget.. when a child misbehaves he's had only one teacher so far.. if you are inflicting physical abuse on him you should be doing it on yourself straight after for making the mistake of teaching them incorrectly..
Now lets zoom forward a bit.. your children are well raised and cant afford to place you in a nursing home so decide to take care of you... As things turn out you start to resent being looked after and act out and refuse to conform to their basic reasonable requests... Is it ok for them to give you 'the back of the hand' as an 'effective teaching technique'? Why is it so different that you are an adult...
You'ld hit a child because they don;t understand. So after hitting them they now understand??0 -
Advertisement
-
and both they and you have been proven wrong by countless amounts of research on the subject and you have just admitted yourself that their beating you was entirely unnecessary.Resort, need, have to. These are all words no one has claimed. I have already said my parents never felt they had to, or they needed to, or felt it was their only resort. My parents chose to, they believed in certain situations corporal punishment is an effective teaching technique. As the recipient to their punishment I personally agree with them.my parents never felt they had to, or they needed to, or felt it was their only resort.
this is you freely admitting that your parents beat you as a young child with a wooden spoon (albeit mistakenly) totally unnecessarily.
they CHOSE to beat you, even though we now know that it does no good and does cause harm as backed up by a huge wealth of research on the subject, which is why corporal punishment is increasingly being banned all around the world and even where it hasn't been, using implements to do it (such as wooden spoons, canes or belts) is already outlawed because it constitutes child abuse.0 -
Ah yess the old teaching technique argument.. Like THIS
More than 670,000 copies of the Pearls’ self-published book are in circulation, and it is especially popular among Christian home-schoolers, who praise it in their magazines and on their Web sites. The Pearls provide instructions on using a switch from as early as six months to discourage misbehavior and describe how to make use of implements for hitting on the arms, legs or back, including a quarter-inch flexible plumbing line that, Mr. Pearl notes, “can be rolled up and carried in your pocket.”
I presume you would find this sick.. as it mentions a 6month old.. So what is the difference with a 12month old.. or bring it forward a bit 2yr old..6 year old..18yr old 28 yr old
When exactly is it a good time to hit your child? And why that age in particular?
Yes I do find it sick using a switch on a 6 month old. As I have already explained, my parents would try and reason with me first. You can't reason with a child too young to communicate. Do you sit there and try to reasonably converse to an infant that you want it to stop crying? My parents stopped disciplining me around 8 or 9 as by that age I realised I preferred to talk to my parents in a reasonable manner rather than continue to act unreasonably.Don;t forget.. when a child misbehaves he's had only one teacher so far.. if you are inflicting physical abuse on him you should be doing it on yourself straight after for making the mistake of teaching them incorrectly..
This is a silly argument to make. Teaching them incorrectly? When you potty trained your children if they **** their pants would you **** your own pants for teaching them incorrectly? If you calmly conversed with your child to tell them stealing is wrong and the child then stole you would sit there in front of a mirror and give yourself the same stealing is wrong speech? You are applying a set of logic to physical discipline that you would not apply to your non-physical methods.Now lets zoom forward a bit.. your children are well raised and cant afford to place you in a nursing home so decide to take care of you... As things turn out you start to resent being looked after and act out and refuse to conform to their basic reasonable requests... Is it ok for them to give you 'the back of the hand' as an 'effective teaching technique'? Why is it so different that you are an adult...
So when I mentioned breastfeeding you refuse to answer my questions as you deem it muddying the waters but you feel perfectly fine bringing up nursing homes. I will answer this if you go back and answer my breastfeeding questions. That sounds fair and reasonable to me, how about you?You'ld hit a child because they don;t understand. So after hitting them they now understand??
Have I not already explained my parents reasoning? Did you not understand what I have previously written? You either understood what I previously wrote but are choosing to intentionally misrepresent my stance due to your opposition to it or you did not comprehend what I wrote in which case can you point out which paragraphs of mine you did not understand?
Since you believe corporal punishment is inherently abuse. You also believe it is inherently damaging to a child. You also believe violence does not teach children anything but violence. Can you then explain how I have developed as an adult?
I was physically disciplined as a child. I have no criminal record, I have never started a fight in my life. I tell you I learned from my parents. I have a good job. I have a stable life. So to you how do you explain it? Do you believe I never learned from my parents? That I have some sort of hidden emotional trauma over the discipline growing up? If I don't believe my parents discipling me growing up affected me in a negative way how does that fit into your model that corporal punishment is inherently wrong and damaging?0 -
yes I was, by my father, never by my mother, although it was always my mother I was afraid of despite her never having laid a hand on me my whole life, which pretty much proves my point.
How does it prove your point that you were less afraid of the person who physically disciplined you than you were of someone who did not? To me that sounds like it is in opposition to your point. That you were more afraid of non-physical discipline than of the physical kind.he did it (and I have spoken to him about it since) for exactly the same reasons you are advocating it, because it had been done to him as a child and "it never did him any harm". except it did. aside from any psychological damage it may have done, it instilled in him (much as I assume it did for his father, and his father etc. going back countless generations) the belief that it is okay to physically hit a child to "discipline" them, which is it not.
So it "may" have caused your father psychological damage. You were physically disciplined so do you feel it psychologically damaged you? Is that damage more or less than the psychological fear you had of your mother?
So physical disciplining is wrong because it teachers those kids to physically discipline their kids growing up, except it didn't with you. So you are blaming it for something you have disproven with your own life choices.and that's not just my belief, it is the belief of just about every child welfare group in the developed world and of the 88 separate studies from all over the world on physically disciplining children that were used in the meta-analysis i posted previously that you have conveniently ignored because it doesn't suit your cause.
I read your meta-analysis and posted about it but you appear not to have read that post of mine. The meta-analysis itself says nearly all previous studies are biased against corporal punishment before they begin. The are biased studies. The meta-analysis then goes on to say that these studies only focus on children who have been disciplined, there has been no scientific study on children who have not been physically disiciplined and it recommends such studies take place.
You cannot declare that corporal punishment is worse for childhood behaviour when no studies have been done on those that did not encounter it growing up.breast feeding is actually something i feel very strongly about and in the best interests of the child, they *should* breastfeed if possible and not breastfeeding does carry significant risks to the long term health and well being of that child. statistically less than 10% of women genuinely can't breastfeed, but plenty give up because it can be VERY hard. my wife spent almost a month in prolonged agony worse than childbirth (her words) trying to breastfeed our youngest before she finally got it sorted and I wouldn't blame any woman for having given up long before that, but choosing how to feed your child is not comparable to hitting them because one way or another a child needs feeding regardless of how it's done, whereas striking a defenseless child is an indefensible abuse of the parent/child relationship which does statistically measurable harm and no measurable good to those being hit.
It is directly comparable. All children need to be fed, All children need to learn. In feeding there are two parental choices possible, breastmilk or formula. In teaching a child there are parental choices possible, corporal punishment and non physical methods. You believe a woman should breastfeed a child as it is objectively better for the child but you do not blame them if they give up, you do not condemn them for choosing the objectively inferior and potentially health damaging choice. You believe that a parent should never physically discipline a child as it is objectively better for the child but you do condemn parents that choose the objectively inferior and potentially health damaging choice.you are choosing specifically to cause physical harm to a child when there is no measurable benefit at all, but there IS proven, measurable harm to that child and that is what it boils down to, pretty much a textbook definition of abuse.
I believe there was measurable benefit when my parents disciplined me and so have others posted in this thread. You write in absolutes so how do you reconcile my experience? Am I wrong about my own personal experiences growing up? So once again tell me how I am damaged from my childhood or how my life would be improved if I was not physically disciplined?and both they and you have been proven wrong by countless amounts of research on the subject and you have just admitted yourself that their beating you was entirely unnecessary.
this is you freely admitting that your parents beat you as a young child with a wooden spoon (albeit mistakenly) totally unnecessarily.
they CHOSE to beat you, even though we now know that it does no good and does cause harm as backed up by a huge wealth of research on the subject, which is why corporal punishment is increasingly being banned all around the world and even where it hasn't been, using implements to do it (such as wooden spoons, canes or belts) is already outlawed because it constitutes child abuse.
Proven wrong? Where is the proof? The meta-analysis stated how biased all the studies were and how further studies are required before any conclusion can be based on it's theoretical findings. They use the word "theoretical" themselves in their own study. When something is a theory it is not "proof".
Yes it was unecessary, it was a choice. I do not propose that all parents need to physically their children or that all parents need not to avoid physically disciplining their children. My opinion is that it is a personal parental choice.
I feel like I learned from my parents physically disciplining me. I feel like it helped me develop in a positive manner. It was not necessary but I am glad my parents did it and I have no resentment towards them at all. Of course I must be wrong and deep down I am an psychologically traumatised by it, the trauma just has not chosen to express itself in my life yet.0 -
the point was that the threat of physical violence (and actual violence) was less effective as a deterrent than the non-physical discipline i got growing up from my mother.How does it prove your point that you were less afraid of the person who physically disciplined you than you were of someone who did not? To me that sounds like it is in opposition to your point. That you were more afraid of non-physical discipline than of the physical kind.
it obviously did cause my father psychological damage and helped perpetuate his mistaken belief that he was "doing good" by being physically violent towards me.So it "may" have caused your father psychological damage. You were physically disciplined so do you feel it psychologically damaged you? Is that damage more or less than the psychological fear you had of your mother?
i've made the choice to end the cycle of violence, apparently YOU haven't, which is a very common problem amongst abusers and victims that helps perpetuate the problem.So physical disciplining is wrong because it teachers those kids to physically discipline their kids growing up, except it didn't with you. So you are blaming it for something you have disproven with your own life choices.
so rather than be sensible about it, you intend to beat your children into submission with a wooden spoon to teach them discipline until someoe makes it illegal for you to do so. that's great, go you.I read your meta-analysis and posted about it but you appear not to have read that post of mine. The meta-analysis itself says nearly all previous studies are biased against corporal punishment before they begin. The are biased studies. The meta-analysis then goes on to say that these studies only focus on children who have been disciplined, there has been no scientific study on children who have not been physically disiciplined and it recommends such studies take place.
it's called common sense, you should try some.You cannot declare that corporal punishment is worse for childhood behaviour when no studies have been done on those that did not encounter it growing up.
no, I certainly would judge someone who looked at the evidence for breastfeeding and simply chose not to if it was about the mother, not the child, rather than someone who had tried and failed.It is directly comparable. All children need to be fed, All children need to learn. In feeding there are two parental choices possible, breastmilk or formula. In teaching a child there are parental choices possible, corporal punishment and non physical methods. You believe a woman should breastfeed a child as it is objectively better for the child but you do not blame them if they give up, you do not condemn them for choosing the objectively inferior and potentially health damaging choice. You believe that a parent should never physically discipline a child as it is objectively better for the child but you do condemn parents that choose the objectively inferior and potentially health damaging choice.
but it's still NOT the same thing. nobody HAS to physically beat a child at all, ever, whereas a child DOES need sustenance.
i've already done that and got in trouble for my honest opinion, so i'm not going to let you bait me into it again. its very obvious from your attitude here though that you were.I believe there was measurable benefit when my parents disciplined me and so have others posted in this thread. You write in absolutes so how do you reconcile my experience? Am I wrong about my own personal experiences growing up? So once again tell me how I am damaged from my childhood or how my life would be improved if I was not physically disciplined?
so just keep battering your kids with a wooden spoon because it "didn't do you any harm" until someone can come along with irrefutable proof that it does do damage to them.Proven wrong? Where is the proof? The meta-analysis stated how biased all the studies were and how further studies are required before any conclusion can be based on it's theoretical findings. They use the word "theoretical" themselves in their own study. When something is a theory it is not "proof".
again, you are advocating to entirely unnecessary physical violence towards defenseless children. you have clearly answered the previous question yourself by your own admission.Yes it was unecessary, it was a choice. I do not propose that all parents need to physically their children or that all parents need not to avoid physically disciplining their children. My opinion is that it is a personal parental choice.
yes, you are wrong and no, it's really not that deep down at all, it's plain to see the damage caused.I feel like I learned from my parents physically disciplining me. I feel like it helped me develop in a positive manner. It was not necessary but I am glad my parents did it and I have no resentment towards them at all. Of course I must be wrong and deep down I am an psychologically traumatised by it, the trauma just has not chosen to express itself in my life yet.0 -
Let's leave this formula milk vs. breastfed milk out of it. Formula milk has been cleared by the authorities/experts a a healthy alternative for babies feeding. Is it as healthy? Probably not; so what.....0
-
Let's leave this formula milk vs. breastfed milk out of it. Formula milk has been cleared by the authorities/experts a a healthy alternative for babies feeding. Is it as healthy? Probably not; so what.....
Because the exact same argument can be said about corporal punishment. It has been cleared by the authorities in every country highlighted below in green. If you simply say lets not debate the morality of formula milk as it has been cleared by the authorities then the same argument applies to corporal punishment in Ireland.
If you want to argue that you believe no violent methods are better so should be used that is a position I can fully understand. It is when people argue absolute statements I do not understand.
"violence teaches them nothing but violence" - I disagree with as I was physically disciplined and I learned more than violence from my parents.
"It is completely unecessary" - I have never seen anyone claim it is necessary but rather claim it is an available technique that some people approve of and others do not. Some parents ban their children from watching TV as punishment, no one claims it is necessary. Certain parents believe it is a good technique and others do not.
"It is unhealthy and damaging" - I never felt damaged by it.
When people use these absolute statements yet I disagree with them based on my own personal experience to me it can only mean two things. One the absolutes are true and I have been damaged but not in any discernible way or impact on my life in which case it is surely so miniscule it is irrelevant. Or option two, the absolutes are not correct. Physical discipline is just like any other tool at a persons disposal, some parents can use it effectively and other cannot. My parents used it correctly on me as I only have a positive experience from it, for others it was used negatively which can be damaging.
Physical discipline is just a tool like a kitchen knife. In the right hands it can be used beneficially, in the wrong hands it can be used to murder someone. You don't blame the knife or say a knife is inherently wrong and evil, you blame the person who uses the tool irresponsibly. This is why in law there is a distinction between moderate acceptable use being corporal punishment and legal and unacceptable use which is damaging and deemed abuse and illegal.
0 -
Fair points, Maguined. It's a very complex area. I just feel that we shouldn't have to resort to physically striking human beings (children) to get a point across. The fact that it is still legal in some places doesn't hold much water for me.
BTW, this is a view from someone who is pro death penalty. I would not disagree with flogging for some people. Some nasty and evil people. People who have really hurt and abused other people. Me bringing this up just goes to show how broad and complex the area (of physical discipline/punishment) is.
But strictly speaking about inflicting ritualistic and deliberate physical pain on defenseless children to discipline them I abhor. Whether or not it damages them psychologically does not really interest me. That is something that is very personal. It's the pain (and I am sure, fear) that an adult brings to them at that point in time that makes me angry.0 -
Physical discipline is just a tool like a kitchen knife. In the right hands it can be used beneficially, in the wrong hands it can be used to murder someone. You don't blame the knife or say a knife is inherently wrong and evil, you blame the person who uses the tool irresponsibly. This is why in law there is a distinction between moderate acceptable use being corporal punishment and legal and unacceptable use which is damaging and deemed abuse and illegal.
But how in god's name do you define something like this? Leave it up to each parent and hope for the best? Hitting a child with an instrument or your bare hands has to hurt them, and it is abusing their right to not be physically hurt. How can it be policed? I mean you said yourself that you had a sore behind for a couple of hours? That's pain, and that is not moderation in any way. Is 2 hrs some arbitrary limit? What if it was sore for 4-6-8-10 hours?
Would a short and sharp smack on the hand not have been sufficient for you? Causing you a a lot less discomfort. Surely your parents, and other parents who advocate corporal punishment could have spared you 2 hrs of a sore behind, whilst also getting their point across with a physical act.
I guess one could call a short sharp smack on the hand corporal punishment?0 -
Fair points, Maguined. It's a very complex area. I just feel that we shouldn't have to resort to physically striking human beings (children) to get a point across. The fact that it is still legal in some places doesn't hold much water for me.
You are coming back to the absolute statements again by saying "resort" to violence, my parents did not feel they had to resort to physical discipline but rather in certain circumstances it was an efficient method to teach. Physical discipline was never a first, second or third response. My parents would always try and reason with me first but then if I did not respond I was physically disciplined. My parents could of spent more time being overly patient in order for me to calm down and it would work but they felt it would teach me a bad lesson in that all people I encounter in life will always be reasonable to me no matter how unreasonable I was being. By disciplining me it taught me reasonable is a two way street, if I wanted to be treated in a reasonable manner I had the responsibility to act reasonably myself.
I also agree it is a very complex area which is why I don't believe in absolute statements. I dont believe corporal punishment is either inherently better or worse than non-physical methods. It is simply one tool available to a parent and it is how skillfully it is used by the parent to see how damaging or helpful it can be.
I also agree the legality is not much of a point, I was only raising it in regards to the breastmilk point. If the fact the formula feed is allowed by the authorities is enough to make the debate invalid over the morality of breastmilk/formula then the same should apply to corporal punishment as it is also allowed by the authorities.But how in god's name do you define something like this? Leave it up to each parent and hope for the best? Hitting a child with an instrument or your bare hands has to hurt them, and it is abusing their right to not be physically hurt. How can it be policed? I mean you said yourself that you had a sore behind for a couple of hours? That's pain, and that is not moderation in any way. Is 2 hrs some arbitrary limit? What if it was sore for 4-6-8-10 hours?
Would a short and sharp smack on the hand not have been sufficient for you? Causing you a a lot less discomfort. Surely your parents, and other parents who advocate corporal punishment could have spared you 2 hrs of a sore behind, whilst also getting their point across with a physical act.
I guess one could call a short sharp smack on the hand corporal punishment?
It is already defined under law, it has to be a moderate application of physical pain that causes no permanent injury. Parents have been prosecuted by the courts for abuse. If someone feels the parent is abusing a child they can be reported and then it will be investigated. Like most crimes yes it is a very complex issue but like most complex issues in court a decision is still achieved.
If I was given a short sharp smack on the hand I doubt I would of learned from it, one of my aunts would use that to me if she was looking after me. As a kid I quickly realised it didn't bother me so it was not a deterent or a chance to learn at all. By having my behind sore for two hours that was two hours I was thinking about how I behaved to warrant the wooden spoon. By spending all that time thinking about my actions is how I learned from them. The vast majority of the time my parents had to discipline me it was reasolved by talking. It was only a small percentage that would result in physical discipline so spending those two hours identifying the difference between me getting the wooden spoon and not getting it really calm down to how reasonable I responded to my parents.
Can I ask your opinion on little girls getting their ears pierced? It is parental choice so there are many varied answers, I have seen two year olds with pierced ears and I have seen fourteen year olds that are still not allowed by their parents. Do you think a parent that allows their 6 year old daughter to get her ears pierced is committing abuse? The child is too young to give consent and it can be painful, pain that I warrant lasts longer than two hours from what I remember of my sister getting her ears pierced as a child. I have also heard of a child having her ears pierced against her consent because her mother wanted her to have it done. Is this also child abuse as it is unecessary physical pain to a child?0 -
Advertisement
-
But how in god's name do you define something like this? Leave it up to each parent and hope for the best? Hitting a child with an instrument or your bare hands has to hurt them, and it is abusing their right to not be physically hurt. How can it be policed? I mean you said yourself that you had a sore behind for a couple of hours? That's pain, and that is not moderation in any way. Is 2 hrs some arbitrary limit? What if it was sore for 4-6-8-10 hours?
Would a short and sharp smack on the hand not have been sufficient for you? Causing you a a lot less discomfort. Surely your parents, and other parents who advocate corporal punishment could have spared you 2 hrs of a sore behind, whilst also getting their point across with a physical act.
I guess one could call a short sharp smack on the hand corporal punishment?
You are making such a big stink over something that has such a wide area of context and variability without taking into consideration generational differences.
The big problem with punishment and reward is that both have to be increased over time to be effective. And then where do you go with that? There is no end game.
It would not suprise me if in 25 years time there was a thread on here about using the naughty step... discipline or abuse... using humiliation and shame to control your child.
Perspectives change over time and you have to allow for that.0
Advertisement