Smacking your child in public

luckat

If you want to bring up your children well, you have to spend plenty of time with them, and you have to treat them in a civilised, mannerly way.

Time spent with kids should be pleasant on both sides. If you want it to be like this, you have to like your kids.

It's a good idea to learn diplomacy. Learn how to circumvent problems before they arise. This is also a good lesson for your kids: they'll learn how do do the same with other people.

For instance, if a kid's getting hysterical with excitement before going out, just sit down and say "OK, we're going to have a bit of calm time before we go", and sit the kid down and sing a song with it or something.

(Don't imagine that this will lead to a whiny child. A child who's able to trust you, and who knows from experience that you keep your word, will sit down, will sing quietly, will calm down, and so won't be in danger when you go out to the road. But of course you should always hold a small child's hand on the road or kerb in any case.)

If you want to have good family life, you have to structure the rest of your life around it. Working 12 hours a day isn't going to make you able to be a good parent when you go home. I know this from experience.

The main thing, though, is to be a loving parent. And people don't hit people they love.

bonkey

luckat wrote:

And people don't hit people they love.

So you're saying that my parents don't/didn't love me? And the same of all the parents of all other posters here who have said they got hit/slapped by their parents?

The word "oversimplification" springs to mind.....as does you idyllic "how to raise a child properly" issue. If it was that simple, don't you think we'd have mastered it by now?

On an aside...this is looking far more like a Humanities thread at this stage. No-one seems to be discussing teh poltical aspect, but rather the numanitarian "is it right in principle" side. Should we move the thead?

Gurgle

MrPudding wrote:

What are you talking about?

Now that you're all growed up you [appear to] believe that you misbehaved as a child to the point that slapping was the only way to teach you better. You imply that you believe your parents were right to slap you because you deserved it.
I referred to this belief that you deserved to be hit as an inferiority complex, in an amateur attempt to analyse a few words from someone I don't know.

I got slapped occasionally as a child. Now, as an adult (and a parent), I can see how my behaviour on those occasions would have been frustrating.

I don't remember feeling sorry when I was slapped, I was more pissed off that I couldn't do what I wanted to do, still didn't know why and now had a stinging slap to add to my misery.

So did the slap serve its purpose?

Well it shut me up.

CathyMoran wrote:

While I agree that the law was too extreme with the case being mentioned

We don't know jack about the case being mentioned, beyond the fact that the policeman saw violence at a level he couldn't ignore.

Zulu

When you slap a child the biggest lesson you are teaching them is that violence is an acceptable solution.
Violence is not an acceptable solution.

bonkey

Zulu wrote:

When you slap a child the biggest lesson you are teaching them is that violence is an acceptable solution.

I'm sure this will have some people up in arms, but...

...would you reach the same conclusion regarding training an animal? That ngative physical feedback teaches it that violence is acceptable? That rubbing a dogs (sensitive) nose in its own urine doesn't teach it not to pee on the kitchen floor, but rather that its ok to have its nose covered in pee?

As I said...it might rile some people up comparing an animal to a child...but the underlying "training" logic is identical.

You're dealing with someone you cannot simply sit down and rationally explain the rights and wrongs, confident that at the end of it all they will rationally understand why they should/shouldn't do something, and will then abide by that.

Now, there's a lot of posters (presumably parents) telling us how even this can be dealt with without the use of force/pain/slaps/whatever. Well, in theory it can, (and in practice in most cases at least), but I still think that we're either seeing people saying "here's how I managed it with my child/children without resorting to slaps" (which I've already explained isn't necessarily generalisable), or we're seeing people coming out with nice little soundbites as some sort of pat little explanation.

Neither of them are what I would see as convincing arguments. But - one could equally ask - is there a convincing argument in favour of it? I

don't know about "convincing", but one thing I keep coming back to, which I haven't seen disucssed yet is.....

I know so many parents today who are making a conscious effort to not over-parent their kids. Keeping a clean-to-the-point-of-sterility house, they have decided, is counter-productive, as is trying to shield their child from every risk, possible knock, etc. etc. There is a balance to be found, which involves letting their kid eat a bit o' dirt now and then, fall and hurt themselves, etc. Obviously you don't let them near anything deadly, but you equally don't go around foam-lining every edge below 1m in height.

As with so many things, what is harmful when in quantity is actually a good thing when not in quantity. A filthy house isn't a good environment, but a house with some small amount of dirt is preferable to a clean-room type of environment for a child to grow up in.

I'm just thoroughly unconvinced that the same logic doesn't apply here....and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise that isn't just a convenient soundbite which doesn't hold up to any sort of detailed inspection.

Gurgle

bonkey wrote:

would you reach the same conclusion regarding training an animal? That ngative physical feedback teaches it that violence is acceptable? That rubbing a dogs (sensitive) nose in its own urine doesn't teach it not to pee on the kitchen floor, but rather that its ok to have its nose covered in pee?

The difference is in what you're setting out to achieve.

The dog should see you as the master of all creation. It shouldn't question anything you tell it to do, ever. It doesn't need to know why its told to do or not to do something, just do it because the master said so. This is conditioning that should last through the dogs lifetime.

Is that appropiate when raising kids?

bonkey wrote:

it might rile some people up comparing an animal to a child

Zulu

bonkey wrote:

...would you reach the same conclusion regarding training an animal? That ngative physical feedback teaches it that violence is acceptable? That rubbing a dogs (sensitive) nose in its own urine doesn't teach it not to pee on the kitchen floor, but rather that its ok to have its nose covered in pee?

You train a dog; you raise a child. Dogs are animals, you need to "break" a dog. The dog has to see you as the master; if the dogs steps out of line - you kick it's ass. People are very different. We (modern, enlightened society) strive not to treat people like dogs. Sitting a dog down and discussiong why, when it pees on the carpet, it upsets you, isn't going to do anything. Sitting a child down, and explaining that something is wrong can work. That is the difference.

bonkey wrote:

...it might rile some people up comparing an animal to a child...but the underlying "training" logic is identical.

I would strongly disagree. You don't rub a babys nose in a dirty nappy.

bonkey wrote:

You're dealing with someone you cannot simply sit down and rationally explain the rights and wrongs, confident that at the end of it all they will rationally understand why they should/shouldn't do something, and will then abide by that

Well this is exactly the point where we disagree. Children are smart. They understand. Wheither or not they comply is another issue - not every adult obays the law. YOu need to find out why the child does what it does. (ie: An adult will speed on a motorway, because he/she dosen't feel that the law is that important - perhaps the child dosen't see why playing soccer in a glasshouse is such a bad crime.) Smacking the child isn't going to teach the child that a window might break, it'll just teact the child the (soccer in the greenhouse) + (getting caught) = (slap). What will the child do when you are gone?

bonkey wrote:

As with so many things, what is harmful when in quantity is actually a good thing when not in quantity. A filthy house isn't a good environment, but a house with some small amount of dirt is preferable to a clean-room type of environment for a child to grow up in.
I'm just thoroughly unconvinced that the same logic doesn't apply here....and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise that isn't just a convenient soundbite which doesn't hold up to any sort of detailed inspection.

The difference is: a small bit of dirt helps the immune system become more robust.
A small bit of violence teaches the child the violence is acceptable.

koneko

bonkey wrote:

...would you reach the same conclusion regarding training an animal? That ngative physical feedback teaches it that violence is acceptable? That rubbing a dogs (sensitive) nose in its own urine doesn't teach it not to pee on the kitchen floor, but rather that its ok to have its nose covered in pee?

A lot of people are starting to follow the "positive reenforcement" training, instead of the type you're describing. This includes rewarding and applauding the dog when it pees outside, like it's supposed to, or if it obeys your command like you want it to.

The training method you describe for dogs ensures the dog knows you're it's master, and that you can hurt it if it doesn't obey you. You hardly want your children seeing you in that way aswell.

You want to be the leader of the pack, not the cruel dictator that'll hit you if you don't obey their commands.

landser

i have absolutley no problems with smacking kids. i have often found the most poorly behaved kids have parents who say things like," now killian, what did we say about setting the cats on fire, yes it's not very nice"

quick boot in the arse.... problem solved, cats saved.

i was smacked every day and it did be no harm at all, apart from my limp and squint

bonkey

Zulu wrote:

You train a dog; you raise a child.

Thats why they call it potty-training then?

I would strongly disagree. You don't rub a babys nose in a dirty nappy.

Well obviously: you're not trying to teach the child that the nappy is not where it should go to the toilet

Seriously though....consider the difference in dependance the two species have on their olifactory senses. Humans ain't that big on smell, no matter how much we might like ot think we are. Dogs, on the other hand, generally are.

I would have said that human hands would be the analagous body part....dogs sniff their way around a lot, whereas humans (particularly the young) feel their way around.

Overloading a dog's sense of smell with something unpleasant as negative reinforcement strikes me as being almost identical in purpose and technique as overloading a human's sense of touch with a slap to the hand.

Children are smart.

So are animals.

As I said it might rile people up, but consider...we train both animals and humans through feedback. In both cases, the adult/owner generally relies on (and should prefer) positive feedback as a means of training, but uses negative feedback when necessary. In both cases, part of the purpose is to teach the child/animal to listen to the parent/owner (to assert Alpha status beyond question) and to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with what is expected/wanted by the parent/owner.

In both cases, a lack of feedback equates to a lack of training.

A small bit of violence teaches the child the violence is acceptable.

Well, the only possible evidence we've seen for that is that some people who've been slapped as kids don't believe there is a problem in slapping kids in certain circumstances.

If thats all it teaches them, then unless you can show that there is some reason why it is unacceptable, then I fail to see the problem. Saying that something is self-perpetuating doesn't automatically make it wrong.

Aternately, if you're saying it teaches them that random violence of other types, or that hitting kids in general is ok...then I'd beg to differ, basing my objection on the fact that personal experience didn't teach me that.

koneko wrote:

A lot of people are starting to follow the "positive reenforcement" training, instead of the type you're describing.

Personally, I don't know any animal owner who has abandoned teaching their animal what not to do as well as what it should do.

You can teach an animal all you like that it should do X, and applaud it every time it does X, but when it does Y instead of X....how do you teach it that what it has done is not right? If you simply don't give positive feedback, then the logical conclusion is that the animal will start believing at the end of the day that it is doing something wrong whenever you're not praising it.

MrPudding

Again, speaking from personal experience. Bullsh1t. I was smacked as a child. Quite a lot infact. Apparently that make me insecure or something. Anyway regardless of what you people who think you know me when in fact you do not, I was a very badly behaved child and I got beaten for it. At that time, early 70s, this was acceptable. I reckon a lot of it was simply from frustration on my mothers part, she had had enough of things being broken and tantrums being thrown. I never ever learned that violence was acceptable. I never thought it then and I most certainly do not think it now.

I raise my children in a different way. I do not beat them, I am not some kind of violent monster created by my past beatings. As anyone who knows them will tell you I have 1 very very well behaved kid and 1 that is well behaved but a bit mad, he is only young. I am very proud of the way my GF and myself have raised them.

I do not appreciate people that do not know me extrapolating bullsh1t amateur psychological models of my behaviour based on half a dozen lines posted in this thread.

Zulu, have you always been able to reason with your children? What age are your kids? I found that they need to be of a certain age before I was able to.

MrP

bonkey

Thread moved...this really is more of a Humanities issue.

jc

Zulu

bonkey wrote:

Thats why they call it potty-training then?

A name isn't a proof.

bonkey wrote:

Well obviously: you're not trying to teach the child that the nappy is not where it should go to the toilet

...but you are trying to teach the child not to soil its own clothes.

bonkey wrote:

Seriously though....consider the difference in dependance the two species have on their olifactory senses. Humans ain't that big on smell, no matter how much we might like ot think we are. Dogs, on the other hand, generally are.

Seriously though - do you believe dogs and children are the same/deserve the same treatment? Do you believe that children should be treated as dogs?
FYI: I'm not going to entertain the child/dog arguments any more after this post. IMHO children shouldn't be treated as dogs.

bonkey wrote:

I would have said that human hands would be the analagous body part....dogs sniff their way around a lot, whereas humans (particularly the young) feel their way around.

So if a child handled something hot - you would scald his/her hands?

bonkey wrote:

Overloading a dog's sense of smell with something unpleasant as negative reinforcement strikes me as being almost identical in purpose and technique as overloading a human's sense of touch with a slap to the hand.

That dosen't make it right.

bonkey wrote:

In both cases, a lack of feedback equates to a lack of training.

But human training as you call it, can be done through explination. You don't NEED to resort to violence.

bonkey wrote:

Well, the only possible evidence we've seen for that is that some people who've been slapped as kids don't believe there is a problem in slapping kids in certain circumstances.

....indeed - they have been taught that violence is acceptable.

bonkey wrote:

If thats all it teaches them, then unless you can show that there is some reason why it is unacceptable, then I fail to see the problem. Saying that something is self-perpetuating doesn't automatically make it wrong.

...and so you are saying that violence is acceptable. If you don't get your way in life - resort to violence. I would personally disagree with this concept.

bonkey wrote:

Aternately, if you're saying it teaches them that random violence of other types, or that hitting kids in general is ok...then I'd beg to differ, basing my objection on the fact that personal experience didn't teach me that.

you are contradicting yourself now. Violence is either acceptable or it's not.

bonkey wrote:

Personally, I don't know any animal owner who has abandoned teaching their animal what not to do as well as what it should do.

We are talking about humans.

bonkey

Zulu wrote:

A name isn't a proof.

No, but it shows a correlation that you're doing your damndest to ignore.

I read somewhere recently that over 60% of dog-owners refer to themselves - at least occasionally - as daddy/mummy when referring to their relationship with their pet.

...but you are trying to teach the child not to soil its own clothes.

I was never aware that the reason you put a nappy on a newborn child was to teach it not to soil its clothes.

Seriously though - do you believe dogs and children are the same/deserve the same treatment?

No, I don't. What I believe is that there are strong correlations in the methods used in the education of both. The most significant difference is that we generally don't train an animal for 18 years, but - generally speaking - that is at least as long as a parent will try and have some formative influence on their offspring's lives.

And I did say it would rile some people up

Do you believe that children should be treated as dogs?

No, but I think the chance of rationally reasoning with a two-year-old (or younger) is roughly about on par as the chances of rationally reasoning with a several-month-old puppy.

I also believe that the amount of "do what I say, not question what I say" respect we would like from young children and animals is about equal. While it might be all noble to say that we teach children not to obey us unquestioningly, I don't know a single person who would view their child not doign what it is told as being a good thing.

So if a child handled something hot - you would scald his/her hands?

No, but nor would I scald an animal for doing something stupid/dangerous either.

If a child handled something hot, it should have already learned its lesson. If a child was going to touch something hot, I'd make a value judgement as to the danger. IF it was hot enough (or capable of being hot enough) to potentially cause damage, I'd intervene. If it was only going to be painful, I'd consider letting the child learning a valuable lesson on its own.

But human training as you call it, can be done through explination.

Regardless of age?

You don't NEED to resort to violence.

You're still just insisting this is so. You're still not explaining why this is so.

...and so you are saying that violence is acceptable.

I'm saying that a very restricted form of violence, in a very restricted set of circumstances, is not necessarily a bad thing and can have merit.

So far, the only objection you have to that is that me doing it to my kids would teach them that its ok for them to do the same to their kids. You keep rewording this, apparently to imply that I'd be teaching them that violence as an abstract concept is acceptable, but other than your insistence this would be so, I see nothing to support that notion (and plenty to refute it).

you are contradicting yourself now.

Really? Ask yourself this....do you believe it is acceptable to defend yourself if someone attacks you? Or do you believe that if they are faster than you, then all you can do is let yoruself get beaten up, because trying to defend yourself would invovle the use of violence, and that is always wrong.

Now...if thats what you believe, then fair enough...I think I'll be happy enough knowing that my kids won't be raised believing that you're supposed to let someone pound you to dirt should they wish to. If thats not what you believe, then clearly you accept that your own opposition to violence has some contradictory elements to it....so criticising me for the same would seem pointless. I'd rather you explained what was wrong with my exception...

We are talking about humans.

I was responding to a point about animal-trainers resorting to positive- rather than negative- feedback, as posted (and attributed to) loneko.

I would still maintain the same logic holds with children, or do you think its possible to train children without the use of negative feedback (even if its not physical in nature)??? Without ever telling them something is wrong and that they shouldn't do it again?

jc

Zulu

bonkey wrote:

No, but it shows a correlation that you're doing your damndest to ignore.

Well if I'm ignoring it - why would I have responed to it?

bonkey wrote:

I read somewhere recently that over 60% of dog-owners refer to themselves - at least occasionally - as daddy/mummy when referring to their relationship with their pet.

Yes indeed, and 48.7% of people believe this to be completly irrelevant.

bonkey wrote:

I was never aware that the reason you put a nappy on a newborn child was to teach it not to soil its clothes.

Ok, you've ignored my point. You may rub a dogs nose in a carpet it just peed because you don't want it to soil the carpet. You do not rub a childs nose in a nappy to teach him/her not to soil him/herself. The point is that we treat humans and dogs differently.

bonkey wrote:

No, I don't. What I believe is that there are strong correlations in the methods used in the education of both. The most significant difference is that we generally don't train an animal for 18 years, but - generally speaking - that is at least as long as a parent will try and have some formative influence on their offspring's lives.

I would have said that the most significant difference is that one is a person, the other is an animal.

bonkey wrote:

No, but I think the chance of rationally reasoning with a two-year-old (or younger) is roughly about on par as the chances of rationally reasoning with a several-month-old puppy.

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Do you really have children? Whit comments like this, I'd be amased.
Frankly - I'm also amased that you even consider slapping a 2 year old. Would you slap at any age?

bonkey wrote:

I also believe that the amount of "do what I say, not question what I say" respect we would like from young children and animals is about equal. While it might be all noble to say that we teach children not to obey us unquestioningly, I don't know a single person who would view their child not doign what it is told as being a good thing.

It would depend on the context. I wouldn't punish a child for eating mala - but I would if the child was hitting another child over the head with said mala.

bonkey wrote:

If a child handled something hot, it should have already learned its lesson. If a child was going to touch something hot, I'd make a value judgement as to the danger. IF it was hot enough (or capable of being hot enough) to potentially cause damage, I'd intervene. If it was only going to be painful, I'd consider letting the child learning a valuable lesson on its own.

Thats a very interesting comment, tantimount to neglegence.

bonkey wrote:

I'm saying that a very restricted form of violence, in a very restricted set of circumstances, is not necessarily a bad thing and can have merit.

I perfectly aware of what you're saying. "Violence is acceptable.

bonkey wrote:

Ask yourself this....do you believe it is acceptable to defend yourself if someone attacks you? Or do you believe that if they are faster than you, then all you can do is let yoruself get beaten up, because trying to defend yourself would invovle the use of violence, and that is always wrong.

Thats an interesting point - do you believe that the child you are slapping has a right to defend itself?

bonkey wrote:

I would still maintain the same logic holds with children, or do you think its possible to train children without the use of negative feedback (even if its not physical in nature)??? Without ever telling them something is wrong and that they shouldn't do it again?

jc

I never siad that. Quite the opposite - I feel it's very important to explain to children what they have done wrong, when they have done wrong.

bonkey

Zulu wrote:

Thats a very interesting comment, tantimount to neglegence.

If you believe that sheltering a child from every negative experience is tantamout to negligence, then there genuinely is no point in continuing this discussion.

If thats not what you believe, then I can only conclude you're deliberately trying to misinterpret what I said (again), so there is also genunely no point in continuing this discussion....

Thats an interesting point - do you believe that the child you are slapping has a right to defend itself?

Well you clearly don't, what with your insistence that violence is always unacceptable and all.

I perfectly aware of what you're saying. "Violence is acceptable.

And you disagree....so you believe the child in your example being beaten has no right to defend itself.

On reflection...you're right.

Next time I see a child trying to fend off someone beating them up...I'll go over there and tell them to take their beating properly rather than resorting to violence to defend themselves, because thats what Zulu has convinced me is the right thing for them to do.

jc

Zulu

bonkey wrote:

If you believe that sheltering a child from every negative experience is tantamout to negligence, then there genuinely is no point in continuing this discussion.

Nope, I just believe that there is no need to genuinly put a child in harms way. I would explain to the child that if they handle something hot - they could get burned; that if they bother a wasp, they might get stung, as opposed to thinking - well a wasp sting isn't fatal, sure let him/her get stung, a valuable way to learn a lesson.

bonkey wrote:

Well you clearly don't, what with your insistence that violence is always unacceptable and all.

I like your unfounded jump there. ...but you still haven't answered my questions:
a) if you are smacking a child - do you believe that it's ok for the child to fight you back/defend itself? ...or, do you believe that in this particular instance, it's NOT ok for the child to defend itself.
b) At what age does it become acceptable to slap a child? ...surely you wouldn't slap a 6 month old baby?

bonkey wrote:

And you disagree....so you believe the child in your example being beaten has no right to defend itself.

No. I never said that. What I said is: it is wrong to teach a child that violence it an acceptable solution.
Evidently if someone is being beaten, they will take action to protect themselves. I have no problem with this at all. What I have a problem with is people using violence to enforce their belief. I don't believe that violence is required to raise a child - therefore it shouldn't be used.

bonkey wrote:

Next time I see a child trying to fend off someone beating them up...I'll go over there and tell them to take their beating properly rather than resorting to violence to defend themselves, because thats what Zulu has convinced me is the right thing for them to do.
jc

...Genious :rolleyes: Why don't you just kick/slap the other child on the nose like you would a dog?

bonkey

Zulu wrote:

I like your unfounded jump there.

Its not unfounded at all.

Its the only logical conclusion from your various statements that one can reach. You oppose violence. You say I contradict myself by saying the same whilst acknowledging that there are specific cases where violence may be justified/necessary/reasonable.

So either you believe you can't defend yourself if someone's beating on you (nor come to someone else's help if they are being beaten up), or you're contradicting yourself just like I was.

Now, seeing as you dismissed part of my argument on the grounds that it was contradictory, I can only assume that you aren't trying to be contradictory yourself....so that only leaves one conclusion....the one I reached.

The other option is that you too contradict yourself in saying you think violence is always wrong. If you'd prefer that conclusion, I'll quite happily swap.....but you might have to reconsider many of my points you dismissed on the grounds of them being similarly contradictory...

a) if you are smacking a child - do you believe that it's ok for the child to fight you back/defend itself?

In the simplest terms...yes. I think when a situation gets to that point, there's no win, just a "least worst option", and I'm not convinced that not using limited physical punishment as a form of discipline is never the least worst option.

...or, do you believe that in this particular instance, it's NOT ok for the child to defend itself.

Which particular instance? Every time I try and be specific, you end up reverting back to my general statements as a "interpretation" of what I'm saying, so I have no idea which specific situation you're referring to.

b) At what age does it become acceptable to slap a child?

I don't think you can draw that line clearly. I would point you at the posts I made earlier about why and how such definitions cannot be clearly made, and where I said that I would prefer more restrictive laws over more permissive ones.

...surely you wouldn't slap a 6 month old baby?

I would agree that this is well before any age that I would consider reasonable.

On a similar note....you have maintained constantly that you can reason with children, and that this is how you resolve all issues.

May I take it that given that you seem to think it was possbile that I advocated slapping a 6-month-old that you feel it would be possible to reason with one istead, given that this is your preferential solution?

No. I never said that. What I said is: it is wrong to teach a child that violence it an acceptable solution.
Evidently if someone is being beaten, they will take action to protect themselves. I have no problem with this at all.

But protectni9g yourself is a solution to a problem...the problem being that you're being beaten up.

So its acceptable to use violence to solve the problem of being beaten up, but its not acceptable to use violence to solve problems!

Now...if you're reading this and wondering how I can be so pedantic, I'd point you back at where you concluded that my "in specific circumstances" comment regarding the use of violence was contradictory to my being opposed to it in general and ask how what I'm doing here is any different?

What I have a problem with is people using violence to enforce their belief.

I also agree here in general.

I still believe there the "for your own good" situations exist when discipling children, though, and that there is a difference between the two.

I don't believe that violence is required to raise a child - therefore it shouldn't be used.

Fair enough. I disagree, in that I believe that there are situations when it is the least worst option to use physical discipline.

As a slightly different tack....do you believe it is acceptable to use violence in front of children for any reason? Note : the aforementioned self-defence type of situations would qualify as a reason...as would protecting your child from an animal attacking it.

I can only assume that you do accept it is.

And so - in certain circumstances - it is the least worst course of action available?

In those circumstances, how do you avoid teaching the child that using violence to achieve objectives is ok, as seems to be your major cnocern?

Why don't you just kick/slap the other child on the nose like you would a dog?

Because that would once again be forgetting that "correlation between" does not mean "the same as"???

jc

Rredwell

Bonkey, Zulu, thanks for the debate, but I think you have both veered off the point somewhat.

I think a happy medium needs to be found. I think that "time-outs" work well in a non-life-threatening domestic situation, where there is time to assess and administer the most effective punishment. However, what was originally at question is a child running onto a busy road. I don't think there is ample scope ofr a "time out" in this case! Instead, the father had to make a rush decision that savfed his kid's life - and gave the child a quick slap to reinforce the lesson that running onto a road is wrong.

I would agree with a previous poster that the worst beatings often take place behind closed doors. In thius case, it's the good parent who tried to re-inforce a valuable lesson for his son (that running onto a road is wrong) who gets punished.

Gurgle

Rredwell wrote:

Instead, the father had to make a rush decision that savfed his kid's life - and gave the child a quick slap to reinforce the lesson that running onto a road is wrong.

And a passing policeman arrested him ?

A fairy-story imho.

pretty-in-pink

well this has been interesting............

I think that a quick slap on the hand will teach a kid a lesson. Don't beat them -they could stop taking you seriously, Don't "talk" all the time, a kids got to respect or like you for that to work. Don't play mind games with them.....its cruel.

No I'm not contradicting myself, how is a smack on the hand cruel? When kids are young this will give them the shock needed to remeber something,

What kid listens to "don't its hot...etc", you have to learn by doing. So if its between a smack or a potentially lethal accident I know what I'd chose. Also FYI people take longer to respond to "don't", it confues the human mind especially kids minds. Stop works. Look at the road signs.

So if you *REALLY* want don't want to smack your kids say stop, and tell them why. They will still do it, just behind your back. Whats there to worry about? A talk? Ooooooooooooooo how scary. For talks to work you need them to respect you, and kids don't respect talking until they learn it means business.

We can all name cases where smacking or not has made a brilliant child or an evil child. Its opinion, and the whole "talk to them" school of thought has so far produced more monsters. lets ee what the next few years bring, to early to tell imo.

Gurgle

naughty_girl wrote:

well this has been interesting............
if its between a smack or a potentially lethal accident I know what I'd chose

When will a smack prevent a lethal accident ?

naughty_girl wrote:

So if you *REALLY* want don't want to smack your kids say stop, and tell them why. They will still do it, just behind your back.

But a child who is smacked will never ever do it again.... [/sarcasm][/duh!]

naughty_girl wrote:

kids don't respect talking until they learn it means business.

You forget, kids are also dependant on their parents for chocolate, sweeties and TV. Any or all of these priviliges can be withdrawn at any time. There are other ways than violence and negligence.

And yes, not diciplining your child at all is negligence imho.

naughty_girl wrote:

We can all name cases where smacking or not has made a brilliant child or an evil child.

No, we can't.
Smacking doesn't make the child, either way. Unless of course smacking was the only parenting the child ever received. (see negligence)

naughty_girl wrote:

the whole "talk to them" school of thought has so far produced more monsters.

huh ?

Surely your referring to the 'do nothing and they'll raise themselves' school of thought ?

Nasty_Girl

My parents smacked me as did my childminder and some teachers and I don't resent this although my mother now regrets it and is reluctant to raise her hand to my younger sister. Sister is doin fine, took her a little longer to come out of the "baby" stage than we did but that could be down to her bein the youngest anyway.

I think people hear "smack" and immediately think "oh god your inflicting pain on a tiny child" but the reality is they don't hurt them its more the shock of being punished than anything else! Still I don't know if I would smack my kids (if I had any) I'm more into withdrawing things and tone of voice can do an awful lot.
However I think if a child hits, kicks or bites a parent or other child then a smack might be in order... I know that sounds like a bit of a contradiction!

omnicorp

if it doesn't hurt, how will it help?
a shock doesn't last that long, people get over it.
A punishment that fits the crime like no toys if you are demanding them
ie) being a greedy little b@stard

Gurgle

omnicorp wrote:

A punishment that fits the crime like no toys if you are demanding them
ie) being a greedy little b@stard

Works very well.
Requires some thought though, which may put some off.

Big_Dirty_Pig

omnicorp wrote:

if it doesn't hurt, how will it help?
a shock doesn't last that long, people get over it.

Well ya don't want to scar them for life do ya?
A very small child say three or four year old will be so shocked they actually received the dreaded "slap" that it will register in their developing mind as "bad". Personally I don't know how well a toddler of playschool age understands the logic of having their toys taken away, but then every kid is different so its hard to come up with a perfect punishment plan.

omnicorp

so how will they understand the logic of slapping them.
Boredom, regret and shock are all feelings.

Why don't we bring back corporal punsishment while we're at it to "stop" bullying and torture to "educate" and "rehabilitate" those "dumb criminals"?

Baby, Child, Student, Criminal.... where does it end.

Wouldn't you go to jail if you kicked your dog for barking on the road?

Big_Dirty_Pig

omnicorp wrote:

so how will they understand the logic of slapping them.
Boredom, regret and shock are all feelings.

Why don't we bring back corporal punsishment while we're at it to "stop" bullying and torture to "educate" and "rehabilitate" those "dumb criminals"?

Baby, Child, Student, Criminal.... where does it end.

Wouldn't you go to jail if you kicked your dog for barking on the road?

Ok, picture this: You have three children, aged one , three and six. You're in McDonalds with them. The three year old is constantly screaming and throwing stuff around. People are begining to stare, the one year old is becomming upset by the racket. You quitely ask your three year old to calm down and in retaliation s/he kicks you.

What do you do?

RainyDay

Big_Dirty_Pig wrote:

You quitely ask your three year old to calm down and in retaliation s/he kicks you.

What do you do?

Take all three children home and give them a meal that isn't overloaded with fats & sugars instead of the McD's crap.

Big_Dirty_Pig

RainyDay wrote:

Take all three children home and give them a meal that isn't overloaded with fats & sugars instead of the McD's crap.

Ok very smart, forget the McDs example and say its a playground or the cinema or something.