Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Parents smacking children to be banned in Scotland .....

124

Comments

  • #92
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    cbyrd wrote: »
    It is illegal to slap your child in Ireland, inside or outside the home. The law came into force on December 12th last year.
    If reported to tusla, if the child admits to being slapped (truth or not) a file will be sent to the gardaí.
    How hard the child was slapped, the frequency of incidents will all be taken into consideration when being assessed.
    But its still illegal.


    What law are you referring to?

    I won't get into the intricacies of how the process should work in theory with how it actually works in practice, as there are far too many cases I'm aware of where a process like that just isn't common practice, as observed in the report linked in this article (it's a bit of a read!) -

    Child protection report: 'We cannot fail children a second time', says Ombudsman for Children


  • #93
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,744 ✭✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    That's the problem, there isn't better ways for all scenarios. Some appear to think there is but many even on this thread agree that in many cases it doesn't work and that the use of a smack still very much has it's place.

    If you get it right from the get-go there will be no need for smacking.

    Trust me. I know this from experience.

    There's no need for hitting kids unless you're doing it wrong, spoiling the kids and letting them do what they want (then hitting is pretty unfair after that carry on). You'll find when you have your own kids you won't be as keen to hit them as much as you do with other peoples kids.

    I also find it hard to believe that other parents (siblings or not) allow you to hit their kids. I'll put that down to your usual penchant for making up stories and scenarios to back up your theories. If you were my brother that took to hitting my kids you'd be taught a lesson.

    Hopefully your future co-parent will be a strong parent and raise kids that don't need to be smacked by you.


  • #94
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    John_Rambo wrote: »

    I also find it hard to believe that other parents (siblings or not) allow you to hit their kids. I'll put that down to your usual penchant for making up stories and scenarios to back up your theories. If you were my brother that took to hitting my kids you'd be taught a lesson.

    I meant my actual siblings themselves when they were children and my cousins (children of my aunts and uncles who all used a smack themselves when required).
    John_Rambo wrote: »
    Hopefully your future co-parent will be a strong parent and raise kids that don't need to be smacked by you.

    Very much in agreement that kids at times need a smack and the lack of this is the reason for many of the bad kids and teens we have nowadays ;)


  • #95
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »

    Very much in agreement that kids at times need a smack and the lack of this is the reason for many of the bad kids and teens we have nowadays ;)

    Complete crap.What behaviour exactly could you be referring to that would require a child to be smacked? And as for you belief that kids who aren't slapped are bad kids,come back to us when you actually are a parent and know what you're on about because right now you're talking out of your arse. Many parents here have said they don't smack. Either you think they are lying or have raised out of control kids. Which is it?


  • #96
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »

    Very much in agreement that kids at times need a smack and the lack of this is the reason for many of the bad kids and teens we have nowadays ;)

    You said this yesterday, I challenged it but you failed to reply. Care to try this time?
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    I'd also argue that tearaway teenagers were the ones that were hit regularly as kids and became desenistized to it. It doesn't teach them right from wrong. What it does teach them is to not get caught, and therein lies the problem with rule by fear v rule by respect: at some point, the kids grow out of the fear.

    (Incedently, the winky face gives me the impression you've changed your stance but are too proud to admit it and are going for the moral high ground...)

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Advertisement
  • #97
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,744 ✭✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    I meant my actual siblings themselves when they were children and my cousins (children of my aunts and uncles who all used a smack themselves when required).

    My advice to you is not to touch or hit kids that don't want to be touched or hit. You'll land yourself in trouble not heeding my advice.
    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    Very much in agreement that kids at times need a smack and the lack of this is the reason for many of the bad kids and teens we have nowadays ;)

    We're not in agreement here. Strong and disciplined parenting has no need for hitting or smacking. You need to learn this before you have kids. Creating boundaries and suitable non-violent punishments and rewards is easier and less stressful for parents and children.

    I find it funny that it's the people with no kids on this thread are the only ones advocating the hitting of children, and I truly believe that you won't hit your kids, it's just the usual internet forum guff and bluff that you like to expound to garner reaction.

    There's another pearl of wisdom I'll share with you; ease off the alcohol abuse. The levels of drinking you're proud of posting on boards.ie will be detrimental to parenthood and will certainly shorten your temper and lead to impatient, knee jerk reactions.

    If you're planning to have kids, plan to raise them well and won't have to resort to hitting them.

    Take heed, act responsibly, be a good non-violent parent. I'll leave it at that.


  • #98
    The One Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,322 ✭✭✭The One Doctor


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    And of course it is a complete co-incidence that there are huge numbers of kids who have no respect for anyone or anything in todays society. Who have no concept whatsoever of the word "consequence".

    A complete co-incidence, I assure you.

    Ah, the hoary old chestnut of 'Things were better in my day.'


  • #99
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    My advice to you is not to touch or hit kids that don't want to be touched or hit. You'll land yourself in trouble not heeding my advice.

    What are you talking about here? Its certainly not relevant to anything I've been saying.
    John_Rambo wrote: »

    We're not in agreement here. .

    I was talking about me and my OH being in agreement on this not you and me.
    eviltwin wrote: »
    Complete crap.What behaviour exactly could you be referring to that would require a child to be smacked?

    Various different things, but as a generic answer being bold and continuing to do so after other methods of getting them to cop on fails, doing something dangerous than needs a swift and immediate indication that its not on etc etc.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    You said this yesterday, I challenged it but you failed to reply. Care to try this time?

    (Incedently, the winky face gives me the impression you've changed your stance but are too proud to admit it and are going for the moral high ground...)

    What reply are you looking for? My stance has not changed at all, just because its not the first choice of punishment does not mean its not an option. If you have a headache you don't go straight for the doctor for an antibiotic you try having a lie down, then a panadol but if it persists then you might need to go to the doctor. Just because its not the first option does not mean its never necessary.

    It may never be necessary but my point is that as far as I'm concerned its a valid option if a situation calls for it. I really think people need to understand the difference between beating a child which is obvioulsy very much not on and a clip on the ear or a lightish smack to let them know they need to cop on.


  • #100
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,222 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    screamer wrote: »
    I've seen kids get battered in supermarkets by scumbags that call themselves parents. Worst I ever saw was a child about 8 who was hit repeatedly and eventually said Mammy I'm hungry. At which point she slapped him through the face. That is not discipline that is abuse and should never happen. No child should live in fear of the ones who are supposed to love them most and protect them from harm

    Shur according to nox that's the decent God-fearing way of raising kids.


  • #101
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Shur according to nox that's the decent God-fearing way of raising kids.

    As above there is a world of difference between beating a child and a light smack. If you can't see the difference well then I'm not sure where a person would start with the explanation.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Django99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 735 ✭✭✭Django99


    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    As above there is a world of difference between beating a child and a light smack. If you can't see the difference well then I'm not sure where a person would start with the explanation.

    Is a light smack supposed to cause pain to the child?

    Would it be acceptable to you for a teacher to give a child a light smack?


  • #103
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,701 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    I meant my actual siblings themselves when they were children and my cousins (children of my aunts and uncles who all used a smack themselves when required).



    Very much in agreement that kids at times need a smack and the lack of this is the reason for many of the bad kids and teens we have nowadays ;)

    its a ually the kids that get slapoed all the time because their parents have raised them badly that are outvif control


  • #104
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    What reply are you looking for? My stance has not changed at all, just because its not the first choice of punishment does not mean its not an option. If you have a headache you don't go straight for the doctor for an antibiotic you try having a lie down, then a panadol but if it persists then you might need to go to the doctor. Just because its not the first option does not mean its never necessary.

    You are contradicting yourself here. You say "it's an option" having previously said "it's required".

    What am I looking for? Well, if you read the post, you'll know, but if not, I'm looking for; 1) your thoughts on the idea that corporal punishment is the cause of the problem of disrespectful teenagers; and 2) for you to tell me how rule by fear will suddenly start working when you can't scare people.

    Try again:
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    I'd also argue that tearaway teenagers were the ones that were hit regularly as kids and became desenistized to it. It doesn't teach them right from wrong. What it does teach them is to not get caught, and therein lies the problem with rule by fear v rule by respect: at some point, the kids grow out of the fear.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #105
    andekwarhola
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,687 ✭✭✭andekwarhola


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    If you were my brother that took to hitting my kids you'd be taught a lesson.

    Not by hitting him hopefully?


  • #106
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,701 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    As above there is a world of difference between beating a child and a light smack. If you can't see the difference well then I'm not sure where a person would start with the explanation.

    ive said it befor but ill say it again
    i rescue dog fromtbe pound that other people give up on
    problem dogs
    big dogs that people assume are dangerois
    rotties boxers and bull breeds
    i dont need to hit them to keep them in check it just takes a bit if communication
    the idea that id hit my kid who is much easier to communicate with when indont hit my dogs is laughable
    the idea that those dogs were better behaved and socialised when they were with the owners that invariably hit them is laughable
    honestly if i saw a man slapping his wife in aldi id step in (i have but not in aldi)
    but yesterday when i saw a woman slapping her daughter i said nothing
    its disgusting an im sad even writing it
    i really really dont get why people think violence is a teaching aid


  • #107
    Django99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 735 ✭✭✭Django99


    Do people still say things like "kids these days have no respect"? Seriously? After how many generations after generation making the exact same statement, surely everyone knows at this point that kids are as respectful/disrespectful as they ever have been and always will?


  • #108
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,439 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    My advice to you is not to touch or hit kids that don't want to be touched or hit. You'll land yourself in trouble not heeding my advice.



    You really can't say that with any certainty.

    We're not in agreement here. Strong and disciplined parenting has no need for hitting or smacking. You need to learn this before you have kids. Creating boundaries and suitable non-violent punishments and rewards is easier and less stressful for parents and children.


    And you really can't say that with any certainty either.

    I find it funny that it's the people with no kids on this thread are the only ones advocating the hitting of children, and I truly believe that you won't hit your kids, it's just the usual internet forum guff and bluff that you like to expound to garner reaction.


    I have a child, and I've spent half my life working with children and their parents. There are plenty of posters on here who do, and don't have children who imagine they are in a position to tell other people how to raise their children. I wouldn't say it was amusing, I'd say it was bizarre that they imagine they're in a position to do that and imagine that anyone should actually take them seriously.

    There's another pearl of wisdom I'll share with you; ease off the alcohol abuse. The levels of drinking you're proud of posting on boards.ie will be detrimental to parenthood and will certainly shorten your temper and lead to impatient, knee jerk reactions.


    Seeing as you're fond of doling out pearls of wisdom and doomsayings for people who don't heed your advice, where do you stand on offering future parenting advice to people with mental health issues? Would you do the same and bring up completely unrelated stuff they've posted just to try and win an argument on the internet? I wouldn't, utter thundercnuty thing to do tbh and not the sort of behaviour I'd ever want to encourage my child to do either.

    Different standards I suppose.

    If you're planning to have kids, plan to raise them well and won't have to resort to hitting them.

    Take heed, act responsibly, be a good non-violent parent. I'll leave it at that.


    I never "resorted" to hitting my child in the first place. It was an entirely conscious decision and a perfectly valid method of discipline used as part of an overall parenting strategy. I've never hit my child in anger, frustration, or because I thought it was the easiest method of discipline that I as a "lazy parent" would "resort to". I'm always acting responsibly as my childs parent, because I am their parent, and now I am also their primary carer. I have been raising them for 13 years without your ill-considered pearls of wisdom, and while you decide to leave it at that, I'll still be responsible as their parent, as their legal guardian, and as their primary carer, for raising my own child, and advocating for them until they are of legal age od 18 where they are legally recognised as an adult. I'll still be their parent long after they're an adult, long after you're gone about your own business, and long after yet another thread on this issue has run it's course.

    I'll leave it at that too.


  • #109
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,744 ✭✭✭✭John_Rambo


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You really can't say that with any certainty.





    And you really can't say that with any certainty either.





    I have a child, and I've spent half my life working with children and their parents. There are plenty of posters on here who do, and don't have children who imagine they are in a position to tell other people how to raise their children. I wouldn't say it was amusing, I'd say it was bizarre that they imagine they're in a position to do that and imagine that anyone should actually take them seriously.





    Seeing as you're fond of doling out pearls of wisdom and doomsayings for people who don't heed your advice, where do you stand on offering future parenting advice to people with mental health issues? Would you do the same and bring up completely unrelated stuff they've posted just to try and win an argument on the internet? I wouldn't, utter thundercnuty thing to do tbh and not the sort of behaviour I'd ever want to encourage my child to do either.

    Different standards I suppose.





    I never "resorted" to hitting my child in the first place. It was an entirely conscious decision and a perfectly valid method of discipline used as part of an overall parenting strategy. I've never hit my child in anger, frustration, or because I thought it was the easiest method of discipline that I as a "lazy parent" would "resort to". I'm always acting responsibly as my childs parent, because I am their parent, and now I am also their primary carer. I have been raising them for 13 years without your ill-considered pearls of wisdom, and while you decide to leave it at that, I'll still be responsible as their parent, as their legal guardian, and as their primary carer, for raising my own child, and advocating for them until they are of legal age od 18 where they are legally recognised as an adult. I'll still be their parent long after they're an adult, long after you're gone about your own business, and long after yet another thread on this issue has run it's course.

    I'll leave it at that too.

    A boastful post. Well done, but it's actually your responsibility to raise your kids as best you can so I won't be patting you on the back. Particularly if you choose to hit your kids. I don't think that's good parenting.


  • #110
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,369 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Patww79 wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    So the back up of your assertion is..... a repetition of that assertion?

    Not sure if serious.


  • #111
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,369 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    Firstly and for the final time giving a smack to a bold child is not violence simple as tha

    "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt"
    "the use of physical force against another"

    Perhaps you have another definition of violence but it is no more valid than the ones in the dictionary already. Perhaps you would prefer words like assault or abuse instead? What do YOU call it when one person not only hits another person, but hits a person who has pretty much zero ability to defend or retaliate? Bullying maybe?
    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    Secondly a hell of a lot of kids deserve a smack and an awful lot

    I do not believe so no, nor are you offering any reason why they should other than your mere assertion that they should.

    I do not think anyone "deserves" violence, let alone from a figure of power. I especially do not think a child deserves violence. And I double especially do not think they deserve it when the adult is using it to basically make up for their own shortcomings as a teacher, parent or guardian.
    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    It's amazing the manners that could have been put on the little s*its running around nowadays if they were in fear of a good smack.

    Ah so unlike the users who said it was a gentle "clip" really you want it to be a "GOOD smack". Oh the self satisfaction you must feel at the infliction of pain. I can almost hear your hands rubbing in the glee of it, that your hatred for these people is translated into violence against them.

    But as I said in other posts....... clearly when the little smack is not enough it has to escalate right? Until what point one wonders. When violence does not get your way, you have to just escalate it to more violence, or higher levels of it.

    Further you are not showing it would have ANY effect at all. As I said in other posts the likelyhood is not that violence would help the issue at all. Rather the problem is with the application of ANY discipline, not with particular forms of it.
    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    You dealt with nothing

    You ignoring my post does not magically mean it is not there.
    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    There is absolutely no doubt that much of the behaviour of children and teens nowadays is a result of parents being soft and total pushovers.

    As I, and other users like Seamus, have pointed out... you have not even shown that this "behaviour" exists "nowadays" any more than it ever did. So not only are you merely inventing the explanation, you are inventing the thing you are explaining.

    Because of news and social media clickbait, we are left with the impression such things have gotten worse or more common. But is there any reason to think it actually so? I have seen none. Least of all from you.

    However even if there IS such things, then correlating a reduction in violence as a discipline method is just that.... a correlation. Nothing more.
    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    but there comes a time when a smack is required to get the message home

    Or there comes a time that YOU need to get better at sending the message home, so that you do not need to make up for your own failings through violence.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,369 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    They're really not, and they weren't relevant then either, because they weren't addressing anything I had written

    They very much did address what was written, on that thread and this. Which is why you ran away without answering any of them. Not. One. Of. Them.

    How you think the points were not relevant then OR now is a mystery to me. They were linked DIRECTLY to your own words and a DIRECT challenge to the claims within your own words. Perhaps declaring things not to be relevant is just your new way of not actually answering anything.

    I can repeat them all again, with the reasons why I said them if required. But they are all there STILL not answered in the post above.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I never "resorted" to hitting my child in the first place. It was an entirely conscious decision and a perfectly valid method of discipline used as part of an overall parenting strategy.

    Or it was a substitute for valid parenting methods when you failed to achieve parental goals by non violent methods. Probably even made you feel better about your own failings at the time, as if you had achieved something.

    Resorting to violence as a method of conflict resolution however, just means you failed at the conflict resolution. Spinning that failure as a "parental strategy" probably makes it feel ok though.

    Still I am happy to test those laws you keep going on about. If you (be you I mean the general you you represent, of people who hit children) want to test that law by hitting a child within the range of me (and preferably my camera) I am happy to report it to the relevant authorities and test out the laws.

    I do it all the time when I am in a location of country where I think there are relevant or semi relevant laws.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I'll leave it at that too.

    Nope. You wont.


  • #113
    joey100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,477 ✭✭✭joey100


    What makes people think that the 'little sh*ts' these days haven't been smacked??

    I work with these 'little sh*ts' and I'd say about 90% of them are smacked, and more than smacked. All it results in is them getting better at hiding their bad behaviour, not trusting any adults at all or deciding that once they do something they may as well do more because they are going to get a whack for it anyway. Fear of being smacked/ hit/ punched does absolutely nothing to stop their behaviour, I've seen kids smacked so much social workers have been involved, it's done nothing to stop their behaviour.


  • #114
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,369 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    joey100 wrote: »
    What makes people think that the 'little sh*ts' these days haven't been smacked??

    Narrative. They want children to be smacked about. So they simply point at (or imagine, if they can not point at it) bad behavior and simply assume (based on absolutely nothing we have seen after many pages now) that because their fetish for it has not been implemented, that is why the bad behavior exists.

    But notice how not ONE person on the thread so far has shown there even IS any modern relative increase in any kinds of bad social behavior to be explained at all. Let alone that there is any valid correlation to be made between it and one single given disciplinary methodology.


  • #115
    harry Bailey esq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,814 ✭✭✭harry Bailey esq


    It's a good thing for the parents if anything. Scottish kids spend their pocket money on buckfast, not sweets. If wee Hamish got a clatter of his ma for not finishing his haggis she might get a blade across the face for her troubles.


  • #116
    I love Sean nos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭I love Sean nos


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Any time I got a smack I knew exactly why I was getting it. I never got a smack for a mistake or an accident, only when I had knowingly and wilfully transgressed.
    Lucky you. Many have received a smack in anger and in error.


  • #117
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,226 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    Kids wouldnt be half as cheeky if they knew a smack on the arse was the result of their acting up.
    Advocating the sexual assault of a child?

    Stay classy.

    It is this type of moronic bullshyte that has the world where it is today and ultimately will lead to parts of the Western world destroying itself as it crawls up it's own ass.

    To equate smacking a child on the backside and sexual assault actually belittles sexual assault and those who suffer it, be it adults or even worse other children.
    Are you seriously equating a parent smacking a clothed child on the backside to some of the utter disgusting, invasive and degrading things that some adults have done to poor children ?

    This mindset is akin to the drivel coming out from some commentators and campaigners about how Ireland has a rape culture, when if one looks at our statistics we have one of the least incidents of rape in comparison to some countries where it appears to be a national pastime.

    I believe hyperbole like this firstly lessens the seriousness of the term and by extension the plight of victims.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • #118
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    John_Rambo wrote: »

    There's another pearl of wisdom I'll share with you; ease off the alcohol abuse. The levels of drinking you're proud of posting on boards.ie will be detrimental to parenthood and will certainly shorten your temper and lead to impatient, knee jerk reactions.

    You can keep your "wisdom" as there is one thing for sure I'm not going to be one of those parents who disappears once they have kids. I'll still be out drinking very regulalry that's a fact, there will be none of this "I only get out a few times a year" lark you often hear from people after they have kids.

    Stop, even the thought of the boredom without regular nights out, after work drinks to look forward to to get you through the week etc.


  • #119
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    You can keep your "wisdom" as there is one thing for sure I'm not going to be one of those parents who disappears once they have kids. I'll still be out drinking very regulalry that's a fact, there will be none of this "I only get out a few times a year" lark you often hear from people after they have kids.

    Stop, even the thought of the boredom without regular nights out, after work drinks to look forward to to get you through the week etc.

    All the issues, questions and rebuttals put to you by various posters and THAT'S the best responce you can muster up...?

    I was right - you are too proud to admit your arguments are woeful.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #120
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    All the issues, questions and rebuttals put to you by various posters and THAT'S the best responce you can muster up...?

    I was right - you are too proud to admit your arguments are woeful.

    I'm am not too proud to admit anything, I 100% stand by what I said and I don't have any need to explain myself either nor have I time to.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »
    I'm am not too proud to admit anything, I 100% stand by what I said and I don't have any need to explain myself either nor have I time to.

    .. and yet here you are.

    Why can't you just be honest and admit that the scenarios of teenagers being disrespectful is not only blatantly obviously caused by your ideas, they are actually made worse by them; and that although you accept it's actually far easier and more productive to communicate with kids (or at least let someone who can communicate with kids do it) you're still gonna believe in smacking them because - best case scenrio, no harm comes of it; worse case scenario, you can blame the outcome on the so-called "liberal leftys" - you get to walk away with whistling with your hands in your pockets you came here with absolutely no need to explain yourself. ;)

    You'd honestly save more face.

    Anyway, that's my final argument. Not much point in debating with someone who admits to not being able or willing to defend his argument.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



Advertisement
Advertisement