Disciplining Children AKA Back in my day they behaved.

Candie wrote: »

I was never hit or smacked or belted or given a hiding or threatened with a wooden spoon etc. Not once.

Only the gods know how I've avoided a life of drug addiction and prison.

I was hit, smacked, belted, and I haven't turned into a violent person.

There are degrees of punishment same with being hit. My parents were careful with how they punished us, using a combination of physical and emotional punishment. It worked. Three children, and all turned out to be productive members of society without any criminal records or drug addictions.

The problem with physical punishment is that obviously it can be taken to extremes. However, the same could be said about emotional punishment, and frankly the effects of emotional punishment (guilt, anxiety etc) are far more likely to have lasting effects.

I wonder will they decide that any form of punishment, even "a firm talking to" should be banned simply because it might have lasting negative effects?

People seem to often confuse a lack of physical discipline with a lack of any discipline at all. My parents were strict enough without using physical punishment or any kind of emotional or anxiety inducing psychological methods. I was reasoned with, and on occasion I had things taken from me or was grounded or sanctioned in some other way. Same with my sister and two brothers, and my nieces and nephews are similarly raised, all of them lovely well behaved and well mannered kids.

It's not a choice between slapping kids or letting them run riot, there's a huge middle ground there.

AH only deals in extremes though.

donegaLroad wrote: »

Spare the rod and spoil the child has long thought to be unture.

Physically correcting children can lead to violent and aggressive behavior as the child grows older. (among other issues)

Not physically correcting children is arguably leading to more aggressive and misbehaved young adults...

Candie wrote: »

I was never hit or smacked or belted or given a hiding or threatened with a wooden spoon etc. Not once.

Only the gods know how I've avoided a life of drug addiction and prison.

I got a slap or the wooden spoon as a kid, as did my the other siblings and we are all perfectly normal humans who haven't murdered anyone...yet.

Does my example invalidate yours since you believe yours somehow invalidates mine?

GreeBo wrote: »

donegaLroad wrote: »

Spare the rod and spoil the child has long thought to be unture.

Physically correcting children can lead to violent and aggressive behavior as the child grows older. (among other issues)

Not physically correcting children is arguably leading to more aggressive and misbehaved young adults...

You seem to have hit the 'submit reply' button before finishing the sentence and telling us why.

GreeBo wrote: »

I got a slap or the wooden spoon as a kid, as did my the other siblings and we are all perfectly normal humans who haven't murdered anyone...yet.

Does my example invalidate yours since you believe yours somehow invalidates mine?

I don't believe mine invalidates yours (or vice versa), I just don't believe that it's an essential child rearing tool. I think if you can avoid hitting people smaller than you, that's a good thing.

The only time I was slapped was when my Gran slapped my hand away from something I was about to touch that I didn't know was very hot. I completely understand that she hadn't time to chat to me about it and had to act decisively, but other than circumstances like that, taking the time to talk things through reasonably is a life skill worth teaching kids.

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

Teaching a child right from wrong seems to be a thing of the past. It's now all about their rights and perceived wrongs. And that someone else will do it, pay for it etc...

Some examples maybe?

Neyite wrote: »

Children are funny wee yokes. My child would be exactly the kind of kid you could break wooden spoons on and he'd remain defiant, and become more badly behaved if you physically punished him. Change the wifi password or threaten to remove the bedtime story though and he's putty in my hands.

Tbh, slapping kids is lazy or ignorant parenting IMO. My parents did it because looking back their parenting knowledge was limited to their own upbringings which were quite bleak and harsh. But when they saw their grandchildren being reared without getting slapped and turning out just as well as their parents did, they realised that there are other, more effective ways to discipline and correct poor behaviour, and mam has often said she wished she had the knowledge and resources back then that we have now.

A slap is lazy but changing the Wi-Fi password isn't?
You'll have to run that by me again...

You prefer the psychological approach of deprivation and isolation over the thumb screws I guess?
And yet we are the ones who apparently torture kids by slapping them:rolleyes:

lawred2

Was never even as much as slapped...

How am I not a depraved senseless villain with no moral compass?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You seem to have hit the 'submit reply' button before finishing the sentence and telling us why.

You tell me how you've come to the conclusion that corporal punishment leads to it, so why don't you tell us why?

As a society we have used corporal punishment for far longer than any other means, if its so destructive, how did at manage to get this far?

lawred2 wrote: »

Was never even as much as slapped...

How am I not a depraved senseless villain with no moral compass?

We should get together, rob some banks, kill a few people, do some class A's. Sure it's only a matter of time.

Candie wrote: »

I don't believe mine invalidates yours (or vice versa), I just don't believe that it's an essential child rearing tool. I think if you can avoid hitting people smaller than you, that's a good thing.

The only time I was slapped was when my Gran slapped my hand away from something I was about to touch that I didn't know was very hot. I completely understand that she hadn't time to chat to me about it and had to act decisively, but other than circumstances like that, taking the time to talk things through reasonably is a life skill worth teaching kids.

And when kids go ahead and ignore you because texting boundaries is what they do, then what?

You often cannot reason with a 2 year old, what then?
I can't see how psychological punishment is soo much better, because that's what depriving them of toys, WiFi etc amounts to.

GreeBo wrote: »

And when kids go ahead and ignore you because texting boundaries is what they do, then what?

You often cannot reason with a 2 year old, what then?
I can't see how psychological punishment is soo much better, because that's what depriving them of toys, WiFi etc amounts to.

Taking toys is giving consequences, and not being able to play with a toy for a few minutes isn't comparable to a person twice your size physically inflicting pain on you, especially when it's one of the big people you love most.

That's my take, yours is obviously different but I'll never find it a reasonable situation that slapping another adult is a crime, but slapping a toddler of two is perfectly fine and totally reasonable.

Neyite

GreeBo wrote: »

A slap is lazy but changing the Wi-Fi password isn't?
You'll have to run that by me again...

You prefer the psychological approach of deprivation and isolation over the thumb screws I guess?
And yet we are the ones who apparently torture kids by slapping them:rolleyes:

Changing the wifi password is not lazy nor depriving or isolating the child. It takes far more time to explain the poor behaviour, explain the correct behaviour, and give him advance warning of the sanction he will get if he continues with the poor behaviour, then following through when the behaviour stays the same, then talking it over with him, and letting him know that he will get the wifi back after an allotted time.

I wont have a home where slapping anyone is acceptable.

GreeBo wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You seem to have hit the 'submit reply' button before finishing the sentence and telling us why.

You tell me how you've come to the conclusion that corporal punishment leads to it, so why don't you tell us why?

As a society we have used corporal punishment for far longer than any other means, if its so destructive, how did at manage to get this far?

What...? All I did was ask you to finish a sentence!

uck51js9zml2yt

Was in a pub with some friends for a meal this weekend. Some little darlings were bashing on the piano.
A friend asked them if they could play and when they said no, suggested they stop.
They continued to the delight of their parents.
My friend then asked the bar staff to stop them. He locked the piano to the disgust of the kids and their parents.
We enjoyed by a quiet meal and a chat:)

freshpopcorn

Zainab Wailing Turpitude wrote: »

Was in a pub with some friends for a meal this weekend. Some little darlings were bashing on the piano.
A friend asked them if they could play and when they said no, suggested they stop.
They continued to the delight of their parents.
My friend then asked the bar staff to stop them. He locked the piano to the disgust of the kids and their parents.
We enjoyed by a quiet meal and a chat:)

If only you saw what the kids did to ye're food when ye weren't looking!

jimbobaloobob

Just look at Banduras Bo bo the clown experiment and you have your answer.

It (beatings) didn't work before you think it would be better in today's world. Ehh no.

Candie wrote: »

Taking toys is giving consequences, and not being able to play with a toy for a few minutes isn't comparable to a person twice your size physically inflicting pain on you, especially when it's one of the big people you love most.

That's my take, yours is obviously different but I'll never find it a reasonable situation that slapping another adult is a crime, but slapping a toddler of two is perfectly fine and totally reasonable.

That argument isn't at all logical.

Giving a slap is giving consequences, feeling a small bit if pain for s few seconds isn't comparable to being denied access to your favorite toy for an hour, especially when the person denying you access is the person who is supposed to love you the most.

Taking items from another adult is a crime, denying them access to things that are they're is a crime, but it's somehow grand to do it to a child?

If I took the deprivation example to the extremes that you side takes the no slapping argument, you would rightly call me out on it, but it's somehow fine when you do it.

We are talking about a slap that will sting for a couple of seconds, not someone abusing a child or walloping them!

Neyite wrote: »

Changing the wifi password is not lazy nor depriving or isolating the child. It takes far more time to explain the poor behaviour, explain the correct behaviour, and give him advance warning of the sanction he will get if he continues with the poor behaviour, then following through when the behaviour stays the same, then talking it over with him, and letting him know that he will get the wifi back after an allotted time.

I wont have a home where slapping anyone is acceptable.

Why do you automatically assume that the adult giving the slap isn't explaining why the child got the slap, explaining what is required to not get another slap and giving warning that another slap will follow if the unwanted behavior continues?

Why do you all base your arguments against slapping on some lunatic who would swoop in, wallop the unsuspecting child and then leave without a word of explanation?!
Any adult who behaves like that isn't suddenly going to become a better parent just because they can't slap.

There is never any reasoned logic to these arguments, just knee jerk, unbalanced opinions. It does nothing to change anyone's opinion.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What...? All I did was ask you to finish a sentence!

The sentence was finished.
In my opinion, people are no better behaved now than when slapping was common place, I'd argue they are far worse. Hence argue that slapping was a better method.

Again, no one is advocating abusing or beating children, one side seems to be unable to accept that unfortunately. Instead resorting to childish jokes about robbing banks and thanks whoring.

GreeBo wrote: »

The sentence was finished.
In my opinion, people are no better behaved now than when slapping was common place, I'd argue they are far worse. Hence argue that slapping was a better method.

And I asked what this was based on, because it was missing from your initial post. Instead, there were three dots.

As it is, your argument is based on the fallacy that corelation is causation.

Again, no one is advocating abusing or beating children, one side seems to be unable to accept that unfortunately. Instead resorting to childish jokes about robbing banks and thanks whoring.

Never said it was. My observations are:

1) It's done without communication. If you can communicate with children, then communicate with them. If you can't then how is hitting them supposed to teach them right from wrong? And effective conflict resolution (or are you ok teaching them hitting is a good way of resolving your conflicts with other people?)

2) It's rule by fear. And as soon as the fear is gone, the behaviour returns. The only thing the kids learn is not to get caught.

Parents are gone soft nowadays, that's quite evident here and in day to day life. Lack of a smack is only one thing, there are plenty more things too.

"Oh I'd never slap my child" :rolleyes:. A good smack is a valuable tool in teaching manners to a child, it's not something that's needed all the the but there are times where a child deserves it. Also once you use it you always have the threat of using it again which is another tool in disciplining a child so you may not even need to smack them as they will cop on to avoid it.

Also a smack is not a "beating" or "an assault" :rolleyes: like some claim. It's a quick slap across the ar*se or legs like we all got as kids and deserved too.

SimonTemplar

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Teaching a child right from wrong seems to be a thing of the past. It's now all about their rights and perceived wrongs. And that someone else will do it, pay for it etc...

I don't think teaching a child that it is acceptable to hit another person is teaching them right from wrong.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And I asked what this was based on, because it was missing from your initial post. Instead, there were three dots.

As it is, your argument is based on the fallacy that corelation is causation.

Never said it was. My observations are:

1) It's done without communication. If you can communicate with children, then communicate with them. If you can't then how is hitting them supposed to teach them right from wrong? And effective conflict resolution (or are you ok teaching them hitting is a good way of resolving your conflicts with other people?)

2) It's rule by fear. And as soon as the fear is gone, the behaviour returns. The only thing the kids learn is not to get caught.

My point was exactly that, if some poster can use correlation to somehow prove slapping is bad, I can use the same to prove it's not. Clearly that was lost on you I your bid to be clever.

Observe a lot of parenting do you then? Let's try to put a percentage on that...would you say it's even 1%? Not sure your sub 1% exposure is in any way valuable to the argument frankly.

So removing the WiFi access isn't rule by fear then? The child isn't afraid of losing access? Why does simple logic go out the window in these arguments?

Somehow the child losing Wi-Fi doesn't learn to not get caught huh?

Children aren't afraid of being slapped, we are not talking about beatings here, so your "argument" is illogical as it equally applies to both sides.

qwerty ui op

Reuben Bumpy Ground wrote: »

Parents are gone soft nowadays, that's quite evident here and in day to day life.

People keep saying this or something along these lines, How is it quite evident in day to day life?

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I don't think teaching a child that it is acceptable to hit another person is teaching them right from wrong.

Nor do I.

GreeBo wrote: »

My point was exactly that, if some poster can use correlation to somehow prove slapping is bad, I can use the same to prove it's not. Clearly that was lost on you I your bid to be clever.

Not at all - just need a little context. But then if that's the case, and you're merely highlighting the fallacy in his post, fair enough, my mistake.

But it's difficult position to hold accurately: I mean, how exactly is it possible to know this? Are kids worse today than they were in the 80s, for a start? I'd argue much the same, but would be open to reasoned counter-debate. And how do you know whether their parents using physical chastisement or another form of punishment?

Observe a lot of parenting do you then? Let's try to put a percentage on that...would you say it's even 1%? Not sure your sub 1% exposure is in any way valuable to the argument frankly.

So removing the WiFi access isn't rule by fear then? The child isn't afraid of losing access? Why does simple logic go out the window in these arguments?

Somehow the child losing Wi-Fi doesn't learn to not get caught huh?

Children aren't afraid of being slapped, we are not talking about beatings here, so your "argument" is illogical as it equally applies to both sides.

None of this is in any way deals with the arguments I made: the wifi argument is someone else's, not mine; and the slapping/beating argument doesn't deal with communication whichever word you use.

Neyite

GreeBo wrote: »

Why do you automatically assume that the adult giving the slap isn't explaining why the child got the slap, explaining what is required to not get another slap and giving warning that another slap will follow if the unwanted behavior continues?

Why do you all base your arguments against slapping on some lunatic who would swoop in, wallop the unsuspecting child and then leave without a word of explanation?!
Any adult who behaves like that isn't suddenly going to become a better parent just because they can't slap.

There is never any reasoned logic to these arguments, just knee jerk, unbalanced opinions. It does nothing to change anyone's opinion.

*slap*
"Don't slap your brother. The reason I slapped you is punishment for slapping your brother because slapping is wrong and abusive and you must never do it. Violence is never the answer."
*slap*

Yeah, explaining makes it crystal clear with no contradictions or mixed messages at all. A 4 year old will really get the nuances of your illegal actions towards them. :rolleyes:

Reuben Bumpy Ground wrote: »

Also a smack is not a "beating" or "an assault" :rolleyes: like some claim. It's a quick slap across the ar*se or legs like we all got as kids and deserved too.

If your colleague boss or partner slapped you across the arse because you did something wrong, it's legally assault and they could be prosecuted for it. Since 2015 when the clause of 'reasonable chastisement' was removed from law as a defence for hitting children, it's effectively a ban on slapping children. You slapping your (hypothetical) child IS legally assault, it IS a crime and can be treated and prosecuted as such.

If you hit an intellectually or physically disabled adult or your dementia-ridden parent, you'd be the lowest scumbag of the low. I'd go as far as to call someone like that an utter cnut. Children are equally as vulnerable as the elderly or disabled, and hitting them is just as wrong, and just as illegal.