Child Smacking..

procure11 · 21-08-2009 02:13PM #1

The New-zealanders have just voted in favour of parents smacking their children..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8214011.stm

I think it is a very controversial issue and always seems to generate very emotive debates.What do you think? Should parents be allowed to smack their kids or should the Government formulate legislation to ban it?

I personally have two minds on this.On one handI feel it should be the parents prerogative to bring up their wards in the way they feel its most appropriate...but also with so much child abuse going on it would also be wise for there to be some form of legislation on what exactly constitutes physical abuse through smacking.

biko · 21-08-2009 02:15PM

Maybe they should let the children vote next time.

Malari · 21-08-2009 02:16PM

Maybe we should be allowed vote for the right to smack other people's children.

utick · 21-08-2009 02:19PM

parents being allowed to discipline their children, i bet the UN wont like this, i bet new zealand will rank lower on there next quality of life surveys

meglome · 21-08-2009 02:20PM

procure11 wrote: »

I personally have two minds on this.On one handI feel it should be the parents prerogative to bring up their wards in the way they feel its most appropriate...but also with so much child abuse going on it would also be wise for there to be some form of legislation on what exactly constitutes physical abuse through smacking.

I thinks there's a big difference between a kid getting a smack and getting the crap beaten out of them. I don't think parents should be penalised for a little smack but they should be hunted down and punished severely for the latter.

esharknz · 21-08-2009 02:20PM

I'm a New Zealander living in Ireland, and I actually voted in this referendum.

There are a large number of murders of children each year. Too horrific to mention what some of these poor children went through. This law was brought in as a knee jerk reaction to attempt to reduce the number of deaths.

From what I could see, this had the effect of criminalising your average parent, which is counter productive and a waste of resources, where the target group would't give a toss that smacking was now illegal and still went in to make the lives of their now deceased children utter hell.

beans · 21-08-2009 02:21PM

I advocate smacking nippers until 2yrs old or so. After that, they're likely to start remembering and exact their revenge one day.

Ruu_Old · 21-08-2009 02:23PM

"Big deal! When I was a pup, we got spanked by presidents 'til the cows came home. Grover Cleveland spanked me on two non-consecutive occasions."

MrsA · 21-08-2009 02:29PM

Some of the worse child abuse cases I have ever heard of have come out of New Zealand, does anyone remember those poor little twins - Kahui I think might have been their surname. Then there was a little girl who died in a washing machine. Those parents were not just smacking their children - it was horiffic to read what went on.

I personally do not smack, I am against smacking as it teaches nothing. In fact maybe it does teach something, that if you are bigger and can hurt someone well then go ahead because it is okay

M
xx

orourkeda · 21-08-2009 02:30PM

Lame

procure11 · 21-08-2009 02:33PM

meglome wrote: »

I thinks there's a big difference between a kid getting a smack and getting the crap beaten out of them. I don't think parents should be penalised for a little smack but they should be hunted down and punished severely for the latter.

I actually agree with you.I certainly do not think parents should be penalised when they sensibly (being the operation word) discipline their kids.

Four-Percent · 21-08-2009 02:34PM

Ruu wrote: »

"Big deal! When I was a pup, we got spanked by presidents 'til the cows came home. Grover Cleveland spanked me on two non-consecutive occasions."

Ruu, I'd love to meet you in real life. The conversation would be a neverending steam of entertaining quotes

Diabhal Beag · 21-08-2009 02:35PM

This will end well :rolleyes:

Euro_Kraut · 21-08-2009 02:39PM

The referendum asked: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Thats a leading question. Surprise they let that into a referendum. It would be like the Lisbon Treaty ballot paper asking 'Should Ireland ratifity the Lisbon Treaty as part of our ongoing commitment to European Integration'

tolosenc · 21-08-2009 02:43PM

Kids who know that there's a wallop on it's way if they overstep the line tend to be better behaved, imo.

Smacking a child and beating a child to death are two wholly different things. No way should a government impinge on parents' methods of disciplining their child. I was raised that way, as were countless generations before me, and it did us no harm.

Randy Shafter · 21-08-2009 02:43PM

I think parents have every right to smack or slap their children if they're being cheeky etc. It will teach them not to be little brats and put a bit of disipline into them. The latter which i believe is lacking in children in Ireland today.

citizen_p · 21-08-2009 02:43PM

i got slapped as a kid.. im fine...

i dont mind slapping in circumstances....
but remember theres a diffrence between one slap and a beating...

Long Onion · 21-08-2009 02:46PM

I heard that the phrase "rule of thumb" came from an old law which held that men could beat their wives as long as the stick used for the beating did not have a diameter greater than the man's thumb.

This is what we need, well thought out laws.

On a serious note though, I will smack my child if it is warranted but will never use excessive force - this is for lowlife's and the morally bankrupt.

ejmaztec · 21-08-2009 02:47PM

Locking them in a cupboard with no food and water for a week usually does the trick.

tolosenc · 21-08-2009 02:47PM

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Thats a leading question. Surprise they let that into a referendum. It would be like the Lisbon Treaty ballot paper asking 'Should Ireland ratifity the Lisbon Treaty as part of our ongoing commitment to European Integration'

By definition, a leading question is one which has two answers: yes or no. Perfect for a referendum.

It's not as if they were saying "Yes or No, have you stopped beating your kids?"

I believe that wording is in the proposed amendment on which we will vote in October.

Professey Chin · 21-08-2009 02:49PM

This is how you instill discipline :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIpU4Z99EUA

JennyMaguire · 21-08-2009 02:50PM

Talking out of turn. That's a paddlin'.
Lookin' out the window. That's a paddlin'.
Staring at my sandals. That's a padddlin'.
Paddlin' the school canoe. Oh, you better believe that's a paddlin'.

Euro_Kraut · 21-08-2009 02:57PM

Toulousain wrote: »

No way should a government impinge on parents' methods of disciplining their child.

But you have already admited there should be some boundaries i.e. not beating a child. If a parents feels that the best method of diciplining a child is to sexaully abuse them, i'm sure everybody here would agree the state should interfene. Simulary if they decided not to feed a child for a day as a way of punishing them I would guess most here would say that is wrong.

Some we do accept that the State does have some role to play - we simply disagree on the extent that it should.

I was raised that way, as were countless generations before me, and it did us no harm

This is interesting. Do historical parenting methods have much an impact on the levels of cruelty and violence perpetrated by future generations?

For example German kids in the last 1800's would have been brought up in a very strict and discipline environment. That generation went on to commit some of the most appalling acts of cruelty known to man.

Similarly, our grandparents generation were brought up in a environment where beatings and corporeal punishment were the norm. That generation went on to commit young children to institutions and turn and blind eye to horrendous abuse by a group of people they were raised to trust unquestionably.

tolosenc · 21-08-2009 03:01PM

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

If a parents feels that the best method of diciplining a child is to sexaully abuse them

Reductio ad absurdum.

For example German kids in the last 1800's would have been brought up in a very strict and discipline environment. That generation went on to commit some of the most appalling acts of cruelty known to man.

Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Not doing your argument any favours.

Hells Belle · 21-08-2009 03:06PM

my mother got all her exercise chasing us with the nearest sundry household item, kept her fit at least, mind you we were cheeky feckers, I'd have beat the crap out of us!

On a serious note though where do you draw the line, a tap on the ar5e or a dig in the face, are these parameters set out? that'd be an interesting read. :eek:

Karl Hungus · 21-08-2009 03:07PM

Long Onion wrote: »

I heard that the phrase "rule of thumb" came from an old law which held that men could beat their wives as long as the stick used for the beating did not have a diameter greater than the man's thumb.

That's rubbish, rule of thumb never meant any such thing. It was not a rule in that sense at all, but as in using your thumb as a measurement; a ruler. From the knuckle of your thumb to the tip is roughly an inch. Rule of thumb pretty much means a rough measurement, or rough idea, estimation, something that's not quite accurate but reliable.

This old wives tale about it having something to do with wife beating is nothing but a myth, commonplace nonsense.

Euro_Kraut · 21-08-2009 03:09PM

Toulousain wrote: »

By definition, a leading question is one which has two answers: yes or no. Perfect for a referendum.

Are you serious? Its hard to tell on AH.

A referendum question should be neutral not leading.

Long Onion · 21-08-2009 03:10PM

Karl Hungus wrote: »

That's rubbish, rule of thumb never meant any such thing. It was not a rule in that sense at all, but as in using your thumb as a measurement; a ruler. From the knuckle of your thumb to the tip is roughly an inch. Rule of thumb pretty much means a rough measurement, or rough idea, estimation, something that's not quite accurate but reliable.

This old wives tale about it having something to do with wife beating is nothing but a myth, commonplace nonsense.

Thanks very much for putting that to bed but I kinda preferred the other version, can it be true as well?

Please?

Pretty please?

Karl Hungus wrote: »

No

Fine!

*goes to Afghanistan*

Karl Hungus · 21-08-2009 03:12PM

No. I'm fighting the good fight against misinformation and silly things people believe in. I mock your beliefs. :pac:

Euro_Kraut · 21-08-2009 03:15PM

Toulousain, deal with my points rather than critising my arguement styles.

Stark · 21-08-2009 03:16PM

Toulousain wrote: »

Reductio ad absurdum.

Doesn't apply here since Euro_Kraut is arguing for boundaries to be drawn between the reasonable and the absurd, as opposed to using the absurd to argue against the reasonable.

Child Smacking..

Smacking: your opinions? 186 votes

Comments