Child welfare groups want slapping outlawed

crockholm · 07-02-2014 11:01AM

I find it absolutely hilarious when the wife tries to plead and reason with the Young fella in a typical Swedish fashion,he ignores her completely.

All I have to do is raise my voice and the wee goof pipes down immediately.

I see evidence here Daily of "quality" egalitarian parenting,but their heads are so far up their own arses believing that it is the only way to be a parent and they choose to neglect the generation of Little emperors/empresses that they have created.

GarIT · 07-02-2014 11:01AM

anncoates wrote: »

Both cases would be assault, which is already catered for in the law?

I'm no cheerleader for smacking children but all you have as a tactic is to try and emotionally conflate smacking with assault.

No, there is a clause that says it's not assault if it is used reasonably to discipline children.

GarIT · 07-02-2014 11:05AM

Bacchus wrote: »

A punch is not the same thing as a slap. Don't change the scale of the action to suit your argument.

I'm talking about a single slap to bum to re-enforce to a child that their action is not acceptable. I saw a woman slap her child yesterday for picking up something at a shop. No explanation to the child or anything. I don't agree with that (what exactly did the child learn) but slapping can be an effect tool when used properly. The problem is poor parenting, not the slap. Why should I (a hopefully one day good parent) be restricted from discipling my child in the way I see fit because the PC brigade think I'm a child beater for doing it?

As for slapping another adult, that's a different matter. The distinction for me is the intent. You slap an adult, you're not trying to educate or discipline that person, you are engaging in an act of violence. There is also a lot of room for interpretation in your 'scenario' so it's hard to compare to the specific act of using a slap to discipline your child.

Btw, I'm not saying some parents don't hit their children out of violence (and that is awful of course) but to make it illegal for all parents to even give a single slap to their child who they are trying to raise as a responsible, respectful human being is ridiculous.

Stop making things up, I never equated a punch with a slap. My example was you said if you were slapped you don't remember it doing harm, my point was that is was so long ago even if you were punched you wouldn't remember it causing harm.

If I slap a child to educate them it's fine, if I give my wife an exactly equal slap to educate her it would be wrong. The purpose doesn't change anything assault is wrong against anyone except children.

Bacchus · 07-02-2014 11:06AM

ElleEm wrote: »

So if you slap your wife/ husband when they want a bottle of red in Tesco and you don't, that's okay? Or if you spot them having a biscuit before dinner, or if they say "no" when you ask them to make the bed? WHY is it okay to hit a child to "teach" them when it is not okay to hit an adult.

It is different because you are not responsible for their upbringing. They don't need you to teach them right from wrong.

Btw, when you say "hit" you make no distinction between a slap, a punch, a kick, taking a hurley to them etc. They are vastly different things and your argument does not have the same weight when you replace "hit" with "slap on the bum". I'd be against any sort of excessive "hitting" but see no harm in the occasional slap and parents should not be afraid for doing so.

anncoates · 07-02-2014 11:11AM

GarIT wrote: »

No, there is a clause that says it's not assault if it is used reasonably to discipline children.

So if I put my child in hospital with a beating, I can claim I did it to discipline him and get away with it.

Plausible alright.

Bacchus · 07-02-2014 11:12AM

GarIT wrote: »

Stop making things up, I never equated a punch with a slap.

Bacchus wrote: »

I was slapped on occasion as a child, sometimes got the wooden spoon too. Didn't do me any harm.

GarIT wrote: »

If I punched you it wouldn't do you any harm you would remember in 20 years time.

:rolleyes: You compared my point that I was slapped as a child with being punched. You equated the the two.

GarIT wrote: »

If I slap a child to educate them it's fine, if I give my wife an exactly equal slap to educate her it would be wrong. The purpose doesn't change anything assault is wrong against anyone except children.

If your wife thought you felt the need to educate her by any means, she should probably be reconsidering the relationship. It is not your responsibility to educate her. It is a parents responsibility to raise their child though and an occasional slap is a useful tool. I am not condoning any sort of excessive hitting against a child. What it comes down to is poor parenting.

crockholm · 07-02-2014 11:14AM

GarIT wrote: »

Stop making things up, I never equated a punch with a slap. My example was you said if you were slapped you don't remember it doing harm, my point was that is was so long ago even if you were punched you wouldn't remember it causing harm.

If I slap a child to educate them it's fine, if I give my wife an exactly equal slap to educate her it would be wrong. The purpose doesn't change anything assault is wrong against anyone except children.

If you're going to give your Child the same rights and responsibilities as your wife then be sure to get him/her up for work every day,make sure he gets a drivers licence for his 5th birthday and give him the vote too.

Or accecpt that the parent/Child dynamic is not founded on equal rights.

Bacchus · 07-02-2014 11:18AM

anncoates wrote: »

So if I put my child in hospital with a beating, I can claim I did it to discipline him and get away with it.

Plausible alright.

Cause beating a child to the point of hospitalization is what we're all talking about here. Right? Interesting that every argument 'for' this legislation has to use words like 'hit', 'beat' & 'abuse' or resort to tactics like the post I've quoted that the 'against' side is condoning hospitalising children.

EDIT: I think the post I quoted may have been sarcasm... need to get my detector fixed.

anncoates · 07-02-2014 11:43AM

Bacchus wrote: »

EDIT: I think the post I quoted may have been sarcasm... need to get my detector fixed.

It was.

darkpagandeath · 07-02-2014 02:20PM

There is an awful lot of hyperbole going on.

Slap is not = Beating there are already laws for that.

The question is do they need further laws for just a slap. The language these groups use is quite cleaver they try to put an image in you mind of severe child abuse when in reality it’s only 1 slap. Equating a slap to child abuse diminishes what is and does happen to some children. They are the ones that need protection.

Triangla · 07-02-2014 02:40PM

ElleEm wrote: »

So if you slap your wife/ husband when they want a bottle of red in Tesco and you don't, that's okay? Or if you spot them having a biscuit before dinner, or if they say "no" when you ask them to make the bed? WHY is it okay to hit a child to "teach" them when it is not okay to hit an adult.

I didn't mention hitting an adult once.

To bring that argument in is not comparing like with like.

A child is not an adult.

There is a massive difference physically and mentally. Hence children are not allowed to drive, sign contracts, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol.

I said slap, not hit. A slap causes what damage? A small sharp pain that comes amd then goes.

It's not breaking bones or psychologically scarring them for life.

I was slapped as a child, could I remember specific instances? Actually no. Because it had no permanent impact other than causing me to think twice before doing something. Probably saved me from breaking my neck on building sites as a kid. Or from drinking back a bottle of weed killer from my Dads shed.

If a child misbehaves it is the parents job to correct them.

If the kid refuses to listen to words I think it is good for the kid to know they may get a slap and to just do as they are told.

darced · 07-02-2014 02:45PM

This post has been deleted.

darkpagandeath · 07-02-2014 02:47PM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would argue that it's the softly softly naughty step parents that get up in arms and no one else.

OldNotWIse · 07-02-2014 02:52PM

I dont really know. I would never hit a child. And like one poster pointed out, if you slapped your spouse (who is much bigger than a child) to "reasonably chastise" them, you'd be arrested. The "now now dear Mommy doesnt like when you do that" approach annoys me but when a child is slapped in front of me, I can actually feel myself bristle and I get this weird feeling in the pit of my stomach thats says, "there's something not right about that". We weren't slapped, but my parents managed to instill a healthy respect for them in us.

shleedance · 07-02-2014 03:02PM

I don't see slapping as child abuse. There's a huge difference between slapping a child for being a pain and giving it a hiding.

It comes down to physical harm - slapping will most likely not cause physical harm apart from mild stinging which is temporary.

I would however only use slapping as a last resort, if other forms of discipline do not work. I wouldn't recommend slapping hard either.

strobe · 07-02-2014 04:22PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ohh I'm not disputing the OP's logic was a bit, em, flawed strobe, but that was some strawman

Usually we're about five or six pages into these threads before someone introduces the whole "but what about this, this and this" type stuff

You're still missing the point, Czar. There was no straw man. A straw man is when you misrepresent an argument to make it easier to attack.

The OP's argument is, broadly, "only 40% of people do x, or are likely to do x, therefore why legislate against it ..."

I'm just saying that is clearly a flawed way of approaching anything in society. If x is 'a bad thing for individuals and/or society (which it is according to the people calling for legislation - but in the spirit of the OP I'll avoid getting into whether I agree or disagree with them) and therefore ideally no one should do it' then saying "well only 40% of people do x" is an argument in favour of legislation to discourage x, not against it.

Hence (that's right, I said hence, so you know I've gotta be right) my use of various examples. If murder/drunk driving, (x), etc, was legal, was bad for individuals and/or society as a whole, and 40% of the population was at it, would anyone be saying "sure what's the point of a law against it, a little over half the people in the country won't do it anyway"?

I really don't think I can be any clearer than that. If you (or the OP) still can't follow my point I'm afraid I can't help.

Peace and love and nice things.
Sincerely,
Strobe P Tumblefumbler III

(Sorry for the initial tone of one of my posts this morning though OP, I was a little tired and cranky )

darkpagandeath · 07-02-2014 04:51PM

strobe wrote: »

You're still missing the point, Czar. There was no straw man. A straw man is when you misrepresent an argument to make it easier to attack.

The OP's argument is, broadly, "only 40% of people do x, or are likely to do x, therefore why legislate against it ..."

I'm just saying that is clearly a flawed way of approaching anything in society. If x is 'a bad thing for individuals and/or society (which it is according to the people calling for legislation - but in the spirit of the OP I'll avoid getting into whether I agree or disagree with them) and therefore ideally no one should do it' then saying "well only 40% of people do x" is an argument in favour of legislation to discourage x, not against it.

Hence (that's right, I said hence, so you know I've gotta be right) my use of various examples. If murder/drunk driving, (x), etc, was legal, was bad for individuals and/or society as a whole, and 40% of the population was at it, would anyone be saying "sure what's the point of a law against it, a little over half the people in the country won't do it anyway"?

I really don't think I can be any clearer than that. If you (or the OP) still can't follow my point I'm afraid I can't help.

Peace and love and nice things.
Sincerely,
Strobe P Tumblefumbler III

(Sorry for the initial tone of one of my posts this morning though OP, I was a little tired and cranky )

No offence taken this is a discussion board :P

MonstaMash · 07-02-2014 05:54PM

Frank Lee Midere · 07-02-2014 07:53PM

It's not unreasonable to protect children from physical attacks in the same fashion - or a greater fashion - than adults. You can't slap a stranger, you can't slap your wife ( those days are over), you shouldn't be allowed to slap a child. Same laws. No doubt nobody has ever been arrested for a tiny slap on the wrist of an adult, but walking up to a stranger and slapping them across the face or on the arse would be assault.

Smaller humans need more protection than bigger ones. No slapping.

EDIT: note I didn't say punch.

DarkJager · 07-02-2014 08:59PM

I don't agree with this. Compared to other generations, today's youth seem to be uncontrolled little bastards who feel they can do and say what they want without reprecussions.

This is a direct result of soft handed parenting and a failure to correct bad behaviour in an efficient manner. As a consequence, the wider society now has to put up with anti social scrotes who have zero respect for other peoples property or privacy.

nc19 · 07-02-2014 09:05PM

Walk around some of the worse areas in dublin and have some interactions with the youth in the area and you will quickly see its more slapping they need not less.

Ms. Pingui · 07-02-2014 10:02PM

DarkJager wrote: »

I don't agree with this. Compared to other generations, today's youth seem to be uncontrolled little bastards who feel they can do and say what they want without reprecussions.

This is a direct result of soft handed parenting and a failure to correct bad behaviour in an efficient manner. As a consequence, the wider society now has to put up with anti social scrotes who have zero respect for other peoples property or privacy.

I think every generation thinks that about the next generation. There were always brats around, it's nothing new.

Any parent who has to resort to slapping is simply a bad parent who can't raise their children without the use of violence.

crockholm · 07-02-2014 10:29PM

Ms. Pingui wrote: »

I think every generation thinks that about the next generation. There were always brats around, it's nothing new.

Any parent who has to resort to slapping is simply a bad parent who can't raise their children without the use of violence.

You're right.Good parents were invented in 1990 A.D.

Ms. Pingui · 07-02-2014 10:31PM

crockholm wrote: »

You're right.Good parents were invented in 1990 A.D.

You're right!

crockholm · 07-02-2014 10:37PM

Ms. Pingui wrote: »

You're right!

enfant terrible · 07-02-2014 10:45PM

Bacchus wrote: »

It is different because you are not responsible for their upbringing. They don't need you to teach them right from wrong.

Btw, when you say "hit" you make no distinction between a slap, a punch, a kick, taking a hurley to them etc. They are vastly different things and your argument does not have the same weight when you replace "hit" with "slap on the bum". I'd be against any sort of excessive "hitting" but see no harm in the occasional slap and parents should not be afraid for doing so.

Maybe there should be classes to teach parents how to hit their children so they don't hurt them too much.

Makes sense.

How Soon Is Now · 07-02-2014 10:50PM

Bloody hell some of the complete over the top **** people are coming out with in this thread. There is nothing wrong with getting a slap for being a little ****e it never did anyone any harm ffs.

Theres a difference in a small slap and a proper hard slap or punch yet some on here seem to think a little slap is abuse :pac: god sake.

Child abuse and giving them a little slap on the arse are a million times different.

And people wonder why there are so many little jumped up pricks hanging around......

wendell borton · 07-02-2014 10:53PM

anncoates wrote: »

Unruly girls that will not settle down must be taken in hand.

A crack on the head
Is what you get for not asking
And a crack on the head
Is what you get for asking

AulBiddy · 07-02-2014 11:09PM

This is ridiculous. Yes it is wrong to punch or abuse a child but a smack on the wrist to teach a child right from wrong is not. However I do feel that people who do it in public have no control of their temper and are embarrassing themselves as well as embarrassing a child.

My parents smacked me and lost their temper when I was young. It only gave me a ferocious temper as well but nothing traumatizing. It hurt my feelings at the time but I'm sure the crap I put my parents through sometimes hurt as well.

kc90 · 08-02-2014 12:07AM

GarIT wrote: »

If I slap a child to educate them it's fine, if I give my wife an exactly equal slap to educate her it would be wrong. The purpose doesn't change anything assault is wrong against anyone except children.

I wouldn't exactly advocate it, I do believe there are more appropriate discipline methods, but its not a reach to differentiate the two. It is a parents responsibility to teach their child, and sometimes reasoning is not an option, particularly for younger children, and in this situation a slap may highlight the behaviour and underline what is unreasonable.
I suppose it's not a real justication but it's quite normal in the animal kingdom, particularly dogs, for a quick nip to correct the young. Quick and painless but effective.
That responsibilty doesn't extend to teaching others, as with much legislation regarding a parent and child.
As you've pointed out yourself, there is an allowance for a 'reasonable' slap, in other words, it is not assault.

Child welfare groups want slapping outlawed

Comments