Discipline or abuse

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.

As an adult you wouldn't attack your friends, your mother, your father, siblings anyone just because ye felt it was warranted. But some here would hit a child? Is it just that there will be no consequences? No respect for the child? What makes a child more deserving off a smack then a relative or friend that is pissing you off for example?

A parent is responsible for raising and disciplining their child, different people have different views on how that responsibility is best achieved. People do not have a responsibility to raise or discipline their friends or family.

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and it's against the law to strike an adult for the sake of it. You can be charged with assault, yet there is no law (for smacking/striking) that protects the most innocent/vulnerable of our people.

Because they are two different things. A parent disciplining their child in a measured way is not the same as an adult assulting another adult.

Candie wrote: »

Using violence to teach kids lessons only teaches them one lesson.

Why do you assume it only teaches them one lesson? My parents never abused me, they disciplined me with a wooden spoon. I have never started a fight in my life, I have only ever defended myself or others through violence so how come I am not a violent person when according to you my parents only taught me that violence is acceptable?

You assume because violence and pain is applied to teach that it only teaches violence instead of teaching discipline. When someone learns martial arts or boxing or any contact sport they will be constantly exposed to physical violence and pain in order to teach that person the specific skills. When a boxing instructor applies physical violence in order to teach boxing skills are they also teaching their students that violence is acceptable?

Maguined wrote: »

Why do you assume it only teaches them one lesson? My parents never abused me, they disciplined me with a wooden spoon. ?

I would call that discipline via abusive/physical measures. You were physically struck and pain inflicted upon you to discipline you. It had to have caused pain. Plenty of ways to discipline children. I just disagree with the acts of violence to do so. And it is a form of violence.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

How about do not hit anyone instead?

Agreed, but the point was that hitting a weaker physical specimen than yourself to defend yourself should be a last resort. In general the average man is bigger and stronger and better capable of defending himself than the average woman. There should be no reason to be hitting anyone unless there it's a very good reason. The reasons become less justified when it's the average man hitting the average woman.

I remember when i was a kid my parents never smacked, nor any cousins. I did see some friends who were mental getting a smack but they were execptional (i cut sticks for one lad who came up to visit with my pen knife, when we got back to his place first thing he did with the stick was lash his mother across the legs as hard as he could. Of course, who gave him that stick ?!) Back then he was a little c@!t, but now he probably be diagnosed with add.

The worst though was a greek relative who came with their 5-6 year old kid. First sign of trouble out came the spoon. She used to lather him really hard, she was an old hand at the spoon , i think the spoon broke once. At the time it was a uncomfortable spectacle, but now it seems sad, the spoon was a common resort and its hard not to imagine that kid being resentful and just acting up more out of it.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Re the hitting of kids as I said earlier there is a huge difference between measured corporal punishment by a conscientious parent and a parent losing the rag and smacking about their children.

You know, the odd loss of rag is somewhat explainable. Children can really test your nerves, and sometimes a parent snaps and strikes out in an instant. Many regretting it afterwards. This happens, and I understand the pressures involved

The deliberate and intentional beating/smacking/striking of a child is what is nasty in my view. That a grown adult takes the time and thought to deliver an assault on a child. Takes time to retrieve an instrument to use to inflict "discipline" on a defenceless child. They have had time to calm down and to consider some other discipline, but yet still go ahead and beat/smack/strike a young child. I don't get it. And I never will.

walshb wrote: »

Well, you are wrong. I cannot lay my hands on someone for no reason. I can be charged with assault. A parent can lay their hands on their child in a disciplinary/abusive/violent fashion (striking/smacking) and there is not law to protect the child from being struck.

Why is a punch to a child abuse, yet being hit with an instrument is discipline? Your parents used a wooden spoon to strike you with. You said this was discipline. Had they used fists would that be abuse? Restrained force? Can a parent used restrained force with a punch?

BTW, striking in self defence was never mentioned by me. That's a whole different argument, and if you are judged to have struck someone in self defence then the law will judge accordingly.

How am I wrong? You made the statement that striking is striking which I refuted by saying the law considers the context of the striking. Not all striking is equal in the eyes of the law and I used the example of striking while attacking and striking while defending being considered different in law.

Why is striking to defend yourself not abuse while striking to steal from someone is abuse? The answer is the context. The intentions of a parent applying limited force to ensure there is no damage caused to the child apart from a sore bum for a couple of hours is a very different motivation compared to a parent lashing out and hitting a child full force that causes them significant injury.

Even subtle context matters. If you kill someone there is a distinction in the law between intending to kill someone which is murder or intending to physically harm them but accidentily killing them in the process which is manslaughter. Context matters and you are not considering it at all. You just make blanket statements "striking is striking" and consider all physical violence to a child as abuse without the context between abuse or discipline.

walshb wrote: »

You know, the odd loss of rag is somewhat explainable. Children can really test your nerves, and sometimes a parent snaps and strikes out in an instant. Many regretting it afterwards. This happens, and I understand the pressures involved

The deliberate and intentional beating/smacking/striking of a child is what is nasty in my view. That a grown adult takes the time and thought to deliver an assault on a child. Takes time to retrieve an instrument to use to inflict "discipline" on a defenceless child. They have had time to calm down and to consider some other discipline, but yet still go ahead and beat/smack/strike a young child. I don't get it. And I never will.

I completely and utterly disagree with you first paragraph. It is not 'explainable' to hit a child when you have lost your temper. Never.

The smacking of the child is a last resort. All other avenues have been explored. The boundary has been crossed. The child knows it and so does the parent.

OldRio wrote: »

I completely and utterly disagree with you first paragraph. It is not 'explainable' to hit a child when you have lost your temper. Never.

I said somewhat explainable. Any parent can reach a crisis point. I am talking about rare incidents here. When a child does something that frightens the life of a parent, or really tests them. Any good and decent and gentle person could snap in that scenario. It's a momentary loss of control, that is regretted. This to me is a lot less nasty than a parent who regularly uses an instrument to strike a child. This requires thought and intention.

walshb wrote: »

Striking to defend yourself is different than striking for the sake of it. I never said otherwise. Best to keep it simple. Striking someone for the sake of it can see you charged with assault. Striking your child to discipline it is tolerated. No need to speak of self defence in this example. Parents don't strike their young children to defend themselves, unless they children are demonic....

The defense/attack part of striking was to highlight that it is not as simple as saying "striking is striking" you have accepted this. Now when it comes to children I make a similar contextual distinction between striking with restrained controlled force to discipline a child being very different to lashing out with full force out of anger to a child which is abuse. You do not see this contextual difference, to you "striking is striking". Why can you make the contextual difference between attack/defend forms of striking yet you cannot see the difference between the discipline/abuse striking?

walshb wrote: »

Does the thought of a young and defenceless child having to endure soreness for a couple of hours not sadistic to you? I really cannot understand how any parent would want to inflict that upon their child. And, considering other methods available, and well documented, it makes it even more nasty, as well as the parent having the time to think about what they are doing.

BTW, your words, sore bum for a couple of hours. How is this restrained force? And, even if it is, it's not near retrained enough.

No not at all. When my parents disciplined me I do not believe they acted out of sadism. They did not want to hurt me, they viewed the physical violence as an apt educational tool to teach me discipline and I accept that and I feel I learned from it. In fact my earliest childhood memory I can actually think of is when I was a child myself and my two siblings all were in trouble. We disobeyed our parents and were not accepting reason so when I heard my mother going into the kitchen to get the wooden spoon my sister ran off crying to her room to hide. That is the response I used to have as well but this memory is when I learned that running away never solved anything. Hiding never solved anything. I had still acted incorrectly and it was my responsibility to be punished. As a small child I fearfully went into the kitchen to accept my punishment. My parents lessons taught me responsibility for my actiones.

It's not restrained enough in your opinion. In mine it was perfectly fine. For a couple of hours I had a sore bum, for a couple of hours I thought about why my actions resulted in me getting a sore bum, I evaluated my actions for that time and learned as a result. My world did not end because of a sore bum, the sky did not fall, I did not grow up to have psychological issues at all. I grew up to realise it is not a nice thing to inflict violence to someone, I have a first hand personal account of why it is not nice and that is a more poignant lesson to me than any verbal lecture could of ever taught me.