Clobbering kids

stimpson

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

kiffer wrote: »

But those non-slapping parents posting in this thread claim that a well disciplined child would stop at such an order (I may be putting words into peoples mouths here... Non-slapping parents please chime in agree or disagree?)

That's pretty much it. I keep a reasonably mellow "ah-ah" for things like touching my expensive wireless keyboard, trying to put toast in the DVD player and feeding his dinner to the dog. A firm "No!" is reserved for dangerous situations and is enough to shock the poor little fella into stopping what he is doing. He's still a little young for reasoning to work, but we try it anyway for consistency.

I will add that I don't see discipline as the only way to good behaviour - I think proper diet and a proper sleep routine are equally important.

Truley

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

This is one thing I still haven't got my head around. Why do people say slapping is needed in cases when children are, for example about to touch a hot stove, why not just move their hand away?
In my work I've had kids run towards roads, pour juice into plug sockets, on one occasion run towards a lake with the intention of jumping in! I have never needed to 'slap' them away from the dangerous situation, well I wouldn't be allowed even if I wanted to! But surely if you're close enough to hit them you're close enough to grap their hand or whatever and safely move it away

ISAW

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You have 19 out of 23 parents who voted stating smacking is unnecessary

You don't but let us assume you do.

and yet you still have people arguing that they should be able to smack and there is nothing wrong with smacking...how isn't that translated as;

"I don't care if other methods of discipline work, I want to hit my child, dammit!"

If you have 98 of 100 people saying there is a God and atheism only caused death and destruction for society how isn't their response translated as:

"I don't care if other methods of running society work, I want atheistic regimes dammit!"

It's just more of the wishing to use flowery language and avoid calling a spade a spade cos in black and white the truth doesn't sound so nice. Over-blown argument that I and others have made? You mean actual parents stating actual disciplinary methods that work with their actual children? lol.

But actual religious systems running society were a bad thing and actual atheistic regimes which contributed nothing but death and destruction were good?

Here's how communist and Nazism operated. You basically get a pop poll of a few people and dilute the moral people into a minority. when you have enough people to control the society you take over and dictate your views over anyone who opposes them.

Believers have ways they think society should work but they don't force those views on the two per cent of non believers. You however want the views of 19 people to be imposed on 4 others?

ISAW

stimpson wrote: »

I will add that I don't see discipline as the only way to good behaviour - I think proper diet and a proper sleep routine are equally important.

Good point.
I wonder how many of the "no smacking" people would be prepared to do national service and to kill another person if called to do so? I'm just wondering if "no smacking" correlates with an aversion to using violence or an attraction towards nanny state authoritarianism.

ISAW

Truley wrote: »

This is one thing I still haven't got my head around. Why do people say slapping is needed in cases when children are, for example about to touch a hot stove, why not just move their hand away?
In my work I've had kids run towards roads, pour juice into plug sockets, on one occasion run towards a lake with the intention of jumping in! I have never needed to 'slap' them away from the dangerous situation, well I wouldn't be allowed even if I wanted to! But surely if you're close enough to hit them you're close enough to grap their hand or whatever and safely move it away

[irony]
Yes maybe that's why bodyguards rather than dive on the target of the assassins bullet should say "excuse me that man is firing at you would you please drop to the ground and get out of his line of fire before he hits you? Opps?"
[/irony]

By the way what does" i wouldn't be allowed even if I wanted to" mean. Who or what would not allow you?

ISAW

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

the child is no more likely to ignore such a request from a parent who is respected and authoritative yet doesn't smack as opposed to those that do.

So you accept people should have authority over others?
While i don't equate slapping with abuse ill introduce another point here about studies on child abuse. Say psychological control is used instead of physical slapping. Studies have found (I believe I would have to go and support this but I think it is correct) that by far the most long lasting and damaging abuse was emotional or psychological abuse. In that sense some alternative to smacking may be more damaging than even physical abuse which is much worse than smacking.

The point being that some alternatives to smacking may be harmful.

Truley

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

ISAW wrote: »

[irony]
Yes maybe that's why bodyguards rather than dive on the target of the assassins bullet should say "excuse me that man is firing at you would you please drop to the ground and get out of his line of fire before he hits you? Opps?"
[/irony]

By the way what does" i wouldn't be allowed even if I wanted to" mean. Who or what would not allow you?

Did you read my post at all? Alot of the smacking advocates have pointed to slapping as necessary where children are putting themselves in dangerous situations, for example moving their hand towards a hot stove. My argument is that if you can 'slap' a child's hand away from it, why not just take the hand and move it away. I would gather that slapping is even less warranted in a situation like this because the child is making a genuine mistake and not deliberately being defiant.

In answer to your question - my employer wouldn't allow me to smack the children I take care of.

Ickle Magoo

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

ISAW wrote: »

Here's how communist and Nazism operated. You basically get a pop poll of a few people and dilute the moral people into a minority. when you have enough people to control the society you take over and dictate your views over anyone who opposes them.

I'm not feeding you anymore in any thread until you change the record...opening every thread to find you godwining it in 25 posts in a row is just tiresome and in no way interesting intelligent debate, welcome to ignore. :cool:

stimpson

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

ISAW wrote: »

You don't but let us assume you do.


If you have 98 of 100 people saying there is a God and atheism only caused death and destruction for society how isn't their response translated as:

"I don't care if other methods of running society work, I want atheistic regimes dammit!"



But actual religious systems running society were a bad thing and actual atheistic regimes which contributed nothing but death and destruction were good?

Here's how communist and Nazism operated. You basically get a pop poll of a few people and dilute the moral people into a minority. when you have enough people to control the society you take over and dictate your views over anyone who opposes them.

Believers have ways they think society should work but they don't force those views on the two per cent of non believers. You however want the views of 19 people to be imposed on 4 others?

Have you been up drinking all night?

Nevyn

For a lot of parents it is an inherited parenting tool and they don't have any others.
We have gone from a society where it was acceptable for parents and teachers to not only spank/physcally admonish a child but to also beat a child with wooden spoons, belts, rulers, switches, canes ect.

Unfortunatly while this is not as acceptable as it once was we have not provided parents with alternatives and with how to deal with children and punish them with out striking them.

Smart good people who become parents will do thier best to educate themselves and pick a parenting style which works for then in thier life and has what is best for the child at the heart of it but have a balance which respected the parents as well.

Too many people fall into 'traditional' patterns which they grew up with then under pressure, I honestly don't see it as being to do with religion but more with culture.

Hippo

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

You wouldn't hit an adult so you wouldn't hit a kid, simple as.

kiffer

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

Hippo wrote: »

You wouldn't hit an adult so you wouldn't hit a kid, simple as.

It was self defence your Honour... If he kept drawing on the wall I was going to have a heart attack...

stimpson

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

Thaedydal wrote: »

Smart good people who become parents will do thier best to educate themselves and pick a parenting style which works for then in thier life and has what is best for the child at the heart of it but have a balance which respected the parents as well.

Too many people fall into 'traditional' patterns which they grew up with then under pressure, I honestly don't see it as being to do with religion but more with culture.

I do agree it's a culture thing in a lot of cases and that someone who's willing to question religion is likely to be less conservative in their outlook and probably going to question traditional parenting methods.

I do think that there should be some sort of basic training offered to prospective parents as many I've met seem to be out of their depth.

ISAW

Truley wrote: »

Did you read my post at all?

Yes

Alot of the smacking advocates have pointed to slapping as necessary where children are putting themselves in dangerous situations, for example moving their hand towards a hot stove. My argument is that if you can 'slap' a child's hand away from it, why not just take the hand and move it away.

did you read my post at all
and in my post I pointed out that a body guard can say "excuse me ? Would you care to please get down? you are being shot at" or he can dive on the target.

Why if he can do it does he not say "excuse me ? Would you care to please get down? you are being shot at"?

When you answer that come back to the example of a child in imminent danger say of an assassins bullet or being run over by a car. Which do you think might be more effective

1. Say to the child "Excuse me could you take my hand and Ill go over ther with your out of the way of the car approaching at 100 miles an hour? Oops!"

2. Violently grabbing the child and pulling them out of the way of the oncoming vehicle?

In answer to your question - my employer wouldn't allow me to smack the children I take care of.

Teachers using for example corporal punishment is a different argument and is illegal in Ireland anyway.

ColmDawson

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

ISAW, I'm pretty sure we're talking about using physical force to discipline a child, not to pull a child out of impending danger.

ISAW

Hippo wrote: »

You wouldn't hit an adult so you wouldn't hit a kid, simple as.

not really

1. People would hit and/or kill an adult if necessary.
2. Children are not adults and we do treat them differently under the law. You would not deny an adult a bank accounts for example (though ther are some bank Board members I might well exempt from that ). Having consensual sex with an adult isn't rape.

So "as for adult so also for kid" doesn't apply as a general rule.

ISAW

ColmDawson wrote: »

ISAW, I'm pretty sure we're talking about using physical force to discipline a child, not to pull a child out of impending danger.

funny in the example given about whice i was asked "did you read it?" it mentions
where children are putting themselves in dangerous situations,

I don't think the original example such as falling into a fire or putting a hand on a hot plate was of "non imminent" dangers do you?

ColmDawson

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

ISAW wrote: »

funny in the example given about whice i was asked "did you read it?" it mentions
where children are putting themselves in dangerous situations,

I don't think the original example such as falling into a fire or putting a hand on a hot plate was of "non imminent" dangers do you?

If a child is about to touch a hot plate, pull its hand away and very firmly verbally make the point. The physical punishment really being debated here is a means of post factum discipline, not a means of getting a child out of immediate danger.

ISAW

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not feeding you anymore in any thread until you change the record...opening every thread to find you godwining it in 25 posts in a row is just tiresome and in no way interesting intelligent debate, welcome to ignore. :cool:

Anyone , try clicking on "display" and using "threaded mode" or "hybrid mode" and you will note I don't post 25 posts in a row but am replying to different discussion threads. The continual messaging is just a result of viewing the messages in linear mode. If Anyone can show where I actually posted more than "one in a row" I'd be happy to remove it.

I am not "trolling" as falsely claimed.

ISAW

stimpson wrote: »

Have you been up drinking all night?

How does this relates to the issues raised?

stimpson

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

ISAW wrote: »

How does this relates to the issues raised?

How does anything you've posted relate to the issues raised? You haven't even made a coherent point yet. You have either misunderstood or misrepresented the points that have been made, so either you are an imbecile or a troll.

And you claim you're not a troll.

ISAW

ColmDawson wrote: »

ISAW, I'm pretty sure we're talking about using physical force to discipline a child, not to pull a child out of impending danger.

and what makes you so sure of that? The original person discussing Jimmitime t left the debate because he was compared to a "retard" among other things. You could PM him and ask him. I'm referring to using physical force to compel people to do something. Doing that for fun or out of habit is different to doing it to save their life. Indeed let us take the tenet and apply it to another physical act - sex.
Physical acts can be done out of the habit of smacking , for discipline or for the good of saving human life.

Sex creates children,but it can be enjoyable, or even done out of habit. Say person A said sex in its purest form is for creating children and that causal sex for enjoyment or out of habit degrades physical sex just as it is claimed smacking (based on habitual or vulgar use of violence) degrades the work of a body guard or soldier who only uses violence for protecting human life. People here would probably claim that the person A is loopy.

ISAW

stimpson wrote: »

How does anything you've posted relate to the issues raised?

Answer the question! How does asking me if I have been up drinking all night relate to the issue we are discussing? where is your evidence I am an imbecile or a troll as you claim? A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.

i submit you are the troll since you comments on "imbecile" and "up drinking all night" are inflammatory and off topic. In addition the etymology comes from fishing where a lure is repeatedly trolled through the water. i havent repeatedly replied to the same message. I posted follow ups and replied to different posters. try using "hybrid" or "threaded" view.

Truley

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

ISAW wrote: »

If Anyone can show where I actually posted more than "one in a row" I'd be happy to remove it.

The two posts ahead of me are both from you.

Yes

did you read my post at all
and in my post I pointed out that a body guard can say "excuse me ? Would you care to please get down? you are being shot at" or he can dive on the target.

Why if he can do it does he not say "excuse me ? Would you care to please get down? you are being shot at"?

*sigh*

I'm not talking about asking children to get out of the way in dangerous situations. I did say that physical intervention is necessary in these cases. In in cases where 'my' children have run towards the road or went to play with a plug socket, I have always taken their hand, gently moved it away and explained to them why I was doing it. Some people here argued that in cases such as this 'slapping' their hand away, or slapping them on the butt if they are heading towards a car is the only way it can be done. My argument is that it isn't, and I know this from experience.

When you answer that come back to the example of a child in imminent danger say of an assassins bullet or being run over by a car. Which do you think might be more effective

1. Say to the child "Excuse me could you take my hand and Ill go over ther with your out of the way of the car approaching at 100 miles an hour? Oops!"

2. Violently grabbing the child and pulling them out of the way of the oncoming vehicle?

This is an extreme example and as I said above of course physical intervention is necessary, but slapping them is not. I don't think anyone here would object to a parent grabbing their child when a car is heading towards them, but why do you have to 'violently grab' them?

Teachers using for example corporal punishment is a different argument and is illegal in Ireland anyway.

Why did you ask me why I don't do it then?

robindch

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

stimpson wrote: »

You have either misunderstood or misrepresented the points that have been made, so either you are an imbecile or a troll. And you claim you're not a troll.

Folks -- politeness please.

stimpson

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

ISAW wrote: »

Answer the question! How does asking me if I have been up drinking all night relate to the issue we are discussing? where is your evidence I am an imbecile or a troll as you claim? A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.

i submit you are the troll since you comments on "imbecile" and "up drinking all night" are inflammatory and off topic. In addition the etymology comes from fishing where a lure is repeatedly trolled through the water. i havent repeatedly replied to the same message. I posted follow ups and replied to different posters. try using "hybrid" or "threaded" view.

I apologise - you seem to know how to use Wikipedia so I'll assume you are not an imbecile.

In an effort to drag this back on topic, I'll ask you what I asked others on this thread previously. Can you provide a link to a reputable scientific study that shows that smacking children is either safe or effective?

sonicthebadger*

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

ISAW wrote: »

Teachers using for example corporal punishment is a different argument and is illegal in Ireland anyway.

It's not a different argument. It shows that there are alternatives to smacking.

ISAW

stimpson wrote: »

I apologise - you seem to know how to use Wikipedia so I'll assume you are not an imbecile.

In an effort to drag this back on topic, I'll ask you what I asked others on this thread previously. Can you provide a link to a reputable scientific study that shows that smacking children is either safe or effective?

where did I claim it was? Can you provide one that says not smacking them is better for society?

ISAW

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

It's not a different argument. It shows that there are alternatives to smacking.

Not when smacking is illegal. And the argument isnt whether ther are alternatives. doing nothing at all is an alternative. the argument seem to be that smacking or any use of physcial force is always the worst alternative and should never be used. If that was true for adults many bodyguards and soldiers would be out of a job.

ColmDawson

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

ISAW wrote: »

where did I claim it was? Can you provide one that says not smacking them is better for society?

"The odds of a child being more aggressive at age 5 increased by 50% if he had been spanked more than twice in the month before the study began"

sonicthebadger*

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

ISAW wrote: »

Not when smacking is illegal. And the argument isnt whether ther are alternatives. doing nothing at all is an alternative. the argument seem to be that smacking or any use of physcial force is always the worst alternative and should never be used. If that was true for adults many bodyguards and soldiers would be out of a job.

You said talking about teachers not smacking kids was not relevant. My point is that it is relevant. Good teachers show that corporal punishment is not needed to discipline a child.

Talking about bodyguards and soldiers is, however, not at all relevant. There is no time when a bodyguard would pull his charge from danger then proceed to smack said charge for not spotting the danger.

robindch

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

Thaedydal wrote: »

Too many people fall into 'traditional' patterns which they grew up with then under pressure, I honestly don't see it as being to do with religion but more with culture.

I agree, or at least, I think the influence of culture certainly outweighs the influence of religion, but I do think that religion -- even just judging by what's in the other thread -- does legitimate hitting children, at least to religious fundamentalists.

What's interesting in this debate for me is that reciprocity (something I tend to bang on about with my kid) hasn't really come up. I don't understand how somebody can hit a child, then expect to be taken seriously when they deliver the "don't hit people" lecture to the kid sometime later. In my own experience, kids are quick to spot inconsistencies and even quicker to exploit them. And even just taking the simple, self-interested point of view, I'd have said that hitting kids was very obviously counter-productive.

ISAW

ColmDawson wrote: »

"The odds of a child being more aggressive at age 5 increased by 50% if he had been spanked more than twice in the month before the study began"

restricted access journal.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/5/e1057

Results:
Frequent use of CP (ie, mother's use of spanking more than twice in the previous month) when the child was 3 years of age was associated with increased risk for higher levels of child aggression when the child was 5 years of age (adjusted odds ratio: 1.49 [95% confidence interval: 1.2–1.8]; P < .0001), even with controlling for the child's level of aggression at age 3 and the aforementioned potential confounding factors and key demographic features.



In spite of ruling out some other possible causes of violence the findings suggest they don't prove! They found that in a 19 cases out of twenty that a child spanked three times a month or more at three is somewhere between 20 per cent and eighty per more aggressive than a child not spanked at three.

Corporal punishment ranges from slapping the hand of a child about to touch a hot stove to identifiable child abuse, such as beatings, scaldings, and burnings.

This paper refers specifically to spanking. this is a form of punishment administered after the offence is committed, much as the leather used by teachers was. It is totally different to slapping someones hand away to prevent them burning themselves or a bodyguard tackling someone to the floor to protect them.


The object group are young children and the survey isn't longitudinal so how do you know about later life?


Counter argument:

A survey indicated that <= 59% of pediatricians support the use of corporal punishment, at least in certain situations.

McCormick KF Attitudes of primary care physicians toward corporal punishment. JAMA 1992; 267:3161-3165
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/267/23/3161?ijkey=f4076f84cac7f6291baefc75f8c3600d8483a82e&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Of family physicians, 70% (95% confidence interval [Cl], 66% to 75%) support use of corporal punishment. Of pediatricians, 59% (95% Cl, 52% to 66%) support corporal punishment. Of pediatricians, 90% (95% Cl, 86% to 94%) indicated that they include discipline issues either always or most of the time when providing anticipatory guidance to parents. Significantly fewer family physicians (52%; 95% Cl, 47% to 57%) indicated that they discuss discipline either always or most of the time when providing anticipatory guidance (P<.01).

not subscription only http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/267/23/3161

ISAW

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

You said talking about teachers not smacking kids was not relevant. My point is that it is relevant. Good teachers show that corporal punishment is not needed to discipline a child.

I went to a school with corporal punishment. the best teachers didn't use it.
I favour positiver reenforecewment and dont think beating is correct. But I wont condemn every case of slapping.

Talking about bodyguards and soldiers is, however, not at all relevant. There is no time when a bodyguard would pull his charge from danger then proceed to smack said charge for not spotting the danger.

Slapping someone to degrade them and humiliate them AFTER a threat isn't the same as slapping them when the threat is imminent.
On a separate note. Say a parent goes to the swimming pool with kids and they start messing with the towels using them as whips and one of them gets hit . Are you going to point at the parent and say they are a child abuser?
Or how about boxing. do you think kids shouldn't do it?

I would suggest kids need to know about risk and danger and need challenge.
Say you have an ADHD kid. You can naughty step and reason with them all day but the only way you can get them to move sometimes is to physically grab them. i dont approve of beating kids but again I come from a background of "we all need a kick up the arse sometimes"

stimpson

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

ISAW wrote: »

where did I claim it was? Can you provide one that says not smacking them is better for society?

You claimed it in many of your posts. I'd just like to know if you've come to this opinion based on your own or if you have any evidence to back it up. I've posted links earlier in the thread, including to full papers which attest to the benefits of never slapping kids. I've yet to see any justification from those who think it's OK in some situations.

Like I say, if you know of any research to back up your viewpoint then lets hear it.

sonicthebadger*

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

ISAW wrote: »

restricted access journal.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/5/e1057

Results:
Frequent use of CP (ie, mother's use of spanking more than twice in the previous month) when the child was 3 years of age was associated with increased risk for higher levels of child aggression when the child was 5 years of age (adjusted odds ratio: 1.49 [95% confidence interval: 1.2–1.8]; P < .0001), even with controlling for the child's level of aggression at age 3 and the aforementioned potential confounding factors and key demographic features.



In spite of ruling out some other possible causes of violence the findings suggest they don't prove! They found that in a 19 cases out of twenty that a child spanked three times a month or more at three is somewhere between 20 per cent and eighty per more aggressive than a child not spanked at three.

Corporal punishment ranges from slapping the hand of a child about to touch a hot stove to identifiable child abuse, such as beatings, scaldings, and burnings.

This paper refers specifically to spanking. this is a form of punishment administered after the offence is committed, much as the leather used by teachers was. It is totally different to slapping someones hand away to prevent them burning themselves or a bodyguard tackling someone to the floor to protect them.


The object group are young children and the survey isn't longitudinal so how do you know about later life?


Counter argument:

A survey indicated that <= 59% of pediatricians support the use of corporal punishment, at least in certain situations.

McCormick KF Attitudes of primary care physicians toward corporal punishment. JAMA 1992; 267:3161-3165
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/267/23/3161?ijkey=f4076f84cac7f6291baefc75f8c3600d8483a82e&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Of family physicians, 70% (95% confidence interval [Cl], 66% to 75%) support use of corporal punishment. Of pediatricians, 59% (95% Cl, 52% to 66%) support corporal punishment. Of pediatricians, 90% (95% Cl, 86% to 94%) indicated that they include discipline issues either always or most of the time when providing anticipatory guidance to parents. Significantly fewer family physicians (52%; 95% Cl, 47% to 57%) indicated that they discuss discipline either always or most of the time when providing anticipatory guidance (P<.01).

not subscription only http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/267/23/3161

Sorry about the complete quote but it is important to note the conclusion of the paper and the fact that you said it was a counter argument, it is not.

"[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Conclusions.
—Most family physicians and pediatricians support the use of corporal punishment in spite of evidence that it is neither effective nor necessary, and can be harmful. Pediatricians offer anticipatory guidance on discipline more often than family physicians.[/FONT]"

So what you cited there was a paper checking the opinions of [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]physicians and pediatricians to the use of corporal punishment. Not the effectiveness of corporal punishment.[/FONT]

ISAW wrote: »

I went to a school with corporal punishment. the best teachers didn't use it.
I favour positiver reenforecewment and dont think beating is correct. But I wont condemn every case of slapping.



Slapping someone to degrade them and humiliate them AFTER a threat isn't the same as slapping them when the threat is imminent.
On a separate note. Say a parent goes to the swimming pool with kids and they start messing with the towels using them as whips and one of them gets hit . Are you going to point at the parent and say they are a child abuser?
Or how about boxing. do you think kids shouldn't do it?

I would suggest kids need to know about risk and danger and need challenge.
Say you have an ADHD kid. You can naughty step and reason with them all day but the only way you can get them to move sometimes is to physically grab them. i dont approve of beating kids but again I come from a background of "we all need a kick up the arse sometimes"

So you're saying if the method of getting them to safety hurts that's ok. That's very different to corporal punishment...

"Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment

If you have to grab or push a person to safety that is most certainly not corporal punishment.

And off the point...
boxing, I don't think anyone should do it. Fighting sports which do not involve the use of gloves seem to cause much less brain injury. But again, getting involved in sports or play fighting is not the same as corporal punishment.

ColmDawson

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

ISAW wrote: »

Say a parent goes to the swimming pool with kids and they start messing with the towels using them as whips and one of them gets hit . Are you going to point at the parent and say they are a child abuser?
Or how about boxing. do you think kids shouldn't do it?

You stir up in me a strange blend of mirth and despair.

Joey the lips

Public poll.... Makes for a heroic failure. :rolleyes:

The Mad Hatter

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

ISAW wrote: »

Slapping someone to degrade them and humiliate them AFTER a threat isn't the same as slapping them when the threat is imminent.
On a separate note. Say a parent goes to the swimming pool with kids and they start messing with the towels using them as whips and one of them gets hit .

I wonder how many kids do this who aren't slapped at home, though.

antiskeptic

Truley wrote:

I'm not talking about asking children to get out of the way in dangerous situations. I did say that physical intervention is necessary in these cases. In in cases where 'my' children have run towards the road or went to play with a plug socket, I have always taken their hand, gently moved it away and explained to them why I was doing it.

Some people here argued that in cases such as this 'slapping' their hand away, or slapping them on the butt if they are heading towards a car is the only way it can be done.

My argument is that it isn't, and I know this from experience.

A question springs to mind.

Was it the case that having once explained to a child old enough to run out onto the road but too young to really appreciate what "run over by a car" means, there was no need to repeat the lesson? In other words, did this first-time gentle intervention resolve the problem for good?

If not (and I'll assume not for the sake of making my point) would you agree that a stronger intervention on the first occasion would be an appropriate thing to consider - given the Russian Roulette aspects of tolerating reoccurance of the behaviour? I mean, insofar as you permit the risk of re-occurrance, you are placing more reliance on the chances you will always catch your kid before it reaches the road.

kiffer

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

wait... These kids in imminent danger, when are they getting hit?

In the past, to establish disciplin, so that they obey a 'Stop!' order?
Or after you've stopped them in order to drive home the don't do that message?

Ickle Magoo

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

Joey the lips wrote: »

Public poll.... Makes for a heroic failure. :rolleyes:

Lol, yeah - atheist smackers took a bizarre leap after a post in the christianity forum about this thread....call me a cynic. :pac:

Ickle Magoo

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

antiskeptic wrote: »

Was it the case that having once explained to a child old enough to run out onto the road but too young to really appreciate what "run over by a car" means, there was no need to repeat the lesson? In other words, did this first-time gentle intervention resolve the problem for good?

Why not just hold the childs hand, put them on reigns, in a buggy? If they are too young to appreciate how dangerous roads are and are given the opportunity to run across one then the one that needs chastisement is the parent!

Truley

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

antiskeptic wrote: »

A question springs to mind.

Was it the case that having once explained to a child old enough to run out onto the road but too young to really appreciate what "run over by a car" means, there was no need to repeat the lesson? In other words, did this first-time gentle intervention resolve the problem for good?

If not (and I'll assume not for the sake of making my point) would you agree that a stronger intervention on the first occasion would be an appropriate thing to consider - given the Russian Roulette aspects of tolerating reoccurance of the behaviour? I mean, insofar as you permit the risk of re-occurrance, you are placing more reliance on the chances you will always catch your kid before it reaches the road.

Well firstly the children I work with would have very severe learning disabilities so I understand my experience is exceptional. There is no way I can say the kid wont try to run in front of the car again, they more than likely would if they were left alone for a second. But if I had slapped them for doing it the first time, do I think they are less likely to this - no way. I know they don't understand risks such as roads no matter how much I slap or shout it into them. And I know they don't do it to be deliberately defiant. So no, I don't think slapping prevents the risk of re-occurance any more than trying to reason with them.

Like you said yourself - Russian Roulette

antiskeptic

Truley wrote: »

Well firstly the children I work with would have very severe learning disabilities so I understand my experience is exceptional.

Fair enough. I was looking for your views on the more typical scenario

So no, I don't think slapping prevents the risk of re-occurance any more than trying to reason with them.

This strikes me as unusual. Remember, we're dealing with typpical children who are too young to be reasoned with all that effectively.

Leaving aside perceived negatives associated with slapping, would you not agree that people respond to negative consequences and that a smack holds more by way of negative consequences than "no! Bold" would?

Assuming you agree, isn't it reasonable to expect that child A, equipped with a negligable negative consequence is more likely to engage in undesired behaviour than child B, equipped as he has been with a more significant negative consequence?

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why not just hold the childs hand, put them on reigns, in a buggy? If they are too young to appreciate how dangerous roads are and are given the opportunity to run across one then the one that needs chastisement is the parent!

Hmm. Just to fill in the detail a little

How old do you think a child would be before they appreciate how dangerous the roads are (let's suppose to the extent whereby that appreciation prevents them running out after a dropped ball). And until what age to you suppose them to be riding in a buggy?

In years preferably..

stimpson

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

antiskeptic wrote: »

This strikes me as unusual. Remember, we're dealing with typpical children who are too young to be reasoned with all that effectively.

Leaving aside perceived negatives associated with slapping, would you not agree that people respond to negative consequences and that a smack holds more by way of negative consequences than "no! Bold" would?

Assuming you agree, isn't it reasonable to expect that child A, equipped with a negligable negative consequence is more likely to engage in undesired behaviour than child B, equipped as he has been with a more significant negative consequence?

I'm all for negative as well as positive reinforcement, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that. The point is that there are more effective methods for doing this than a smack.

One of the studies I posted before maintained that children who were smacked only learned not to do something when the parent was watching, which is counter productive especially in dangerous situations.

Ickle Magoo

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hmm. Just to fill in the detail a little

How old do you think a child would be before they appreciate how dangerous the roads are (let's suppose to the extent whereby that appreciation prevents them running out after a dropped ball). And until what age to you suppose them to be riding in a buggy?

In years preferably..

You didn't give an age range, I was just giving multiple ways of containing a child who cannot cross a road safely yet, ime perhaps four and under - buggy, reigns, hand-holding, etc. Yet again, if a small child cannot appreciate how dangerous the roads are - why are they allowed to be in a situation where they can run out after a dropped ball - never mind being punished for it!

Older kids that know roads are dangerous and know cars can kill still run out after balls, smacking isn't the answer, giving them somewhere safe to play is.

antiskeptic

stimpson wrote: »

I'm all for negative as well as positive reinforcement, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that. The point is that there are more effective methods for doing this than a smack.

For instance (bearing in mind the need to associate with the behaviour there and then)

One of the studies I posted before maintained that children who were smacked only learned not to do something when the parent was watching, which is counter productive especially in dangerous situations.

Hmm. Any chance you could link to it or tell me which post it's in? Cheers..

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You didn't give an age range, I was just giving multiple ways of containing a child who cannot cross a road safely yet, ime perhaps four and under - buggy, reigns, hand-holding, etc. Yet again, if a small child cannot appreciate how dangerous the roads are - why are they allowed to be in a situation where they can run out after a dropped ball - never mind being punished for it!

I doubt a child three times that age appreciates how dangerous a road can be. I should point out that the purpose of the smack in this case isn't to punish - the child isn't doing wrong to be punished for. Negative association is a better way to see it.

Older kids that know roads are dangerous and know cars can kill still run out after balls, smacking isn't the answer, giving them somewhere safe to play is.

It's just not possible to mirco-manage a childs exposure to risk in this way: running around after them to ensure their environment is bulletproof. At the point where the exposure states they need to be protected from it.

For a younger child, a smack conveys a negative assocation that no other form of communication I can think of can compete with.