Did you get hit by your parents?

philologos

1. Who has been harmed by a light slap? - This is why I'm thinking that you must be referrring to physical abuse when you are referring to corporal punishment, because it is a nonsense to say that a child has been harmed permanently by getting a quick slap from either one of its parents.

2. The point of it is to discipline.

3. Banning parents the right to slap their child as a means of discipline is the beginning of the nanny state. They might as well take the nation's children to social services when it comes to that point.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

philologos wrote: »

1. Who has been harmed by a light slap? - This is why I'm thinking that you must be referrring to physical abuse when you are referring to corporal punishment, because it is a nonsense to say that a child has been harmed permanently by getting a quick slap from either one of its parents.

2. The point of it is to discipline.

3. Banning parents the right to slap their child as a means of discipline is the beginning of the nanny state. They might as well take the nation's children to social services when it comes to that point.

1 - I never said it did harm. Please tell me where I said it did harm. I said it was supposed to do a lot more than just not harm.

2 - I agree. Again I never argued otherwise.

3 - I know people who say the same about drinking and driving. Just because something you do is banned does not mean that it is automatically nanny-state. That excuse, if you'll pardon my French, is a bull**** cop out.

All three of the points that you make, once again, are simply contrived to make your rebuttal look better. I never argued that it did harm, did or did not discipline, or should be banned.

stevowhelo1

violence is not the answer i believe depriving is better

philologos

1. Read the linked post unless it means something else.

3. Nonsense. Verifiable harm results from drink driving. The same isn't true for much corporal punishment (E.G light slapping if a child is proving themselves to require it due to not heeding other forms of discipline).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

philologos wrote: »

1. Read the linked post unless it means something else.

3. Nonsense. Verifiable harm results from drink driving. The same isn't true for much corporal punishment (E.G light slapping if a child is proving themselves to require it due to not heeding other forms of discipline).

1 - It does. That's my whole point.

2 - That was an example. I could have picked smoking hash, fireing guns, fireworks or abortion: my point was that just because something is banned, does not not make it "Nanny State". Completly moot point though because, for the thrid and final time, I never argued for it to be banned. This point ends here.

philologos

What did you mean by point 1 then as it seems to be unclear?

It's nonsense nonetheless. Unless you can evidence to me a case of a child being harmed by a parent giving them a slap I can say that it is a gratuitous ban. If you can't then I don't see what good grounds you'd have for banning it. Leave the red-herrings out of the argument for now.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

philologos wrote: »

What did you mean by point 1 then as it seems to be unclear?

It's nonsense nonetheless. Unless you can evidence to me a case of a child being harmed by a parent giving them a slap I can say that it is a gratuitous ban. If you can't then I don't see what good grounds you'd have for banning it. Leave the red-herrings out of the argument for now.

I said: It has done harm / it's supposed to do more than just not harm.
You read: It automatically does harm.

Really can't make it clearer than that.

I could give you personal experience, of a very violent and aggressive young man who regularly got into fights believing that this is the way to solve aarguments, was overly aggressive and sometimes even hit his parents back. Would that satisfy you?

What I learnt as an adult is that if you can communicate with someone without hitting them, why wouldn't you do so?

philologos

You're proposing this law, therefore you should tell me what exactly it's merit is beyond your subjective opinion about parents exercising this right.

I think the idea of legislation in that respect goes way too far.

If you give me an example, it must be within the confines I've already given. I.E - It must have been within currently legal limits of disciplining:

I'm not up for banning parents to punish in a way that is reasonable, and in a way that leads to their children behaving provided it provides no significant bruising, scarring, or any other physical harm. Anything else is just the nanny-state going nuts.

If it doesn't fit within this, then what additional benefit would your proposal add to existing legislation.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

philologos wrote: »

You're proposing this law

I am not proposing any law.

I stopped reading at this point because this is one wrong argument slammed into my mouth too many. You're obviously confusing me with someone else. Take it up with him. We're done here.

philologos

The post you linked to referred to laws against corporal punishment in the home. If you're not advocating it apologies.

stevowhelo1

philologos wrote: »

1. Read the linked post unless it means something else.

3. Nonsense. Verifiable harm results from drink driving. The same isn't true for much corporal punishment (E.G light slapping if a child is proving themselves to require it due to not heeding other forms of discipline).

What will hitting a child achieve?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

philologos wrote: »

The post you linked to referred to laws against corporal punishment in the home. If you're not advocating it apologies.

No it didn't. PM the part of the quote that refers to any law and we'll carry on.

stimpson

I'd like some of the pro smacking lobby here to point to some emperical evidence or study that supports the view that smacking is more effective than non violent means of discipline. If its no more effective than the alternative then there is no reason to continue with it.

okiss

My mother had a wooden spoon and she would use it after giving several warnings when we were bold. My father would slap us with his hand.
I don't agree with the naught step ect.
I know a few families now with children under 10 and one family would never use the wooden spoon or slap the children. These children can be bold and stuborn.
The other children can be bold and stuborn but they know if this behavour continues they will get a slap. They know if mammy or daddy says no it means no. As a result they well behaved.

Batsy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I did.

I think it was unnecessary adult-on-child violence.

Hitting children is stupid.

What say y'all?

A parent smacking a child isn't "unnecessary adult-on-child violence." Smacking is a way of disciplining a child. A child is not born with self-discipline. Therefore it has to be taught and a smack from mother or father is the quickest way of instilling discipline in a child. Smacking helps to prevent a child from turning into an ill-disciplined, foul-mouthed little toe-rag who likes chucking paving slabs through the window of Currys and nicking the latest flat-screen TV.

An ICM survey once showed that 70% of British parents believe that it is acceptable to smack their children if they misbehave.

Also, a large proportion of people on this thread have been whacked by wooden spoons. It must be an Irish thing.

Millicent

okiss wrote: »

My mother had a wooden spoon and she would use it after giving several warnings when we were bold. My father would slap us with his hand.
I don't agree with the naught step ect.
I know a few families now with children under 10 and one family would never use the wooden spoon or slap the children. These children can be bold and stuborn.
The other children can be bold and stuborn but they know if this behavour continues they will get a slap. They know if mammy or daddy says no it means no. As a result they well behaved.

May I ask why, out of curiosity?

Pretty Polly

When i think of the naughty step i think of supernanny! Personally i've never used the naughty step but i would imagine it would be quite effective providing that you are consistent and follow through with it. If a child is 5 years of age they get 5 minutes on the step, if they are 11, they get 11 minutes. Simple!

Tony EH

'Supernanny' is a feckin TV show, heavily edited to give the impression that her methods work 100% of the time. I'd wager there are hours and hours of footage that end up on the cutting room floor where her "naughty step" nonsense fails miserably.

focus_mad

RussellTuring wrote: »

Not really. I was asking if me slapping my child enforces my ideas of how she should act on particular issues, or if it somehow gives them the ability to decide on right and wrong in general. I would think it's the former. Anyway, my point is that whether or not it works isn't really the issue for me. Many things achieve what they aim to do but they do so at a high cost. Using physical force to either coerce someone into or prevent them from doing something needs a lot of justification and justification on an individual basis. For me and other people, saying "it did me no harm" isn't enough; you have to show what good it does.

How can I show you what good it is? Come over to me house for a cuppa and you can question me

It think it depends on what the child has done but I know some people may not agree

philologos

stimpson wrote: »

I'd like some of the pro smacking lobby here to point to some emperical evidence or study that supports the view that smacking is more effective than non violent means of discipline. If its no more effective than the alternative then there is no reason to continue with it.

I've not argued that. I've argued that different forms of discipline are appropriate depending on the context. I wouldn't advocate the use of corporal punishment in every case, but in some cases.

It's a tool that parents have to use.

stimpson

philologos wrote: »

I've not argued that. I've argued that different forms of discipline are appropriate depending on the context. I wouldn't advocate the use of corporal punishment in every case, but in some cases.

It's a tool that parents have to use.

How can it be appropriate without evidence that it is effective?

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

I've not argued that. I've argued that different forms of discipline are appropriate depending on the context. I wouldn't advocate the use of corporal punishment in every case, but in some cases.

It's a tool that parents have to use.

How effective is it as a 'tool'?

There's also no real slapping manual (I hope) so one parent's light slap is another's skin reddening painful whack.

The best approach therefore is to err on the side of caution and not slap at all.

philologos

stimpson wrote: »

How can it be appropriate without evidence that it is effective?

What evidence other than generations of use you mean? - Studies on both sides of the argument have been bandied around on this thread. I'm just going to say that on the face of it, it's obvious that it works well. It's not an alternative to anything, but a complement.

I'm not a hard and fast: corporal punishment is the only way type of guy. Neither am I the sort that would disavow it's use. It's obvious that it works, and it's obvious that other methods work. It's a case of deciding which to use. There's no need to use a sledgehammer to open the front door when the handle is right in front of you

RussellTuring

jugger0 wrote: »

isnt that how it works? if you woke up tomorrow and there was no laws or punishments for criminal behavior would you still behave as if there was?

More or less. Laws and punishments don't stop me from committing anti-social acts now, nor would their absence make me do things I didn't already want to do. If I want to kill someone, I will. If I don't, I won't. I behave according to my own conscience, not the laws of the land. Would you behave that differently?

focus_mad wrote: »

How can I show you what good it is? Come over to me house for a cuppa and you can question me


It think it depends on what the child has done but I know some people may not agree

Well for me, if hitting someone will prevent greater harm than my hitting them causes then I could probably justify my use of violence. But if it just makes them behave in a way I want because they're afraid then I couldn't.

If I felt threatened by a child, for instance if they had a gun, then I would of course do what I could to stop them killing someone. I've never yet felt so threatened by a child though so I don't know what could cause me to hurt someone so fragile without compromising my morals.

Also, to Philologos, I'd really love a response to this post, or at least a reason for ignoring it up to now please.

Caoimhín

Mun battered me. I guess i deserved it.

Still, id never hit my kids. Or even the dogs... Draw your own conclusions.

philologos

Apologies for missing it, but much of that has already been covered in other posts. I can't guarantee every post a response, I can just try.

To say briefly - that corporal punishment is one disciplinary method amongst many. It has its advantages in certain situations and that's when I advocate its usage when several other uses of non-verbal discipline have been used. I advocate a complementarian method of discipline.

I never argued that ones child was ones property, what I said is that parents have authority over their children and they are the ones who discipline, guide, encourage and share values with their children over life until they reach the age by which they can be accountable in their own right. That's 18. Parents have authority over their children until that date, and that's for the children's benefit. You've argued that children don't need correction, but they do. They need to be shown what's right, and what's wrong. That's the parents responsibility. Depending on your belief system it may involve introducing your child to God as well.

Your point about effective and optimal is again a lot of what the discussion has developed into. I think that corporal punishment is no worse than other forms of discipline personally. It has its contexts for uses as other forms do. Simply put I disagree with the whole it's child abuse to get a slap plus reasoning in order to learn a lesson, and I think it's a little hysterical.

As for the State, I don't even see what your point is here. This is regarding parents and their children. I don't see why you want to bring in this red-herring into the argument. I think for adoptive parents and foster parents the same rule should be OK, but honestly I don't even see your point for bringing this in.

Some of your points have been covered in extensive detail already.

daigo75

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I did.

I think it was unnecessary adult-on-child violence.

Hitting children is stupid.

What say y'all?

I did, quite often, by both parents; one used the belt, the other the hands, but aimed for the face so I would carry the "bruises of shame" visible on you. The interesting thing is that, at the time, people who would see a child being slapped would blame the child for being naughty, and would never question parents' motives. Unfortunately, this is still the case in many areas of my Country (Italy), especially the rural ones.

For completeness, I have to say that, until 1975, the law regulating the rights of families recognized the husband/father as the owner of the whole family. Members were considered his "property", and he had the authority of doing (almost) anything he deemed fit with them (see additional note below). I was born that year, but my parents didn't quite get the concept.

What do I think about it all? Nothing good. This continuous exposure to violence didn't do anything else than burning in my head "violence = respect", and led me to do the same with my classmates... At the age of 5, I severely injured another child who tried to steal my lunch, which led me to being beaten by the teacher and, of course, by both parents, reinforcing the vicious circle. It's a horrible memory, so horrible that I still have it clear in my mind so many years later.

Note: should anyone find the "father/owner" law unbelievable, just think that, until 1981, in Italy a man could rape a woman and avoid imprisonment by simply offering to marry her afterwards. If she refused, she was the shameful one and, often, rejected by her family. "La dolce vita" my ar$e.

stimpson

philologos wrote: »

What evidence other than generations of use you mean? - Studies on both sides of the argument have been bandied around on this thread. I'm just going to say that on the face of it, it's obvious that it works well. It's not an alternative to anything, but a complement.

I don't recall reading a study supporting smacking as effective. Most of the responses are anecdotal in nature. Here is the study I refered to earlier which shows smacking to be less effective in preventing misbehavior.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP67%20Children%20Should%20Never%20be%20Spanked.pdf

I'm not a hard and fast: corporal punishment is the only way type of guy. Neither am I the sort that would disavow it's use. It's obvious that it works, and it's obvious that other methods work. It's a case of deciding which to use. There's no need to use a sledgehammer to open the front door when the handle is right in front of you

Perhaps you could give done examples of when corporal punishment would be appropriate over non violent methods of discipline.

philologos

Search the thread. prinz posted a study a few pages ago which said the opposite. I'm also sure if I took a trawl through Google Scholar I could find more.

Although, even if I did take your position and even if I did say it wasn't effective (which I don't believe) - it's still a far cry from saying that an occasional slap is harmful to a child.

An example of when to use it would be when non-verbal mechanisms of punishment had been exhausted. As a final act of discipline. It should always be coupled with the reason why it has happened.

stimpson

philologos wrote: »

Search the thread. prinz posted a study a few pages ago which said the opposite. I'm also sure if I took a trawl through Google Scholar I could find more.

That study was about the harm caused by moderate spanking. It says nothing about the effectiveness of spanking. If you can find any studies supporting your argument I'd like to see them.

Although, even if I did take your position and even if I did say it wasn't effective (which I don't believe) - it's still a far cry from saying that an occasional slap is harmful to a child.

My point is that if smacking is no more effective (indeed the study I posted shows it to be less effective) then there is no reason to use it over non violent methods, even if there is no harm caused.

An example of when to use it would be when non-verbal mechanisms of punishment had been exhausted. As a final act of discipline. It should always be coupled with the reason why it has happened.

As the study I posted shows, this is a common misconception. If its used as a final act and it doesn't work then the parent has no choice but to continue smacking. When this shows results the parent puts it down to the smack rather than the consistancy. If this consistency is used for non violent methods then they are just as effective. It's the consistency that is effective, not the smacking.

philologos

I'm fairly sure that prinz' study covered the idea of harm as well. I don't put full weight on academic journals unless they are conclusively in favour of one side of the argument.

stimpson

philologos wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that prinz' study covered the idea of harm as well. I don't put full weight on academic journals unless they are conclusively in favour of one side of the argument.

It only covered harm and said nothing about effectiveness. You said you could do a search on google scholar and come up with studies to support your argument. I'd like to see them.

stimpson

Yes. Here's the link

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/08/24_spank.html

philologos

Harm is the main argument. If it doesn't do due harm, I think parents are at liberty to punish as they desire, irrespective of how effective it is. I doubt that it is a case of a simple diachotomy of verbal vs corporal though. There are clear uses for both, and I don't think a child is any worse off for the use of occasional corporal punishment.

I'm simply arguing that parents should be able to discipline as they desire within legal boundaries.

Borat_Sagdiyev

I am a father and I have previously smacked my daughter.

I don't feel that I should be told that I'm "f**king stupid" or a "lazy parent" because of this. I am neither stupid nor a lazy parent.

She was still in nappies. I was trying to get her to eat her dinner and she was openly testing my patience. I warned her several times that if she didn't eat her dinner that she would get a smack. I then said "last warning" and she pushed me again. I smacked her across the arse twice. She then started behaving and finished her dinner. She did not cry, I doubt it even hurt her to be honest ( she was wearing a nappy and I didn't put that much force into it ), but she realised the path that it was going down and that I would follow through with my threats.

Children are always going to test you to see how you will react - this is only natural, they are looking for boundaries to what is acceptable and what is not.

Being a parent is complex - discipline is only one area. I think it is MUCH more important to let your child know that you love him / her. I hug my daughter enough so that she knows, but I don't hug her too often as I don't want to mollycoddle her either.

As far as I'm aware, the above scenario was the last time I smacked her ( to be honest I can't remember the last time I hit her - there were very few incidents ). In any other scenario where she was misbehaving, the "do you want a smack?" question was enough to get her to cop on. I think this is healthy because she knows not to push me to my limits. She needs to know that I will follow through with my threats and also what I am capable of.

She is 11 since last summer and we get on very well. She was once asked by a friend of mine "does Dad get mad?" and her answer was significant: "Yes, but only when I'm being bold". So, in other words, the link between her misbehaving and me getting angry are clear. Be good and you'll get hugs / compliments, otherwise you'll get given out to and if you continue, you'll get a slap.

Just to be clear - there are posts in here talking about using weapons against children: this is insane. Broomsticks? Golf clubs? Belts? There should never be a call for that as long as you've made the boundaries clear. Children should never live in fear.

stimpson

philologos wrote: »

Harm is the main argument. If it doesn't do due harm, I think parents are at liberty to punish as they desire, irrespective of how effective it is. I doubt that it is a case of a simple diachotomy of verbal vs corporal though. There are clear uses for both, and I don't think a child is any worse off for the use of occasional corporal punishment.

I'm simply arguing that parents should be able to discipline as they desire within legal boundaries.

What is the point of using it if it's not as effective?

You maintain that there are circumstances where it is acceptable yet you have failed to demonstrate one apart from as a last resort.

philologos

I don't believe that it isn't more effective in certain cases. The previous poster is a good example of this.

pawrick

I was never slapped by my parents but they had nothing against it and neither do I once it's not done in an over the top way or too often.

The goal as regards disciplining a child should be of raising one which does not need to be slapped to begin with but sometimes as with anything it can be needed and if a child is not raised properly they can go out of control as they get older.

stimpson

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that it isn't more effective in certain cases. The previous poster is a good example of this.

Yet you can't give any concrete examples of a situation where it's more effective.

And I'd still like to see some non-anecdotal evidence. Surely you could find a study to support your view?

paddyandy

If you don't discipline your children in what ever way is necessary you might be burying them before twenty five .Only the Parent knows what's best and effective not the legislator or the population at large .The Children's homes were proof that the general population is apathetic .That still applies .

piperh

I don't slap my children but thats not to say i wouldn't if i felt they needed it, luckily or good parenting i don't know but so far i've managed to get them to 18 and 15 without the need. I was slapped as a child and i don't honestly think its had any long term effects on me but everybody is different.

Freddie59

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I did.

I think it was unnecessary adult-on-child violence.

Hitting children is stupid.

What say y'all?

Ah yeah, "reasoning" with them is the way to go.:rolleyes: Received the odd smack (deservedly). The threat of one was enough to keep me in line.

Freddie59

stimpson wrote: »

Yet you can't give any concrete examples of a situation where it's more effective.

And I'd still like to see some non-anecdotal evidence. Surely you could find a study to support your view?

Oh a study? That'll do it every time. Are you a parent yourself perchance? If so, how many children do you have?

margio

I think it is an absolute disgrace the way society has gone especially in the last 15 years. kids today think they can get away with what ever they want. They abuse people for no reason, they act violently and agressively, and never once felt the sting of a good smacking on their behinds, and the so called nanny 9/11 experts connect smacking to violence. To me that is total and utter bull. It is about time that smacking is reestablished as a pivotal tool of disciplining. Every time I ever did anything wrong as a kid I got walloped, I learned it was wrong, and never did it again, end of story. I have never been before the courts on an Assault charge and I treat people with respect. I recently read a post on another thread about a woman who was at her wits end with her nearly 4 year old son who threw nightmare tantrums at home but behaved normally while at Montessori., and for the love of God only one poster answered with a sensible answer. throw the little toe rag over your knee and give him a few smack and make it sting. if i as a four year old threw my toy at my parents my arse would be as red a burning piece of coal.

LH Pathe

Just make sure it's a parent cos if mother gets a lowlife uncle to do it who lays in with such delights as 'monkey' and 'asbergers' n 'daddy was a pedo' things could get complicated down the line

stimpson

Freddie59 wrote: »

Oh a study? That'll do it every time. Are you a parent yourself perchance? If so, how many children do you have?

Do I take it that you're not a big fan of science?

I am a parent. I've never had behavioural problems and I've never had to raise my hand. There are other ways to instill discipline and respect in children.

Chuck Stone

stimpson wrote: »

Do I take it that you're not a big fan of science?

Freddie tends to prefer anecdotes and opinions to empirical studies.

cassid

Borat_Sagdiyev wrote: »

I am a father and I have previously smacked my daughter. She was still in nappies. I was trying to get her to eat her dinner and she was openly testing my patience. I warned her several times that if she didn't eat her dinner that she would get a smack. I then said "last warning" and she pushed me again. I smacked her across the arse twice.

I have children, they drive you potty sometimes, but have never hit my children. I think its bizarre to hit a child because they don't eat something, I just don't get it at all. A child can be off food, may not be hungry just like an adult, surely leave it, try it a little later rather than hitting them. How would you like it if someone was forcing you to eat food when you did not want it ?

I don't agree with slapping but emotional abuse can be just as bad. I can't watch all this video, I have a son the same age and me hearts melts for the poor little lad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJhYRiwV-7c&feature=related

Azureus

I was never slapped, but was threatened with the wooden spoon the odd time. Id seen my brothers ger a wallop of it so knew they'd follow through on it if I continued to be bold. Never did any proper 'harm' to the boys-was only ever a tap on the back if the hand, but it worked as a discipline measure. The fact was it was coupled by a very tender and loving home, so we knew the distinction between being good/bad. It was rare though and usually a raised voice and a grounding for an hour or two was the method of punishment in our house.
Kids do need discipline and I do believe the world has gone overly pc in regards to the odd smack on the bum etc. It should be at a parents discretion, although I will never forget seeing a little boy being beaten around the place by his dad outside Ilac centre one day so I can see how people take a no tolerance attitude to even a slap if that is the alternative.

meoklmrk91

Azureus wrote: »

I was never slapped, but was threatened with the wooden spoon the odd time. Id seen my brothers ger a wallop of it so knew they'd follow through on it if I continued to be bold. Never did any proper 'harm' to the boys-was only ever a tap on the back if the hand, but it worked as a discipline measure. The fact was it was coupled by a very tender and loving home, so we knew the distinction between being good/bad. It was rare though and usually a raised voice and a grounding for an hour or two was the method of punishment in our house.
Kids do need discipline and I do believe the world has gone overly pc in regards to the odd smack on the bum etc. It should be at a parents discretion, although I will never forget seeing a little boy being beaten around the place by his dad outside Ilac centre one day so I can see how people take a no tolerance attitude to even a slap if that is the alternative.

I saw something similar, a Dad with his daughter, she was upset over something and he was dragging her along by the hand, he took her around a corner where he thought no one could see him and then gave her a few almighty slaps. Me and my sister had seen the whole thing despite his attempt at hiding it and couldn't help but to stop and stare in disgust. He only stopped when he looked up to see us staring. I don't mind anybody disciplining their child but that was one of the most wicked things I have ever seen, the look of shame on his face said it all really.