Did you get hit by your parents?

Abi

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I now hate this thread.

Don't, it's quite an eye-opener how backward parenting attitudes are in this day in age. Chuck, I could have been every second reply in this thread for how against using physical punishment, but the fact of the matter is, unfortunately some think it is still an acceptable way of dealing with naughty behaviour.


We can only hope that this attitude will die out in time, and will take their defensiveness with them.

uch

Parents,,, PFFFFttt
I used to get the odd clatter off neighbours too, it was the done thing when I was growing up, if your Ma or Da wasn't there to put manners on you it was the neighbours obligation to keep things running smoothly till they came back.

Chuck Stone

uch wrote: »

I used to get the odd clatter off neighbours too

Happy days, huh?

How Soon Is Now

Read a couple of pages of this thread no more ffs cant stomach half of the bollox i know im leading my self into.

Maybe if more kids got a slap instead of there parents following some new age ****e out of a book you wouldnt have so many spoilt little ****s with attitude problems all over Ireland now.

Its not like i was abused as a child but i wasn't let away with any kinda ****e either.

I never wanted for anything as a kid but when i did something wrong i bloody well knew about it in the end.

Its not backwards to teach people respect no matter what age they are.

Whats backwards is the mollycoddling crap that a lot of parents operate under now a days.

When i have kids i wont be following some bloody book from some hippie prick who probley never looked after a child in there life's.

Ill take advice from me ma and da real people with real experience who raised me the right way and im glad of it.

And if any do gooders have a problem with that............

uch

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Happy days, huh?

They were actually, at least we had a bit of respect for our area and neighbours than you see now

margio

uch wrote: »

They were actually, at least we had a bit of respect for our area and neighbours than you see now

I second that. we hardly had anything, two tv channells, but by god swere we not happier playing outside all the time or with boardgames, compared to how kids entertain themselves these days. Some kids idea of entertainment today is to make peoples lives a misery. Kids today see so depressed and miserable compared to years ago. Back in my childhood in the 90's to see a 17 or 18 year old killing themselves was massive and shocking news, but kids 12 to 14 now are ending their lives in this country on a daily basis. Their the generation who have everything but manners, respect and the ability to get through a difficult situation.

Chuck Stone

angerfist2009 wrote: »

And if any do gooders have a problem with that............

Yeah, damn those goo-dooers.

uch

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yeah, damn those goo-dooers.

Well now you come across as one of them 'do gooders' no disrespect but were probably talking about different era's here, when I was a kid it was expected of your neighbours to keep you clean and straight if your parents were'nt around, and because of this our generation didn't openly act the bollocks because we knew there was worse punishment the a copper telling you not to do it again or he'd tell your Ma.

RussellTuring

margio wrote: »

what ruffles my feathers in this thread are people emphasing that children should not fear their parents. I'll make no apologies for saying this, but the future of society has no hope if parents feel that kids shouldn't fear them in any way. Now obviously when I say this I mean that under no circumstances should a child be afraid of a beating, that is just not on. However regardless of whether parents smacks or uses other discipline tools, the child needs to fear the punishment, an the consequences, what ever they may be. Parents can be their childen's best friends after their job is done., but you must have fear as a deterrent. I wonder every time I see a pack of brats around the place acting the little sh**t, how does their parents relate to them?. Now I'm only just gone 28. If I gave cheek to mrs O up the road and did damage to her property, lets put it this way, I wouldn't be doing it again, or sorry let me rephrase that, I wouldn't have done it in the first place because (A) it wouldn't have even entered my mind) and (B) I would fear the reprecussions. Now as a member of society I would prefer kids to fear their elders than have a poor innocent member of society have their property vandalised.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. The difference between us is probably down to disagreeing on the use of fear to control behaviour. I don't think it should be done, firstly because it's cruel and secondly because it doesn't work that well anyway. My behaviour is determined by my own conscience, not the law, a god or some other external judge, and I think that children and adults behave better knowing the effects their actions have on other people rather than acting good because they fear being punished. Parents shouldn't be the friends of their children, but they shouldn't be their gaolers either.

Another point I would like to make is my friend has never smacked her kids, and prides herself in that fact. However her 8 year old son has been apprehended by the gardai for toturing and killing kittens. Now people in my generation grew up with been slapped around the place and in the case of poor Barrett alot more, but to equate an occasional light smack on the bottom etc with violence in kids is pathetic. One thing we never did was kill innocent helpless kittens for kicks. Even if we knew no one would find out, we still wouldn't do it, because we had respect for Life, even if cats give me the creeps:mad:

I hope you're not trying to imply that getting smacked, and this alone, instills in people a respect for life. Now that would be pathetic.

uch wrote: »

They were actually, at least we had a bit of respect for our area and neighbours than you see now

My respect for people tends to decrease the more they hit a defenceless child.

Galtee

I think hitting a child is nonsense. Take 60s, 70s and to some extent 80s children. Corporal punishment would have been prevalent then and not frowned upon as it is these days (except for what I hope are the minority). As a result kids were afraid to come home from schools and let their parents know that they had been either physically or sexually abused. That would never happen nowadays on the same scale and this is down to confidence in the children, when you are physically bigger and stronger than a child and decide to use that advantage to impose discipline through smacking it takes their confidence away. Confidence in children is the single most valuable tool that you can arm them with as a parent IMHO. Some adults just can't handle childrens confidence and feel that they should just do as they say or else. I disagree with that sentiment and I would hope that the majority of other parents do too and then eventually the perpertuation of this nonsense will recede indefinitely.

RussellTuring

Galtee wrote: »

I think hitting a child is nonsense. Take 60s, 70s and to some extent 80s children. Corporal punishment would have been prevalent then and not frowned upon as it is these days (except for what I hope are the minority). As a result kids were afraid to come home from schools and let their parents know that they had been either physically or sexually abused. That would never happen nowadays on the same scale and this is down to confidence in the children, when you are physically bigger and stronger than a child and decide to use that advantage to impose discipline through smacking it takes their confidence away. Confidence in children is the single most valuable tool that you can arm them with as a parent IMHO. Some adults just can't handle childrens confidence and feel that they should just do as they say or else. I disagree with that sentiment and I would hope that the majority of other parents do too and then eventually the perpertuation of this nonsense will recede indefinitely.

Hitting kids (and adults) on a regular basis takes away their willingness to question those more powerful than them. If you're used to being hit when you speak up to the people who are supposed to protect you, where else can you turn?

Liam Byrne

RussellTuring wrote: »

Galtee wrote: »

I think hitting a child is nonsense. Take 60s, 70s and to some extent 80s children. Corporal punishment would have been prevalent then and not frowned upon as it is these days (except for what I hope are the minority). As a result kids were afraid to come home from schools and let their parents know that they had been either physically or sexually abused. That would never happen nowadays on the same scale and this is down to confidence in the children, when you are physically bigger and stronger than a child and decide to use that advantage to impose discipline through smacking it takes their confidence away. Confidence in children is the single most valuable tool that you can arm them with as a parent IMHO. Some adults just can't handle childrens confidence and feel that they should just do as they say or else. I disagree with that sentiment and I would hope that the majority of other parents do too and then eventually the perpertuation of this nonsense will recede indefinitely.

Hitting kids (and adults) on a regular basis takes away their willingness to question those more powerful than them. If you're used to being hit when you speak up to the people who are supposed to protect you, where else can you turn?

Define "speak up"

RussellTuring

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Define "speak up"

Nothing specific, really. Just being unafraid to question what they say.

Chuck Stone

RussellTuring wrote: »

Hitting kids (and adults) on a regular basis takes away their willingness to question those more powerful than them. If you're used to being hit when you speak up to the people who are supposed to protect you, where else can you turn?

That's what's quite sad about the whole thing.

From a child's perspective there is this all powerful adult about 20 times bigger than them that they depend on for safety, shelter, nourishment and love. When the big person hits the wee person there's nowhere for the wee person to go to.

The child needs the person who hit him. He can't walk out and often he doesn't even have the ability to reason why he's being hit. The only message being received is that he has no power in the relationship.

Is it any wonder that we lacked civil courage in this country when it came to the authorities. Look what it took to knock the RCC off it's pedestal.

Wompa1

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's what's quite sad about the whole thing.

From a child's perspective there is this all powerful adult about 20 times bigger than them that they depend on for safety, shelter, nourishment and love. When the big person hits the wee person there's nowhere for the wee person to go to.

The child needs the person who hit him. He can't walk out and often he doesn't even have the ability to reason why he's being hit. The only message being received is that he has no power in the relationship.

Is it any wonder that we lacked civil courage in this country when it came to the authorities. Look what it took to knock the RCC off it's pedestal.

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

I won't hit my kid. We'll be Broskis

Maximus Alexander

My father never laid a finger on any of us but my mother certainly wasn't above giving us a good belt. We usually deserved it.

Personally I think it was good for us. It certainly made us have a bit of fear and kept us in line. That said, as I got older I always had a little more respect for my father. I had no fear of a slap anymore and would be more concerned about him being disappointed in me. I always admired the way he handled things with words.

I wouldn't hit my own kids, but I don't think it did us any harm.

RussellTuring

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's what's quite sad about the whole thing.

From a child's perspective there is this all powerful adult about 20 times bigger than them that they depend on for safety, shelter, nourishment and love. When the big person hits the wee person there's nowhere for the wee person to go to.

The child needs the person who hit him. He can't walk out and often he doesn't even have the ability to reason why he's being hit. The only message being received is that he has no power in the relationship.

That's often the point of slapping: to assert the dominance of the parent. Not by showing them the error of their ways, the consequences of their actions or by reasoning with them, but to make them change their behaviour out of fear and teach the child that the adult is right because they are the one with the power.

Is it any wonder that we lacked civil courage in this country when it came to the authorities. Look what it took to knock the RCC off it's pedestal.

This is what I think every time I see people harking back to the good old days when corporal punishment of children was even more commonplace. It wasn't that bad things didn't happen, it's just that people were more afraid to talk about certain things.

stovelid

RussellTuring wrote: »

Hitting kids (and adults) on a regular basis takes away their willingness to question those more powerful than them.

True.

I was smacked as a kid and now burst into tears whenever my boss or a traffic warden looks sternly at me.

Chuck Stone

RussellTuring wrote: »

This is what I think every time I see people harking back to the good old days when corporal punishment of children was even more commonplace. It wasn't that bad things didn't happen, it's just that people were more afraid to talk about certain things.

One thing that stood out in my mind after I read about Victor Frankl's experiences in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany*was the idea of 'civil courage'.

He said (paraphrasing) that when a population lacks the civil courage to stand up to authority then horrible abuses can take place. I don't know if there's any link between corporal punishment and deference to authority but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was.

Pointing out the Godwin aspect of this comment is not smart in any way.

stovelid

Chuck Stone wrote: »

One thing that stood out in my mind after I read about Victor Frankl's experiences in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany*was the idea of 'civil courage'.

He said (paraphrasing) that when a population lacks the civil courage to stand up to authority then horrible abuses can take place. I don't know if there's any link between corporal punishment and deference to authority but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was

Sweet Lantern Jaysus.

Chuck Stone

stovelid wrote: »

Sweet Lantern Jaysus.

Great contribution.

stovelid

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Great contribution.

It's all I could squeeze out at that moment. And, I suspect, all that it deserves.

RussellTuring

stovelid wrote: »

True.

I was smacked as a kid and now burst into tears whenever my boss or a traffic warden looks sternly at me.

That's sad.

Dudess

/checks thread

/sees a quick and light slap on the bum is still being likened to torture/a beating

/leaves thread

afrodub

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I did.

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

Hitting children is stupid.

What say y'all?

I went more rounds than Mohammed Ali with my parents..

It has made me as a parent utterly opposed to hitting of children, though my Mrs is not averse to getting the wooden spoon out of occasion, I plea with her always never to use, and she`s got a mean right hook on her I CAN tell you..ouchh.

Liam Byrne

afrodub wrote: »

.....she`s got a mean right hook on her I CAN tell you..ouchh.

And you're still with her ?

RussellTuring

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And you're still with her ?

Maybe she only hits him when he deserves it and as a last resort.

afrodub

Yes I admit sometimes being a naughty boy, but the Mrs does go too far sometimes, and I`ve got the bruises to prove it, still I`m a big boy

stovelid

It's certainly a sobering thought that the fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the third reich could have been averted if a generation of Germans had eschwed smacking.

amacachi

angerfist2009 wrote: »

Maybe if more kids got a slap instead of there parents following some new age ****e out of a book you wouldnt have so many spoilt little ****s with attitude problems all over Ireland now.

As much as I think parents should have the right to give their kids the odd smack I can't just let that go. Have a look at the scrotes with their hand down their kacks and their kacks tucked into their socks, I'd be willing to bet everything that they got hit by their parents way more often than the "spoilt" kids who don't start on people on the street.

RussellTuring

stovelid wrote: »

It's certainly a sobering thought that the fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the third reich could have been averted if a generation of Germans had eschwed smacking.

You seem to have quite a liking for hyperbole.

Liam Byrne

RussellTuring wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And you're still with her ?

Maybe she only hits him when he deserves it and as a last resort.

Apples & oranges I didn't see him mention that she was his parent* so she has no right or obligation to discipline him.

* if he's from Texas or Alabama I obviously retract the distinction due to inadmissability.

stovelid

RussellTuring wrote: »

stovelid wrote: »

It's certainly a sobering thought that the fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the third reich could have been averted if a generation of Germans had eschwed smacking.

You seem to have quite a liking for hyperbole.

So you only see hyperbole that doesn't chime with your own views.

margio

RussellTuring wrote: »

I think you hit the nail on the head there. The difference between us is probably down to disagreeing on the use of fear to control behaviour. I don't think it should be done, firstly because it's cruel and secondly because it doesn't work that well anyway. My behaviour is determined by my own conscience, not the law, a god or some other external judge, and I think that children and adults behave better knowing the effects their actions have on other people rather than acting good because they fear being punished. Parents shouldn't be the friends of their children, but they shouldn't be their gaolers either.



I hope you're not trying to imply that getting smacked, and this alone, instills in people a respect for life. Now that would be pathetic.



My respect for people tends to decrease the more they hit a defenceless child.

As Adults it is expected that we have the common sense required to be good living citizens, but even in Adult there still must be fear of the law. We would be living in a state of anarchy otherwise, so fear must be experienced by children, when growing up. Parents act as carers and protectors. If a child disobeys, then there must be consequences. hence if a child does something wrong, they either get smacked, grounded, priveleges taken away, no pocket money etc. If an Adult breaks the law, they either get an on the spot fine, court appearance or even jail. You have to teach children that there are consequences for actions, as there are in adult hood. Hopefully by experiencing fear from misbehaving as children, that will teach them to be law abiding citizens for the rest of their lives, and they will respect people in authority. There are some people on this thread who just want to treat their kids like china dolls. They have to learn reality. Life is often a bitch

Liam Byrne

margio wrote: »

As Adults it is expected that we have the common sense required to be good living citizens, but even in Adult there still must be fear of the law. We would be living in a state of anarchy otherwise, so fear must be experienced by children, when growing up. Parents act as carers and protectors. If a child disobeys, then there must be consequences. hence if a child does something wrong, they either get smacked, grounded, priveleges taken away, no pocket money etc. If an Adult breaks the law, they either get an on the spot fine, court appearance or even jail. You have to teach children that there are consequences for actions, as there are in adult hood. Hopefully by experiencing fear from misbehaving as children, that will teach them to be law abiding citizens for the rest of their lives, and they will respect people in authority. There are some people on this thread who just want to treat their kids like china dolls. They have to learn reality. Life is often a bitch

I actually understand what RussellTuring is on about - it makes no difference to me whether or not there is a law against breaking in somewhere, or mugging an old lady, or whatever; I wouldn't do it anyway.

So yes - the "fear of punishment" shouldn't be the driving factor, and isn't in my case for many, many crimes.

And this needs to be factored in to discipline - explaining that "decent people don't do X or Y".....but yes, the other point is that people DO get disciplined and yes, it isn't pretty (for example, ask a child if they'd prefer their parent to take them to task or prefer a stranger who doesn't have their best interests at heart, or the law itself).

But again, the aim is to ensure that - until they can reason things out for themselves, armed with proper ethics and decency - the "threat" of discipline would be sufficient.

margio

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I actually understand what RussellTuring is on about - it makes no difference to me whether or not there is a law against breaking in somewhere, or mugging an old lady, or whatever; I wouldn't do it anyway.

So yes - the "fear of punishment" shouldn't be the driving factor, and isn't in my case for many, many crimes.

And this needs to be factored in to discipline - explaining that "decent people don't do X or Y".....but yes, the other point is that people DO get disciplined and yes, it isn't pretty (for example, ask a child if they'd prefer their parent to take them to task or prefer a stranger who doesn't have their best interests at heart, or the law itself).

But again, the aim is to ensure that - until they can reason things out for themselves, armed with proper ethics and decency - the "threat" of discipline would be sufficient.

But that is the difference between our generation and the generation growing up today. We wouldn't dare do the things kids get up to today, because we considered other peoples feelings, it wasn't just the threat of 'what if our parents found out'. We wouldn't roar abuse and take the piss out of an elderly person, kill and torture animals at halloween, put firecrackers in peoples letterboxes or stand in the middle of the road and stare at the occupant of the car, just to act the hard man etc. some Kids today blatantly lack respect. If fear would stop them from doing what they do, in my eyes it would be a good thing.

Liam Byrne

margio wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I actually understand what RussellTuring is on about - it makes no difference to me whether or not there is a law against breaking in somewhere, or mugging an old lady, or whatever; I wouldn't do it anyway.

So yes - the "fear of punishment" shouldn't be the driving factor, and isn't in my case for many, many crimes.

And this needs to be factored in to discipline - explaining that "decent people don't do X or Y".....but yes, the other point is that people DO get disciplined and yes, it isn't pretty (for example, ask a child if they'd prefer their parent to take them to task or prefer a stranger who doesn't have their best interests at heart, or the law itself).

But again, the aim is to ensure that - until they can reason things out for themselves, armed with proper ethics and decency - the "threat" of discipline would be sufficient.

But that is the difference between our generation and the generation growing up today. We wouldn't dare do the things kids get up to today, because we considered other peoples feelings, it wasn't just the threat of 'what if our parents found out'. We wouldn't roar abuse and take the piss out of an elderly person, kill and torture animals at halloween, put firecrackers in peoples letterboxes or stand in the middle of the road and stare at the occupant of the car, just to act the hard man etc. some Kids today blatantly lack respect. If fear would stop them from doing what they do, in my eyes it would be a good thing.

Is it really a generational thing ?

Yes, the level of general obnoxiousness certainly appears to have increased, but there are certainly lots of obnoxious, ethically-challenged, sociopathic individuals of our age and older, both "white collar" thugs and their "working class" equivalents.

margio

Yeah it is a difficult one to pin point alrite. I think the Celtic tiger has a lot to answer for. Family values were abandoned altogether. Family mealtimes were often a rare occurence and over worked parents were showering money at their kids to compensate for their absence. They were too busy to even know what they were up to, not to mind discipline them

RussellTuring

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Apples & oranges I didn't see him mention that she was his parent* so she has no right or obligation to discipline him.

* if he's from Texas or Alabama I obviously retract the distinction due to inadmissability.

Are you equating discipline with a right hook now? Anyway, we don't agree that a parent's responsibility for their child gives them the right to smack the kid, so I still don't see how you have such a problem with hitting a partner while kids, who are even more vulnerable and totally dependent on the adult slapping them, are an exception.

stovelid wrote: »

So you only see hyperbole that doesn't chime with your own views.

No.

margio wrote: »

As Adults it is expected that we have the common sense required to be good living citizens, but even in Adult there still must be fear of the law. We would be living in a state of anarchy otherwise, so fear must be experienced by children, when growing up.

Why must there be fear of the law exactly? I've stated already that the law doesn't make me a good person, but rather my conscience. If the law changed and murder was no longer legally punishable, would that make everyone a murderer all of a sudden? I think people's behaviour is determined in large part by social convention rather than the law, the latter of which is only a skewed, slowly-changing reflection of the former. I am an anarchist and I'm the one advocating restraint on the use of violence, whereas you refer to the law as justification for it.

Parents act as carers and protectors. If a child disobeys, then there must be consequences. hence if a child does something wrong, they either get smacked, grounded, priveleges taken away, no pocket money etc. If an Adult breaks the law, they either get an on the spot fine, court appearance or even jail. You have to teach children that there are consequences for actions, as there are in adult hood. Hopefully by experiencing fear from misbehaving as children, that will teach them to be law abiding citizens for the rest of their lives, and they will respect people in authority. There are some people on this thread who just want to treat their kids like china dolls. They have to learn reality. Life is often a bitch

Since when does being a carer give someone the right to hit the person they're supposed to be protecting? I respect authority if it's justified, but I don't respect bullies who claim the right to hit me because they can. The fact that something I may do has harsh consequences doesn't by itself justify those consequences.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And this needs to be factored in to discipline - explaining that "decent people don't do X or Y".....but yes, the other point is that people DO get disciplined and yes, it isn't pretty (for example, ask a child if they'd prefer their parent to take them to task or prefer a stranger who doesn't have their best interests at heart, or the law itself).

Can you rephrase this please? I'm not sure what you mean.

But again, the aim is to ensure that - until they can reason things out for themselves, armed with proper ethics and decency - the "threat" of discipline would be sufficient.

And if it's not, is slapping then appropriate? I just don't get how it's okay to hit someone who doesn't understand the consequences of their actions but as soon as they do, it's wrong.

margio wrote: »

Yeah it is a difficult one to pin point alrite. I think the Celtic tiger has a lot to answer for. Family values were abandoned altogether. Family mealtimes were often a rare occurence and over worked parents were showering money at their kids to compensate for their absence. They were too busy to even know what they were up to, not to mind discipline them

That's still just your opinion. You haven't shown that children have in fact gotten any worse, and there's still no reason to show slapping is justified even if they have.

Liam Byrne

RusselTuring wrote:

Are you equating discipline with a right hook now?

No. It was you did that. So lay off the dirty tricks.

RussellTuring

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No. It was you did that. So lay off the dirty tricks.

When? The other poster mentioned a right hook and you said they weren't entitled to discipline their partner. I think you did it already too, using the word "discipline" when someone explicitly mentioned violence.

bodhrandude

I got some right trashings when I was a young one, my mother was a firm believer in the sally rod. The bloody sally rod had unique properties no matter how you bent it, it would not break. me and the sisters would be devising ways to hide them or to break them, this was back in the times when disciplining with a beating was looked upon as being normal back in the early to mid 1970s and I would have never swapped the parents for another set, they were still the best we had, ever.

Sky King

My cane has found the backside of many a young wan.

RussellTuring

bodhrandude wrote: »

I got some right trashings when I was a young one, my mother was a firm believer in the sally rod. The bloody sally rod had unique properties no matter how you bent it, it would not break. me and the sisters would be devising ways to hide them or to break them, this was back in the times when disciplining with a beating was looked upon as being normal back in the early to mid 1970s and I would have never swapped the parents for another set, they were still the best we had, ever.

My parents were the best I had too and they were awful.

Liam Byrne

RussellTuring wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No. It was you did that. So lay off the dirty tricks.

When? The other poster mentioned a right hook and you said they weren't entitled to discipline their partner. I think you did it already too, using the word "discipline" when someone explicitly mentioned violence.

RussellTuring wrote:

Maybe she only hits him when he deserves it and as a last resort.

I have REPEATEDLY said that actual violence and abuse is not acceptable.

RussellTuring

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Apples & oranges I didn't see him mention that she was his parent* so she has no right or obligation to discipline him.

* if he's from Texas or Alabama I obviously retract the distinction due to inadmissability.

And presumably would if he was the child. Correct or not?

Liam Byrne

RussellTuring wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Apples & oranges I didn't see him mention that she was his parent* so she has no right or obligation to discipline him.

* if he's from Texas or Alabama I obviously retract the distinction due to inadmissability.

And presumably would if he was the child. Correct or not?

Look, you've proved above that you'll twist anything I say, even claiming that I'm the one who suggests what you posted.

So I'm not going to fall for a pathetic "have you stopped beating your wife" faux question.

RussellTuring

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Look, you've proved above that you'll twist anything I say, even claiming that I'm the one who suggests what you posted.

So I'm not going to fall for a pathetic "have you stopped beating your wife" faux question.

It's called begging the question and it's not what I'm doing. If my assumption was wrong, all you had to say was "no".

After I compared being hit by a spouse to being hit by a parent, you used the word "discipline" to describe being punched by a spouse, not me. Do you or do you not consider a similar act towards a child to be discipline? It's a straightforward question that doesn't imply anything.

Liam Byrne

RussellTuring wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Look, you've proved above that you'll twist anything I say, even claiming that I'm the one who suggests what you posted.

So I'm not going to fall for a pathetic "have you stopped beating your wife" faux question.

It's called begging the question and it's not what I'm doing. If my assumption was wrong, all you had to say was "no".

After I compared being hit by a spouse to being hit by a parent, you used the word "discipline" to describe being punched by a spouse, not me. Do you or do you not consider a similar act towards a child to be discipline? It's a straightforward question that doesn't imply anything.

As I clearly stated above and throughout the thread, punching is not discipline!

You were the one who said "maybe he deserved it", trying to make a link that I have repeatedly objected to in this thread.

Smacking =/= punching
Punching =/= discipline

And you don't have any authority or obligation to discipline a partner.....you do have to discipline your child.

How many times does the above have to be stated before people stop twisting it?

bath handle

kelty wrote: »

When I was younger my father use to beat me, my bother and sisters with a cane when we became unruly. Didn't do us any harm and he brought us up good and proper to be polite and respectful of others.
W
He sacrificed all of his savings to put all 4 of us through college and now all of us have successful careers. He wanted what was best for us and I am thankful to him for that.

Caning can be very unhygienic when the same cane is being used on a few children. Wooden canes cannot be fully cleaned and as there is always a chance of the skin breaking in use tnus contaminating the cane.if z wooden cane is used, it should be rattan which is flexible and not bamboo which is rigid and mibht shatter. I do not believe in violence towards children.