The Slapping Debate.

GreeBo

hottstuff wrote: »

Remember he has no experience in this field and so his answers are just speculation , looking after nieces/nephews/kids of friends doesn't apply to your answers until you practice what you preach.

In that case the answer will probably be along the lines of "I give them back to their parents"

hottstuff

GreeBo wrote: »

In that case the answer will probably be along the lines of "I give them back to their parents"

Yes , and tell them they are "bad parents" whilst your at it.:)

Zulu

GreeBo wrote: »

and I happen to think that slapping is a perfectly fine disciplinary method.

...in General? Would you slap before removing treats etc.?

And when reason fails, what then? Give up and let them do what they want?

When toys and treats are removed, or the "cars" dvd is promised, reason always prevails.

not at all, by situation I mean dealing with a 5 year old Vs dealing with a 10 year old. If "more force" is required to make an impression (if you'll pardon the pun) on a 10 year old then so be it.

...and by that logic, would you slap a 17 year old? or where do you cut off?

Ok, so how do you discipline a child?

This isn't about me.

Do you withold treats/toys?

as it happens that is a method, also the reminder of a treat where behaviour improves/is good, but it all depends on the situation and child

Do you scold them?

are you attempting to build a straw-man? I fail to see where this is going.

Show me how you can discipline a child, so that it learns its lesson, without causing the child pain (emotional or physical) in any way.

Sure you will cause the child some emotional distress when you take it's toy away. Are you suggesting the because we punish, and because punishing causes pain, it's ok to resort to physical punishment? ...because if you are, that's tantamount to saying because we accept a parking fine from the government, we should also accept a beating form the government.

You have just decided that physical pain is bad and emotional pain is not bad.

No, you made that assumption, but thats not the point.

nesf

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not suggesting it's easy, just that it's wrong to slap; that it's needless.

So only positive reinforcement is acceptable to you as a form of discipline?


My point about toddlers is that there is a major difference in controlling/minding a toddler and controlling/minding an older or younger child. You can't reason with them to any great extent (you can use positive reinforcement and praise to encourage them to do certain things but they don't have the ability yet to be able to categorise what's acceptable and what's not). In an older child you have a broad range of possible avenues when it comes to discipline and controlling behaviour and it's a very different argument purely because you can reason/cajole/bribe etc.

hottstuff

nesf wrote: »

So only positive reinforcement is acceptable to you as a form of discipline?


My point about toddlers is that there is a major difference in controlling/minding a toddler and controlling/minding an older or younger child. You can't reason with them to any great extent (you can use positive reinforcement and praise to encourage them to do certain things but they don't have the ability yet to be able to categorise what's acceptable and what's not). In an older child you have a broad range of possible avenues when it comes to discipline and controlling behaviour and it's a very different argument.

*Nods in agreement.*

Zulu

nesf wrote: »

So only positive reinforcement is acceptable to you as a form of discipline?

I don't recall saying that My point is that physical discipline isn't acceptable. One does not equate to the other.

tallaght01

I think we're getting intot he realms of moving this argument to being about the effectiveness of smacking.

This is not the issue.

I think most of the anti-smacking people think it's wrong regardless of how well it works. It may well be easy parenting. Nobody knows. There isn't a shred of evidence that smacking improves behaviour. Some think it does, some think it doesn't. You can what you like, but nobody knows the true answer.

You can argue that point until the cows come home.

It would be easier for me to get money by assualting people and taking their wallets than what i currently do to earn money.

Doesn't matter, because I think it's wrong to strike another person. Would be easier for me, and a more effective way of making money, but it's wrong.

This is not an argument about what facilitates the easiest parenting, or what is the most effective tool in disciplining children.

It's about the right of a small child not be struck by an adult. It's about the fact that if I did the same thing to an adult my own size I could be locked up.

AngryHippie

As a kid, when I crossed the line, I got a smack on the ar5e, When I still didn't get it, I got a smack of the wooden spoon. While it was pretty effective, It was a little confusing at the time, unless I was knew perfectly well what it was for. It wasn't abusive or vindictive, and I have always held my parents in very high regard for their dedication in raising me with a clear sense of right and wrong. When I have children, they will receive the same.
I see it in society today, it is quite easy to pick out the spoiled child from a crowd of kids, just from their behaviour, they have less respect for others around them. I fully acknowledge that I have no right to tell anyone how to raise their kids, But to listen to a load of Hippy nonsense about how it is a negative influence on their behaviour, and disregard the results is a little short sighted.
Bear in mind, I am not talking about threatening or menacing behavior. I am talking about persistent bad behavior after repeated warnings of the consequences....

Nevyn

That would mean a criminal convition and you dont' get that for less then actual bodily harm and bruises or redenning of the skin are not actual bodily harm.

tallaght01

BUt you can be done for assault, which doesn't have to leave any physical markings on a person at all.

nesf

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think most of the anti-smacking people think it's wrong regardless of how well it works.

Indeed, it's what makes you people so hard to argue with.

Zulu wrote: »

I don't recall saying that My point is that physical discipline isn't acceptable. One does not equate to the other.

What I was getting at was that there are only two ways that I can see for automatically saying slapping is unnecessary. One is where you believe only in positive reinforcement, the other is if it's a moral issue for you and you just think it's wrong and that's that. If it's the second one, you can just say "it's wrong and you shouldn't do it" and leave it at that tbh.

tallaght01

I agree, nesf. It's why the thread is 9 pages long

Your right in that it's a ethical and moral standpoint.

But that doesn't mean there's no rationale to it.

It's a question of equal rights. It's a question of arbitrary physical violence.

But probably the deepest divide comes fromt he fact that the pro-smacking lobby believe smacking is OK because (in their opinion) it works.

I don't regard that as a satisfactory reason.

I think that's where the argument chases it's tail round in circles.

nesf

I agree with you. There's also the broader (and probably more important) question of to what extent should legislation enter the parent-child relationship.

It's a bit like how there's a world of difference between a pro-choice person who is personally pro-life (ie they themselves would never have/ask for an abortion but they don't feel that they have a right to make this decisions for others) and a straight pro-life person despite both of them potentially feeling as strongly about the issue with respect to themselves.

For me it's a borderline issue whether a light smack on the hand is right or wrong. What I feel most strongly about is that it's a decision that should be left to the individual parents involved rather than Government legislation.

tallaght01

Totally agree, nesf.

It's why I battled so hard with my conscience when we made our childrens ward a "no-hitting area".

Despite the way I may come across here, I do respect the parent-child relationship.

With the exception of the many abuse cases I've sadly been involved with, I've only ever mentioned the smacking of a child to a parent (who was knocking his kid with pneumonia senseless for not wanting his dinner-he told me to **** off, and we banned him from the ward) once. I don't interfere with parents and the way they raise their children, despite seeing some children who are raised very poorly.

I agree that the point at which the state should get involved can be very blurry. Sometimes it's very obvious, but it can be difficult.

Reminds me of how I used to get requests for referrals for abortions. I personally am against the concept of abortion. I am allowed to refuse to refer the woman to the appropriate people. But I could never in good conscience allow my own opinions to influence someone's actions.

It's an emotive, difficult world to navigate when you're dealing with these issues.

Zulu

Tallaght01 - great point. Thanks for that.

AngryHippie wrote: »

I see it in society today, it is quite easy to pick out the spoiled child from a crowd of kids, just from their behaviour, they have less respect for others around them. I fully acknowledge that I have no right to tell anyone how to raise their kids, But to listen to a load of Hippy nonsense about how it is a negative influence on their behaviour, and disregard the results is a little short sighted

Are you trying to suggest that kids who aren't hit are the "spoiled child" who have "less respect for others around them"? Because if you are, I'd love to see the evidence you have to back that up. ...but I'm guessing you actually don't have any; that it's anecdotal.

arybvtcw0eolkf

AngryHippie wrote: »

As a kid, when I crossed the line, I got a smack on the ar5e, When I still didn't get it, I got a smack of the wooden spoon. While it was pretty effective, It was a little confusing at the time, unless I was knew perfectly well what it was for. It wasn't abusive or vindictive, and I have always held my parents in very high regard for their dedication in raising me with a clear sense of right and wrong. When I have children, they will receive the same.I see it in society today, it is quite easy to pick out the spoiled child from a crowd of kids, just from their behaviour, they have less respect for others around them. I fully acknowledge that I have no right to tell anyone how to raise their kids, But to listen to a load of Hippy nonsense about how it is a negative influence on their behaviour, and disregard the results is a little short sighted.
Bear in mind, I am not talking about threatening or menacing behavior. I am talking about persistent bad behavior after repeated warnings of the consequences....

Ah now here's the problem as I see it.

You were hit with a weapon as a child, and now you think its ok to do it on your children, when you have them. And now the cycle continues, what will you hit them with when the wooden spoon isn't handy?.

I also have a problem with childless people in these discussions, right or wrong it doesn't matter.

But I wouldn't take driving lessions from a person who can't drive, so I have a problem taking parenting lessions from a person with no children.

All you can talk about is your experiences from your childhood, and I'm not dismissing them as their very important but through them you've only learned violence.

Let me turn this on its head for a moment, and bring it to spousal abuse. I seen my father knock lumps out of my mother when we were children. They're still together (worse fool her) after 40+ year's, she still cooks his dinners and washes his clothes etc. From the outside looking in they're the perfect couple, so was he justified in hitting her now that she complies with his wishes?.

Does the end always justify the mean's?.

metrovelvet

GreeBo wrote: »

Ah, so you are into beating adults but not chastising children?
I see.

Its not so much a case of an eye for an eye, but two eyes for an eye, as the first instigator starts out with two eyes, where as the second doesnt. You get me?

An adult can defend or retaliate or even press charges. A child does not have the same course of options.

Slapping doesnt work. Beating doesnt work. Spare the rod spoil the child... bull****.

The conundrum with discipline and reward is that you have to increase both as they eventually lose their effectiveness.

hottstuff

tallaght01 wrote: »

It would be easier for me to get money by assualting people and taking their wallets than what i currently do to earn money.

.

What a stupid analogy , just another sensationalist post like your little friend zulu there and his "use brains over brawn".
Cheek of you to use an analogy like that to incinuate anyone that spanks their child is taking the easy way out.
Another window shopper , with a uniform.

hottstuff

tallaght01 wrote: »

But probably the deepest divide comes fromt he fact that the pro-smacking lobby believe smacking is OK because (in their opinion) it works.

.

There you go again with your assumptions.You know nothing of the people that discipline their children when it's needed.
I never do it as it WORKS , it's a last resort for me , can't speak for anyone else , and nor should you!!!:rolleyes:

arybvtcw0eolkf

hottstuff wrote: »

Cheek of you to use an analogy like that to incinuate anyone that spanks their child is taking the easy way out.
.

I think in alot of case's it is.

I also believe its learned behaviour & that the parent hasn't looked at the other options available to disciplining a child. Because violence is not the answer. Its never the answer.

hottstuff

Mairt wrote: »

I think in alot of case's it is.

I also believe its learned behaviour & that the parent hasn't looked at the other options available to disciplining a child. Because violence is not the answer. Its never the answer.

Well thats an assumption , i love the way all of you assume you know every situation when its used and you believe there is a different way to do it.
Read my post above , i dont ever automatically smack , so speak for someone else.

metrovelvet

If you smack your kids you cant expect them not to hit others to get their way - and if they do you cant turn around and say hitting is wrong.

arybvtcw0eolkf

hottstuff wrote: »

Well thats an assumption , i love the way all of you assume you know every situation when its used and you believe there is a different way to do it.
Read my post above , i dont ever automatically smack , so speak for someone else.

Mmmmm, I sense a bit of a temper in you?.

You get a little defensive, and then you attack. Has that always been an issue with you?.

hottstuff

Mairt wrote: »

Mmmmm, I sense a bit of a temper in you?.

You get a little defensive, and then you attack. Has that always been an issue with you?.

Change the subject now eh? , Your an adult with an ignorant opinion IMO.
I can speak to you how i like , so don't try and make out i have a temper to further your argument.:rolleyes:
Off topic and childish IMO.

hottstuff

Mairt wrote: »

Let me turn this on its head for a moment, and bring it to spousal abuse. I seen my father knock lumps out of my mother when we were children. They're still together (worse fool her) after 40+ year's, she still cooks his dinners and washes his clothes etc. From the outside looking in they're the perfect couple, so was he justified in hitting her now that she complies with his wishes?.

Does the end always justify the mean's?.

Well aren't you a bit of a window shopper for not getting your father charged for abuse then? It can still be done you know.
Off topic but you brought it up as a reference.
Dont blame others for abuse you suffered as a child from bad parents.
1.your father you say used to beat his wife.
2. your mother never did anything about it.
That is in no way connected to a loving parent using a smack on the hand as a last resort.

I feel a lot of the anti-ists here have underlying issues that they associate with parents who smack must be wife beaters , people with big tempers etc.:rolleyes:

arybvtcw0eolkf

hottstuff wrote: »

Change the subject now eh? , Your an adult with an ignorant opinion IMO.
I can speak to you how i like , so don't try and make out i have a temper to further your argument.:rolleyes:
Off topic and childish IMO.

Woo Hoo, case proven. On 'ignore' now. (means I can no longer view your replies)
To anyone else.

Have you ever felt guilty after smacking your children. And I realise it'll be a brave person who say's they have, but I'm just wondering and wouldn't think worse of you if you did.

I'd wonder what you were feeling guilty about, ie.. was the beating justified, did you go overboard (hitting with a weapon, ie wooden spoons is going OTT IMO)?.

Also re. spousal abuse. I see it along the same lines as smacking a child. So with the example of my parents (given above) does the end always justify the mean's?.

hottstuff

Mairt wrote: »

Woo Hoo, case proven. On 'ignore' now. (means I can no longer view your replies)
To anyone else.

Have you ever felt guilty after smacking your children. And I realise it'll be a brave person who say's they have, but I'm just wondering and wouldn't think worse of you if you did.

I'd wonder what you were feeling guilty about, ie.. was the beating justified, did you go overboard (hitting with a weapon, ie wooden spoons is going OTT IMO)?.

Also re. spousal abuse. I see it along the same lines as smacking a child. So with the example of my parents (given above) does the end always justify the mean's?.

I think you need to resolve your problems you had as a child related to living in a household with domestic abuse.
I know i won't get a reply as you have already tried to insinuate i've a bad temper , now it suits you to act like a child.
suits me fine mate , i dont want to further aggrevate any underlying issues you have.
best of luck:)

tallaght01

Hotstuff, I think my analogy just went over your head, if I may be so bold :P

I also think the excellent points Mairt was making went over your head.

Calling people window shoppers ( with uniforms ?!?) etc is yet another easy way out.

Like I said before, it's not about whether smacking works, it's about whether it's right or wrong.

I'm also interested that you think children who live in abusive households are "window shoppers" when they don't get the perpetrator charged.

It's an interesting take on the issue.

Does it apply to rape victims? Or the spousal victims of domestic abuse too?

Or is it just another burden to saddle children with?

hottstuff

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm also interested that you think children who live in abusive households are "window shoppers" when they don't get the perpetrator charged.

?

Where did i say anything about children window shoppers?
Hes been an adult , i assume for a long time after his father did what he did.
He still didn't feel the need to report him for domestic abuse ,after the mental damage it caused to him , yet he can frown and call those who discipline their children violent & bad tempered.?

The post i used about window shoppers is again a reference to someone who has no involvement in a situation but yet can comment on how they think it is wrong and still say "yep you smack your childs hand , your just like my da who used to beat me ma"
I think you will find that is why he is ignoring me , as i have touched on a sensitive point where he has issues with his father , yet he never done anything about it.
Not related to discipline anyway.

tallaght01

hottstuff wrote: »

Where did i say anything about children window shoppers?
Hes been an adult , i assume for a long time after his father did what he did.
He still didn't feel the need to report him for domestic abuse ,after the mental damage it caused to him , yet he can frown and call those who discipline their children violent & bad tempered.?

The post i used about window shoppers is again a reference to someone who has no involvement in a situation but yet can comment on how they think it is wrong and still say "yep you smack your childs hand , your just like my da who used to beat me ma"
I think you will find that is why he is ignoring me , as i have touched on a sensitive point where he has issues with his father , yet he never done anything about it.
Not related to discipline anyway.

It's interesting that you're so defensive when anybody has (in your mind) commented on your situation. However, you're willing to call Mairt a window shopper, whatever that is, without knowing a lot about his situation.

Perhaps he's tried to talk his mum into leaving. perhaps he's even tried to talk her into pressing charges. Do you know what he's tried?

You are aware, though, that you can't easily press charges on someone else's behalf?