The Slapping Debate.

Donkey Kong

some people on this post seem to think their opinions are more important than others. its a poll. at the end of the day corporal punishment has been abused. to talk about it so flippantly and digress every little point as if its a score card is sad. register your vote and let it count.

Vas_Guy

Zulu wrote: »

Do you not see the total contradiction?

Clearly you are not against violence. You just advocated limited violence.

A smack on the backside never did anyone any harm, I got it when I was growing up.

OTT beating is a different matter.

The child ran away and refudsed to come back after being called, they could have ran out the door and be hit by a car, caused an acident or worse and if it did happen people would say the mother has no control over her children and lets them run wild.

faceman

Vas_Guy wrote: »

A smack on the backside never did anyone any harm, I got it when I was growing up.

OTT beating is a different matter

if im at a queue at a bus stop and someone skips me in the queue and i slap them on the backside for doing it (cos i will do them no harm), i will end up in court on charges for assault.

So why doesnt the same apply for children?

Zulu

Vas_Guy wrote: »

A smack on the backside never did anyone any harm, I got it when I was growing up.

So did I - that doesn't make it right.

The child ran away and refudsed to come back after being called, they could have ran out the door and be hit by a car, caused an acident or worse and if it did happen people would say the mother has no control over her children and lets them run wild.

That is all just speculation. The simple fact of the matter is: the mother had another option, but choose to exert physical force over the child.
Poor parenting.

Vas_Guy

faceman wrote: »

if im at a queue at a bus stop and someone skips me in the queue and i slap them on the backside for doing it (cos i will do them no harm), i will end up in court on charges for assault.

So why doesnt the same apply for children?

Of course not, I'm not saying that a child should be smacked for every little thing, but there are sometimes when a smack is necessary after verbal warnings.

Ludo

Oh no...not this thread again.

Some people will always refer to parents who do things differently to them as bad parents and use rediculous examples to "prove" their point (see the adult queue jumping example earlier). This example is stupid. As is this one...babies can run around naked on a beach and no one would say a word...if an adult did it he would probably be locked up. Shouldn't the same rules apply?

How about co-sleeping? If a slap is the start of a slippery slope to assault, is co-sleeping the start of a slippery slope to a different form of abuse and so should also be outlawed? Stupid right?

This one will run and run with no "right" answer.

marti101

I did slap my sons but ast they get bigger you have to think of ways of discipline that works and also choosing your battles helps as they dont always feel they are in the wrong.my sons are 12 and 13 and 3 months.I could throttle them sometimes but i just grit my teeth and count to 10

Concorde

<<<Yawn>>>

Here we go again! And I couldn't be bothered arguing once more. Soon it will be illegal to slap a child on the back who is choking, such is the extremity of the anti-smacking arguments.

Actually, there's a pointer for a new argument - if slapping was banned in this country and parents were jailed for administering any type of force on a child, who would take on the care of the children? And what if a child is choking and the parent gives the child a slap on the back to dislodge it, a stupid passerby may not distinguish it from a slap as a form of punishment - what happens then???

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Vas_Guy wrote: »

A smack on the backside never did anyone any harm, I got it when I was growing up.

.

What about someone else's child?

luckat

It might be helpful to consider the Quaker approach to child-rearing.

Quaker households are regarded as a union of individuals equal in the sight of God. So it's not seen as appropriate for one person to strike another.

Concorde

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

We get a Yes vote and he'll soon be right: most of Europe frowns on it and Scandanavia fiens you for it.

Funny how a member of my family was a victim of domestic abuse - at the hands of a Swedish national! She had never been slapped.
So is it definite that a child who was not slapped will never resort to violence in later life (which seems to be the main argument of the anti-smacking brigade)? Hmm, I don't think so.

luckat

Of course it's not definite that people who aren't slapped as children won't become violent adults, though it's more likely.

Of course, Sweden didn't have an easy entry into the non-slapping league. A generation ago, Sweden was a country in which extreme violence to children was the norm.

Vas_Guy

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

What about someone else's child?

Its up to each parent to correct and put manners on their own child not on other peoples children.

I've seen amature child physciologists who tell every one the rightways to bring up their children while their own are running wild

BostonB

luckat wrote: »

Of course it's not definite that people who aren't slapped as children won't become violent adults, though it's more likely.

Of course, Sweden didn't have an easy entry into the non-slapping league. A generation ago, Sweden was a country in which extreme violence to children was the norm.

Sweden has experienced a rise in reports of child abuse just like countires without the ban.

How often do you see kids bening slapped? Very rarely. TBH someone thats going curse widly at kids in public, and slap them isn't going to be affected by a ban one way or another as they have other issues.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Concorde wrote: »

Funny how a member of my family was a victim of domestic abuse - at the hands of a Swedish national! She had never been slapped.
So is it definite that a child who was not slapped will never resort to violence in later life (which seems to be the main argument of the anti-smacking brigade)? Hmm, I don't think so.

Oh, so therefore the whole of Sweden.... Never mind.

Anyway, my point was about how things could have panned out if we'd voted to join Europe, which we did't. So it's a moot point really.

In my experience - Denmark, not Sweden, admittedly, - the parents were far better at commuincating with their kid and never resorted to slapping simply because they never needed to.

Cue stories beginning with, "Well I knew a Danish kid and he always ran riot..."

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Vas_Guy wrote: »

Its up to each parent to correct and put manners on their own child not on other peoples children.

I've seen amature child physciologists who tell every one the rightways to bring up their children while their own are running wild

But surely if you agree with slapping kids to make them cooperate, then what mattes who's kid it is? I've yelled at kids that aren't my own and who were messing about, no problem there.

Another point (out of curiosity): if a man slapped your child on the backside, would be assault or sexual assault?

Nevyn

We have gone in basically two gnerations from slaping and beating being totally acceptable
to beating children not being accept able to anyone and a growing number of parents who do not slap/spank at all.

The thing is we do not have enough parenting classes out there for people.

My Granny was always telling my mam that if she was my mother I would get a good slap
and for years my Mam did until I was about 11 and then she went and did parenting courses.

Yes when mine were 3/5 they did get a slap on ocassion to modify thier behaviour but
as soon as a child is old enough under stand and reason thier are other ways to correct and punish them but those skills don't come out of thin air to a parent esp if they were not raised with those skills by thier parents.

BostonB

Thaedydal wrote: »

...Yes when mine were 3/5 they did get a slap on ocassion to modify thier behaviour....

Should you have been arrested for it.

Zulu

Concorde wrote: »

Funny how a member of my family was a victim of domestic abuse - at the hands of a Swedish national! She had never been slapped.

Pointless - thanks for that.

So is it definite that a child who was not slapped will never resort to violence in later life (which seems to be the main argument of the anti-smacking brigade)? Hmm, I don't think so.

It doesn't need to be. :rolleyes:

Concorde

luckat wrote: »

Of course it's not definite that people who aren't slapped as children won't become violent adults, though it's more likely.

Of course, Sweden didn't have an easy entry into the non-slapping league. A generation ago, Sweden was a country in which extreme violence to children was the norm.

We were smacked as children to teach us right from wrong and we are not violent adults. My friends were smacked as children for the same reason and none of them are violent adults.

Vas_Guy wrote: »

Its up to each parent to correct and put manners on their own child not on other peoples children.

I've seen amature child physciologists who tell every one the rightways to bring up their children while their own are running wild

Well said!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Oh, so therefore the whole of Sweden.... Never mind.

Anyway, my point was about how things could have panned out if we'd voted to join Europe, which we did't. So it's a moot point really.

In my experience - Denmark, not Sweden, admittedly, - the parents were far better at commuincating with their kid and never resorted to slapping simply because they never needed to.

Cue stories beginning with, "Well I knew a Danish kid and he always ran riot..."

And most people who were smacked as kids are not violent adults:eek:

Nevyn

BostonB wrote: »

Should you have been arrested for it.

Wouldn't happen.

nesf

Concorde wrote: »

We were smacked as children to teach us right from wrong and we are not violent adults. My friends were smacked as children for the same reason and none of them are violent adults.

There are problems with the causation with respect to smacking or slapping. A predisposition towards violent behaviour can be hereditary, the issue is: is it the slap in itself that brings out the violence later on or is it the tendency towards violence in the parents, which leads them to slap more and slap harder that reinforces the already present disposition towards violence that's in the kid's genes? The interaction between environment and genetics is complex but it's a little like a self-fulfilling prophesy where violent parents raise violent children, not only is there a (small) genetic bias towards violence, but the child sees violence from a young age and suffers from their parents behaviour towards them creating a nasty cocktail of nurture and nature.

You can pick out a myriad of people who came from stable non-violent homes who turned out to be stable non-violent people. This should not surprise anyone. A large combination of factors combine towards nudging the child that bit away from violence, both hereditary and environmental. The slaps in this case are unusual and not typical of behaviour seen in the household. You cannot take slapping as a disciplinary tool as independent from other factors in the household, the context within which the slapping is done is more important.

BostonB

Thaedydal wrote: »

Wouldn't happen.

Thens whats the point of this thread?

Concorde

Zulu wrote: »

Pointless - thanks for that.

Why? Maybe you think "she" was the victim and "he" the perpetrator - it was the other way around! And she had never been smacked, was very verbal with her anti-smacking views, yet was beating the living daylights out of my poor relation!
Or because I think differently to you?

BostonB wrote: »

Thens whats the point of this thread?

Exactly!

Zulu

Concorde wrote: »

Why?

I'm surprised I have to point this out to you...

It's pointless, Concorde, because pointing out that a Swedish person is responsible for domestic abuse does nothing to prove the argument either way.

To suggest that because a country bans the slapping of children it should have 0 instances of domestic abuse is ridiculously over simplistic and ill conceived.
For a start, we already know people don't always obey the law. :rolleyes:

Zulu

Concorde wrote: »

Maybe you think "she" was the victim and "he" the perpetrator

I didn't give it that much taught, as it was pointless.

it was the other way around!

So what?

And she had never been smacked, was very verbal with her anti-smacking views, yet was beating the living daylights out of my poor relation!

Which is why we should have laws to protect our minors. At least then some action could be taken to protect the minor, punish the aggressor, and prevent it from happening again.

Or because I think differently to you?

Well clearly you think differently to me, but that wasn't want make your comment pointless.

Jaysoose

I think Zulu is punctilious in his assumptions.

Zulu

<aside>I had to look that word up!</aside>
The law needs to be punctilious in order to protect the citizens of the society it strives to control.

tallaght01

I look forward to the day when we make hitting children illegal, giving them the same rights to physical protection as adults and most animals.

Hitting small people is bizarre, to my mind.

Ludo

And when that day arrives there will be lots of very "windy" babies around as parents won't be able to do it properly. After all if I lightly "slapped" you on the back, I could be done for assault. I guess all parents would have to find other ways to give their little ones relief for fear of being prosecuted after being reported by some busy body if feeding in public. All feeding would have to be done in the privacy of your own home with the blinds drawn!