The Slapping Debate.

hottstuff

Zulu wrote: »

It is indeed a fact. It is also a fact that humans can not survive underwater without breathing apparatus. Both facts are completely irrelevant to this discussion. (Read the title to avoid confusion)

There is no need to attempt to belittle the poster because they make a strong point. It only makes it appear that you can't handle the points raised.

You know the point is correct. To me, you smacking your child because it touched a fake coal, is too harsh, yet you wouldn't be happy if I informed you that you may be "damaging your child".

There is no need to be so aggressive.

Indeed, it highlights the obvious, and yet there are still those that refuse to acknowledge it.

I'd expect you to join in backing up a mod.do you think i care what you think.?
Your opinion means nothing to me.Anorak

tallaght01

c'mon hotstuff. Take it easy. I know it's an emotive topic. But this is just a discussion board.

Lets not turn this into a personal row. I'm as keen to hear the reasons behind the pro-smacking lobby as I am to give my reasons for being against smacking.

Let's all live in harmony

hottstuff

tallaght01 wrote: »

c'mon hotstuff. Take it easy. I know it's an emotive topic. But this is just a discussion board.

Lets not turn this into a personal row. I'm as keen to hear the reasons behind the pro-smacking lobby as I am to give my reasons for being against smacking.

Let's all live in harmony

Sorry mate , don't want to offend , but that anorak gets on my tits.;)

embee

hottstuff wrote: »

I'd expect you to join in backing up a mod.do you think i care what you think.?
Your opinion means nothing to me.Anorak

hottstuff - please refer to the chartter.

Any more abuse and you'll get banned. This is an emotive topic, but you don't have to start getting personal.

Nevyn

tallaght01 wrote: »

In fact these kind of things are a lot simpler in the UK, where I worked until recently. Over there, the children's act enshrines in law the concept that the rights of the child come before anyone else in society.

We have been waiting for the un charter on the rights of the child to be ratified there a long time and I can't see it being done with FF in government and it won't be done until the schools are sorted out as it would leave the government exposed to law suits.

Zulu wrote: »

Ah, but it's not just "their child", it also happens to be a citizen of the state and as such should be protected by the state. You are not allowed to correct the actions of any other citizen of the state with violence (be it a light smack or not) so why should your child be outside the law??
To be honest saying it's "their child" dosen't wash, you aren't gifted a slave when you have a child to treat as you feel fit, hence physical and sexual abuse are illegal.

And the state did such a good job when children were put in care and in homes in the past....

To the extent now that a a child would have to suffer sever physical abuse before it is taken away from unsuitable parents and getting slapped across the face or punched about the place everyday does not constitutes enough abuse a child would have to have reoccurring injuries that need to be hospitalized and were clearly not an accident and could not be explained away by they fell down the stairs.

While I don't think we should go down the Swedish route I do think that parenting skills and parenting classes should be mandatory.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

And the state did such a good job when children were put in care and in homes in the past....

I won't disagree, and I wouldn't/don't advocate separating children from their parents lightly.

While I don't think we should go down the Swedish route I do think that parenting skills and parenting classes should be mandatory.

Personally I don't find too much wrong with the Swedish route. I certainly believe that if a parent is "beating" a child they should be punished themselves. Perhaps penalty points (like for driving) could be introduced!?! ...but then how do you determine between a beating (or leathering as it was called in my childhood!) or a "reasonable" slap??
The only way is an outright ban.

Nevyn

Currently in the UK a smack or slap is acceptible as long as it does not leave a red mark on the child's skin. I think this is a pretty good way of figuring this out.

There is a huge difference between phyical chastisment with a slap/smack and beating a child.

Currently I think the most prevelant forum of child abuse in the country is neglect
and that applies also to children that have all the material wants they could dream of and are left to rear themselves and very little interaction with thier parents.

hottstuff

Thaedydal wrote: »

Currently in the UK a smack or slap is acceptible as long as it does not leave a red mark on the child's skin. I think this is a pretty good way of figuring this out.

agreed. even though there will be those that argue the mental damge is more important than the physical.

There is a huge difference between phyical chastisment with a slap/smack and beating a child.

Not to those on the high hill.

Currently I think the most prevelant forum of child abuse in the country is neglect
and that applies also to children that have all the material wants they could dream of and are left to rear themselves and very little interaction with thier parents.

agreed but that's not the form of neglect people are willing to stick their noses into.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Currently I think the most prevelant forum of child abuse in the country is neglect
and that applies also to children that have all the material wants they could dream of and are left to rear themselves and very little interaction with thier parents.

Absolutely.

Would you consider absentee parenting a form of neglect/abuse?

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

Currently in the UK a smack or slap is acceptible as long as it does not leave a red mark on the child's skin. I think this is a pretty good way of figuring this out.

...humm, but this just open up a whole can of worms:

• if it's cold, a red mark will show easier than if it's warm.
• should I make a complaint to the police, by the time they check, the red mark could be gone
• what if the red mark is on the childs bottom, does the child need to bear his/her bottom to the police in order to prove innocence/guilt???

There is a huge difference between phyical chastisment with a slap/smack and beating a child.

I agree, but how do you define?

Currently I think the most prevelant forum of child abuse in the country is neglect

agreed

and that applies also to children that have all the material wants they could dream of and are left to rear themselves and very little interaction with thier parents.

agreed

Nevyn

What do you mean ?

I am refering to a house hold were the parents are rarely in the same room as thier child who is left infront of the tv/pc/toys for hours with out active supervision or interaction.

GreeBo

Mairt wrote: »

Smacking a child is violence, pure and simple.

You wouldn't hit an adult for not doing something you wanted him/her to do, so why should it be ok with some people to hit a child?.

Because you can explain to an adult that putting their hand in the fire is a bad idea, with a 1 year old you cannot. A child of that age cannot be reasoned with on the same level as you would with an adult or even an older child.

hottstuff

Zulu wrote: »

...humm, but this just open up a whole can of worms:

• if it's cold, a red mark will show easier than if it's warm.
• should I make a complaint to the police, by the time they check, the red mark could be gone
• what if the red mark is on the childs bottom, does the child need to bear his/her bottom to the police in order to prove innocence/guilt???

I agree, but how do you define?

:rolleyes:

GreeBo

metrovelvet wrote: »

I wouldnt lift a hand to a child and if anyone lifted theirs to mine, whether my family or not, they'd feel pain so hard they'd wish for an early death.

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

hottstuff

GreeBo wrote: »

Because you can explain to an adult that putting their hand in the fire is a bad idea, with a 1 year old you cannot. A child of that age cannot be reasoned with on the same level as you would with an adult or even an older child.

Others will tell you proper parenting will enable you to teach a child under 2 how not to touch dangerous things.:)
laughable IMO.

Zulu

GreeBo, you can of course put a fire guard over the fire, and plugs into plug holes. A child "who can't be reasoned with" should be supervised and kept out of harms way.

Would you not agree?

Nevyn

Zulu wrote: »

GreeBo, you can of course put a fire guard over the fire, and plugs into plug holes. A child "who can't be reasoned with" should be supervised and kept out of harms way.

Would you not agree?

Constantly ?

Even when there are other children to be considered.

Zulu seriously have you ever had to have a 2/3 year old on your own and still have to housework and get the dinner done ?

Zulu

I've had 2/3year old twin boys (my nephews) a number of times on my own. ...and I didn't try dinner. I have the utmost respect for their parents, and other parents. And I can't try to imagine how some single parents manage. Kudos.

That being said, I do see how their parents managed. The house is toddler-proofed to an extent and there is two of them (parents) for the most part. They don't slap/spank/lightly tap their children and they are doing a fantastic job - albeit hard.

It can be done without resorting to violence.

hottstuff

Zulu wrote: »

It can be done without resorting to violence.

:rolleyes:
You have just said you looked after your nephews which is a totally different thing altogether and so you have no experience of what your talking about.

*Page*

hottstuff wrote: »

:rolleyes:
You have just said you looked after your nephews which is a totally different thing altogether and so you have no experience of what your talking about.

well coming from a mother of one and also an aunty and a minder of my neighbours kid and cousins...

Hitting a child is wrong no matter how you do it, if you do it out of fear angry furstration or anything else it is wrong.
Why is it wrong because an adult is phyically abusing a child and menatly scaring them.

My father hit me once in my lifetime and boy do i remember it.

My father hit my daughter once and still to this day (3 years on) both my daughter and father remember it. and not in a gosh thanks for hitting me or that sure made you a better kid.

my daughter to this day is still emtionally hurt, my father was scared when he did, she had run out in front of a truck his reaction was a slap on the bum. He didnt hurt her phyicaly or mark her because he knew it was wrong and tried to stop his reation.

My point is no matter what a child does hitting and violence is not the answer its probably the cause though.


also i have known people raised by the grounding excersize (a slap on the bum to bring them back to earth) and they are well rounded people but if even messing (tiggling etc) it becomes out of hand and they are too rough. Not knowing that causing pain even in play is wrong. and whats worse they dont know that they are hurting.

tallaght01

The red mark thing was just an arbitrary line of demarcation given in the UK. Any paediatrician will tell you there's not neccesarily a good and reliable correlation between the "redness" of a mark, and its pain. But it was decided that a punch/kick etc that is likely to do serious injury to a child will virtually always leave a red mark.
That's what the legislation was designed to catch.

The issue of whather smacking children is A) neccessary and effective are not dealt with in law. This is purely a way of making sure we have the legal footing to deal with people who seriously injure their children.

I don't think it can be argued that smacking is essential, and that other parenting methods are laughable. Many people don't smack their children. Those kids aren't falling into fires left, right and centre.

Greebo...if you have the right to hit a child becasue they can't understand your warnings, should you have similiar rights to hight a disabled older child, or even a disabled adult? Or what about adults with severe mental illnesses? Or say a 30 year old with downs syndrome? Where is the point where using physical force on another person becomes wrong?

hottstuff

*Page* wrote: »

My father hit me once in my lifetime and boy do i remember it.

So do you mean hit/smack/spank/punch?
You remember being hit once?:eek: you must have grown up as an emotionally recluse child , nothing else in your childhood was more emotionally scarring as a spank?

Why is it wrong because an adult is phyically abusing a child and menatly scaring them.

Mentally scaring them , are you for real.
Do you not think there are so many things in life that will mentally scare/scar your child ? , or do you plan on wrapping them in cotton wool till they are 16?

My father hit my daughter once and still to this day (3 years on) both my daughter and father remember it. and not in a gosh thanks for hitting me or that sure made you a better kid.

my daughter to this day is still emtionally hurt, my father was scared when he did, she had run out in front of a truck his reaction was a slap on the bum.

So there was a reason he did it , so it would stick in the childs mind (run on road = spank) rather than run on road= squish!!!!
Because don't tell me you can sit a very young child down and explain about death through disobedience.

My point is no matter what a child does hitting and violence is not the answer its probably the cause though.

probably the cause of what?

GreeBo

*Page* wrote: »

Why is it wrong because an adult is phyically abusing a child and menatly scaring them.

again its not abuse.

*Page* wrote: »

my daughter to this day is still emtionally hurt,

Isnt taking a childs favourite toy or grounding them from something they want just as emotionally scarring (if the child is the sort to scar easily)?

*Page* wrote: »

it becomes out of hand and they are too rough. Not knowing that causing pain even in play is wrong. and whats worse they dont know that they are hurting.

I think you are making connections there without any backup. Some people are rougher and some are more delicate than others, thats life. We are not robots.

GreeBo

tallaght01 wrote: »

Greebo...if you have the right to hit a child becasue they can't understand your warnings, should you have similiar rights to hight a disabled older child, or even a disabled adult? Or what about adults with severe mental illnesses? Or say a 30 year old with downs syndrome? Where is the point where using physical force on another person becomes wrong?

First I totally agree that the red-mark idea is so that they have *something* that can be used in legal cases and that its not a cast iron definition of abuse.

I was actually going to use the same analogy to argue my point. If there is something/thing that you cannot reason with but yet its imperative that you make it understood that action (a) is bad then I dont see what else you can do (barring tying them up)

and I still have an issue with you saying "physical force" to mean "smacking someone for their own good".
Physical force is used to dress a child that refuses to get dressed themselves meaning you need to dress them yourself. Should this be outlawed and children be let run around naked?
What about when you slap someones face to get them out of a panic?

If its done for the subjects own good and not done in a "bad" way (for enjoyment, cruelty etc) then I dont have a problem with it.

Police have to use physical force against drunk people all the time, is that also wrong?

Zulu

tallaght01 wrote: »

Greebo...if you have the right to hit a child becasue they can't understand your warnings, should you have similiar rights to hight a disabled older child, or even a disabled adult? Or what about adults with severe mental illnesses? Or say a 30 year old with downs syndrome? Where is the point where using physical force on another person becomes wrong?

I notice how people aren't answering this. Excellent point tallaght01. How do the pro-slapping lobby feel about this?
And to other questions tallaght01 (I think) asked:

• At what age does it become ok to slap a baby?*
• At what age do you stop slapping?

*I'm assuming no one advocates slapping a new born

hottstuff

Zulu wrote: »

*I'm assuming no one advocates slapping a new born

:rolleyes:
You are a sensationalist of the highest order.

nesf

Zulu wrote: »

*I'm assuming no one advocates slapping a new born

Nah, if you don't start with the regular beatings from day one you might as well forget about ever being able to discipline the child.

GreeBo

Zulu wrote: »

I notice how people aren't answering this. Excellent point tallaght01. How do the pro-slapping lobby feel about this?
And to other questions tallaght01 (I think) asked:

• At what age does it become ok to slap a baby?*
• At what age do you stop slapping?

*I'm assuming no one advocates slapping a new born

well its only been 10 minutes and out of the 2 replies there have been one of them does answer it...

1) when the baby is old enough to do stuff that can be harmful to it but not old enough to understand why it cant/shouldnt do it.
2) see 1.

tallaght01

GreeBo wrote: »

First I totally agree that the red-mark idea is so that they have *something* that can be used in legal cases and that its not a cast iron definition of abuse.

I was actually going to use the same analogy to argue my point. If there is something/thing that you cannot reason with but yet its imperative that you make it understood that action (a) is bad then I dont see what else you can do (barring tying them up)

and I still have an issue with you saying "physical force" to mean "smacking someone for their own good".
Physical force is used to dress a child that refuses to get dressed themselves meaning you need to dress them yourself. Should this be outlawed and children be let run around naked?
What about when you slap someones face to get them out of a panic?

If its done for the subjects own good and not done in a "bad" way (for enjoyment, cruelty etc) then I dont have a problem with it.

Police have to use physical force against drunk people all the time, is that also wrong?

we don't have to call it physical force. We can call it physical violence I guess. This would be reasonably specific to inflicting pain on the child, I'd imagine, though I'm no lawyer.

I hope police don't hit drunk people? I know they restrain them. I know they can hit them in self defence. But i don't think it's legal to hit a drunk because they can't follow your instructions.

I have never slapped someone's face to get them out of a panic!! I've only ever seen that in movies. I've seen a lot of panicked people, but have never had to clatter one of them!! But maybe I'm just too much of a liberal leftie.

tallaght01

GreeBo wrote: »

well its only been 10 minutes and out of the 2 replies there have been one of them does answer it...

1) when the baby is old enough to do stuff that can be harmful to it but not old enough to understand why it cant/shouldnt do it.
2) see 1.

do you advocate hitting babies/infants as soon as they can reach or crawl???

GreeBo

tallaght01 wrote: »

we don't have to call it physical force. We can call it physical violence I guess. This would be reasonably specific to inflicting pain on the child, I'd imagine, though I'm no lawyer.

So now its violence?
Im sorry but this is turning into a Sun headline contest.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I hope police don't hit drunk people? I know they restrain them. I know they can hit them in self defence. But i don't think it's legal to hit a drunk because they can't follow your instructions.

Who said anything about hit? You said physical force and I demostrated how physical force can mean anything. Its very easy to break someones arm while restraining them.

tallaght01 wrote: »

But maybe I'm just too much of a liberal leftie.

Seems so allright.:)

GreeBo

tallaght01 wrote: »

do you advocate hitting babies/infants as soon as they can reach or crawl???

Erm no, if you have a baby that is reaching/crawling and you/soneone is not watching them then and have left things around that are dangerous then you have other, bigger parenting issues.
At that age the child knows nothing and is totally reliant on the parent. A toddler has a degree of independence and can, IMHO, be slapped to reinforce that something is not to be done.

Zulu

GreeBo wrote: »

So now its violence?
Im sorry but this is turning into a Sun headline contest.

It is what it is. To slap an adult - it's violence. We are talking about slapping children here. Some argue it's the same, others argue it's different.

Who said anything about hit? You said physical force and I demostrated how physical force can mean anything.

This thread is about slapping children, hence "hit"

Erm no, if you have a baby that is reaching/crawling and you/soneone is not watching them then and have left things around that are dangerous then you have other, bigger parenting issues.

So you agree then that you shouldn't slap, but rather supervise more attentively?

At that age the child knows nothing and is totally reliant on the parent. A toddler has a degree of independence and can, IMHO, be slapped to reinforce that something is not to be done.

How do you determine the difference? Both are completely dependant on the adult to survive.

tallaght01

GreeBo wrote: »

So now its violence?
Im sorry but this is turning into a Sun headline contest.


Who said anything about hit? You said physical force and I demostrated how physical force can mean anything. Its very easy to break someones arm while restraining them.

Seems so allright.:)

Well, I don't know if I'd make a good sub-editor, but I do regard an adult hitting a small child as violence. I can call it something else if you would like to sugar-coat it, but if somebody who is 7 or 8 times my weight gave me a whallop, I'd call it violence.

The argument about the cops was one you brought up yourself. It's an argument about the acceptability of hitting another person. I do find it strange that hitting a 70kg drunk man is assault, whereas hitting a little kid is OK.

At the end of the day, it's about rights. I think children should have the right not to be clattered enshrined in law.

I also see no evidence that hitting children works. I do, however, see many well adjusted kids who've never been smacked. This suggests to me that it's not a neccesity. It may be easier than alternative parenting strategies, but I doubt it's as effective.


Can I also clarify something from your previous post....can I just verify that you would hit somebody who was disabled if YOU thought it was for their own good? I'm just no sure that I didn't misinterpret.

GreeBo

Zulu wrote: »

GreeBo, you can of course put a fire guard over the fire, and plugs into plug holes. A child "who can't be reasoned with" should be supervised and kept out of harms way.

Would you not agree?

Totally, But you cant supervise a 5 year old 24/7.
A 5 year old can easily move a fire guard. Then what do you do?

GreeBo

Zulu wrote: »

It is what it is. To slap an adult - it's violence. We are talking about slapping children here. Some argue it's the same, others argue it's different.

so when someone slaps someone in a film its violence?

Zulu wrote: »

This thread is about slapping children, hence "hit"

Physical force was the description used.

Zulu wrote: »

So you agree then that you shouldn't slap, but rather supervise more attentively?

Thats not possible after the first 10 years or so...

Zulu wrote: »

How do you determine the difference? Both are completely dependant on the adult to survive.

You brought survival into it. A toddler isnt dependent on an adult to go between rooms or up stairs etc.

GreeBo

tallaght01 wrote: »

Well, I don't know if I'd make a good sub-editor, but I do regard an adult hitting a small child as violence. I can call it something else if you would like to sugar-coat it, but if somebody who is 7 or 8 times my weight gave me a whallop, I'd call it violence.

But if someone smaller than you hits you thats ok?

tallaght01 wrote: »

The argument about the cops was one you brought up yourself. It's an argument about the acceptability of hitting another person. I do find it strange that hitting a 70kg drunk man is assault, whereas hitting a little kid is OK.

Drunk men are not just hit unless its self defense. Force is used to control them when they are out of control or at risk to harming themselves or others. Same logic goes for children.

tallaght01 wrote: »

At the end of the day, it's about rights. I think children should have the right not to be clattered enshrined in law.

Totally agree, but you need to have context or you end up in 1984.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I also see no evidence that hitting children works. I do, however, see many well adjusted kids who've never been smacked. This suggests to me that it's not a neccesity. It may be easier than alternative parenting strategies, but I doubt it's as effective.

I see evidence that it does. I think since it became socially unacceptable to a lot of people society has suffered greatly.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Can I also clarify something from your previous post....can I just verify that you would hit somebody who was disabled if YOU thought it was for their own good? I'm just no sure that I didn't misinterpret.

Nope, you got it in one. Assuming the person is mentally disabled and cannot be reasoned with.
If you are talking about someone who is physically disabled then I dont see why you cant reason with them.
The fact that they are disabled doesnt come into it in my opinion, it obviously does for you so can you clarify why it makes a difference and how its not discrimination to do/not do something based on a persons dis/ability?

nesf

Zulu wrote: »

How do you determine the difference? Both are completely dependant on the adult to survive.

In fairness, toddlers are intimidating with respect to the imbalance between their ability to do things and their complete lack of common sense or forethought. Older and younger children are either more sensible or less able. That and supervising a toddler 24/7 isn't very easy, even with two people, if they aren't penned in or if you don't have the luxury of being able to completely toddler proof one room and live in it while they are awake.

tallaght01

GreeBo wrote: »

But if someone smaller than you hits you thats ok?

Drunk men are not just hit unless its self defense. Force is used to control them when they are out of control or at risk to harming themselves or others. Same logic goes for children.


Totally agree, but you need to have context or you end up in 1984.


I see evidence that it does. I think since it became socially unacceptable to a lot of people society has suffered greatly.



Nope, you got it in one. Assuming the person is mentally disabled and cannot be reasoned with.
If you are talking about someone who is physically disabled then I dont see why you cant reason with them.
The fact that they are disabled doesnt come into it in my opinion, it obviously does for you so can you clarify why it makes a difference and how its not discrimination to do/not do something based on a persons dis/ability?

When did I say that somnebody small hitting you is ok?

I stand by the fact that the gardai don't (or shouldn't) hit drunk people, except in self defence.

I think references to 1984 are far more sensationalist than anybody describing hitting kids as "violence".

I don't think you see "evidence" that society has suffered from less corporal punishment. Many people who grew up when it was the norm don't hit their kids because of the mental scarring being knocked about the place in the 50s left them with. It's the reason my folks never hit me.

I think most people who grew up in that repressive environment would agree that we live in a better society nowadays. I don't want a generation of kids crippled with fear, like my dad's generation were at school and at home. That most certainly isn't compatible with preserving the rights of the child, regardless of context.

I'm amazed that you would clatter a disabled person if they couldn't be reasoned with!!! If you think the crux of that issue is somebody explaining to you why hitting a mentally disabled person "isn't discrimination" then I have to say I'm flabbergasted. I've rarely been speechless, but I am now!

GreeBo

tallaght01 wrote: »

When did I say that somnebody small hitting you is ok?

well you specifically said someone bigger than you.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I stand by the fact that the gardai don't (or shouldn't) hit drunk people, except in self defence.

and they dont, Ive lost what point you are trying to make here. You said physical force is wrong, I pointed out that its often required.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think references to 1984 are far more sensationalist than anybody describing hitting kids as "violence".

Not if there is a "law" that physical force is illegal. Youd have hundreds of teenagers arrested within days.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't think you see "evidence" that society has suffered from less corporal punishment. Many people who grew up when it was the norm don't hit their kids because of the mental scarring being knocked about the place in the 50s left them with. It's the reason my folks never hit me.

there is a wide, wide area between "being knocked about the place" and not touching your child. Outlawing slapping is a knee jerk reaction to idiot parents/teachers with belts and canes.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think most people who grew up in that repressive environment would agree that we live in a better society nowadays. I don't want a generation of kids crippled with fear, like my dad's generation were at school and at home. That most certainly isn't compatible with preserving the rights of the child, regardless of context.

I totally disagree. Most of these people are afraid to walk the streets for fear of being stabbed or beaten by teenagers running wild. Right now we have adults crippled with fear, afraid to be outside alone.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm amazed that you would clatter a disabled person if they couldn't be reasoned with!!! If you think the crux of that issue is somebody explaining to you why hitting a mentally disabled person "isn't discrimination" then I have to say I'm flabbergasted. I've rarely been speechless, but I am now!

A disabled person is just as likely to stick their finger in a socket as an abled bodies person is. You do realize your attitude is totally discriminatory. What you are saying is the same as me saying "dont give ice cream to disabled kids"

Zulu

GreeBo wrote: »

Totally, But you cant supervise a 5 year old 24/7.
A 5 year old can easily move a fire guard. Then what do you do?

But a 5 year old can be reasoned with.

Thats not possible after the first 10 years or so...

...and you'd slap a 10 year old? The argument that the child "can't understand" sails out the window when discussing a 10 year old. Also, a "pat on the hand" would be laughable to a 10 year old.

Assuming the person is mentally disabled and cannot be reasoned with.

:eek: I don't know what to say to that

Drunk men are not just hit unless its self defense

Well then it's illegal and wrong; it's assult.

nesf wrote:

That and supervising a toddler 24/7 isn't very easy, even with two people, if they aren't penned in or if you don't have the luxury of being able to completely toddler proof one room and live in it while they are awake.

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

faceman

GreeBo wrote: »

I totally disagree. Most of these people are afraid to walk the streets for fear of being stabbed or beaten by teenagers running wild. Right now we have adults crippled with fear, afraid to be outside alone.

um, that might have something to do with risk of being caught and the appauling sentences (or non sentencing!) that some of these scum get. Those teenagers in question though, were they not spanked as children and thats why they are thugs?

wrote:

A disabled person is just as likely to stick their finger in a socket as an abled bodies person is. You do realize your attitude is totally discriminatory. What you are saying is the same as me saying "dont give ice cream to disabled kids"

:eek: your comments about disabled people really begger belief!

GreeBo

Zulu wrote: »

But a 5 year old can be reasoned with.

Now there are no 5 year olds who listen to reason and do what they are told?
What planet is your cave in?

Zulu wrote: »

...and you'd slap a 10 year old? The argument that the child "can't understand" sails out the window when discussing a 10 year old. Also, a "pat on the hand" would be laughable to a 10 year old.

Sure I would.
"Can be reasoned with" is not that same as "listens to reason"
Who said pat on the hand? I would change the force to suit the situation.

Zulu wrote: »

:eek: I don't know what to say to that

Why not?
In the example I am making 2 assumptions:
1) the person is mentally disabled and
2) they will not listen to reason

Its quite likely that a mentally disabled person cannot be reasoned with.

Zulu wrote: »

Well then it's illegal and wrong; it's assult.

Huh? self defense is not illegal and wrong...

Zulu wrote: »

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

What makes it wrong?
What makes emotional cruelty any better?

hottstuff

Well i too would frown upon a mentally disabled child being repremanded , as IMO its a tool to be used to teach children there will be consequences to a certain action, and in cases where the child has a learning disability , the same does not apply.

Nevertheless it is a job i would hope i would never have , as it must be stressfull for both parties.
I do think physical abuse can ruin a childs life , but the jury is out that your a bad parent and so smack your child HARD for fun.
Judging is always for the window shoppers of life.:rolleyes:

GreeBo

faceman wrote: »

:eek: your comments about disabled people really begger belief!

Why, because I dont discriminate against them?
Would you prefer them all locked in a padded cell are treated like human beings?

GreeBo

hottstuff wrote: »

Well i too would frown upon a mentally disabled child being repremanded , as IMO its a tool to be used to teach children there will be consequences to a certain action, and in cases where the child has a learning disability , the same does not apply.

I think unless the person is severely mentally disabled they can learn actions = consequences. Pavlov did it with dogs. But obviously there is no point in reprimanding a person who is unable to learn from the reprimand. Though I would
assume someone in this situation would have a very special environment.

hottstuff wrote: »

Nevertheless it is a job i would hope i would never have , as it must be stressfull for both parties.

Totally agree. Not somewhere you would want to find yourself.

hottstuff wrote: »

Judging is always for the window shoppers of life.:rolleyes:

hottstuff

Quoting me not TheNog. lol

Zulu

GreeBo wrote: »

Now there are no 5 year olds who listen to reason and do what they are told?

Sorry, my point was directed at the assertation that it was ok to slap a child in the instance where it couldn't be reasoned with. Clearly if you are prepared to slap a child where it can be reasoned, and where other disciplinary methods can be used, that's a separate issue.

What planet is your cave in?

The one where reason is used in the place of brawn. It's a great place, you should visit.

"Can be reasoned with" is not that same as "listens to reason". Who said pat on the hand? I would change the force to suit the situation.

so would it be fair to say - the worse the crime, the more force used to discipline?

Huh? self defense is not illegal and wrong...

I taught we established the police weren't acting in self defence? That they were forcefully restrain.... ...ah forget about it, it a straw-man anyway and it's moot; laws exist to cover this situation.

What makes it wrong?

See my earlier points - they describe why I think it's wrong.

What makes emotional cruelty any better?

Who said it was?

GreeBo

Zulu wrote: »

Sorry, my point was directed at the assertation that it was ok to slap a child in the instance where it couldn't be reasoned with. Clearly if you are prepared to slap a child where it can be reasoned, and where other disciplinary methods can be used, that's a separate issue.

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

Zulu wrote: »

The one where reason is used in the place of brawn.

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

Zulu wrote: »

so would it be fair to say - the worse the crime, the more force used to discipline?

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.

Zulu wrote: »

I taught we established the police weren't acting in self defence? That they were forcefully restrain.... ...ah forget about it, it a straw-man anyway and it's moot; laws exist to cover this situation.

hmm we seem to be at crossed purposes here. The point I was making is that physical force is often necessary in our daily lives and its not necessarily wrong. Its also not necessarily right mind you.

Zulu wrote: »

See my earlier points - they describe why I think it's wrong.
Who said it was?

Ok, so how do you discipline a child?
Do you withold treats/toys?
Do you scold them?
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.
You have just decided that physical pain is bad and emotional pain is not bad.

hottstuff

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok, so how do you discipline a child?
Do you withold treats/toys?
Do you scold them?
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.
You have just decided that physical pain is bad and emotional pain is not bad.

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.
Say you wouldn't find anyone that disciplines someone elses child , but discipline to some people is "please dont do this for the fifth time little johnny , i know you can understand me , your 3 next month for christ sake" lol