HeadingNorth Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Are you suggesting that physically intimidating them would then be appropriate? I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking those who think it is not, what their alternative is; I've never had an answer in fifty years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking those who think it is not, what their alternative is; I've never had an answer in fifty years. Your question is a little misleading. If you replace 'smacking' with 'standing on one leg' you end up with an argument that reads: If your child will not respond to any other form of discipline, you should try standing on one leg It doesn't work unless the 'ultimate' solution is shown to work - which it isn't. There are millions of people who have been brought up without being hit. It isn't necessary. There is research to show that children are unable to differentiate being smacked by their parents from bullying - it's all being assaulted by someone when both of you know the child cannot retaliate because the other is stronger. Why would you want to do that to your kids? I don't understand the 'it's for their own good' argument at all. What do you imagine a child learns if you hit them? I've never had an answer as to what the difference is between an adult hitting a child and an older child hitting a younger child, or a stronger adult hitting a weaker adult. I've seen examples of people justifying smacking their children because they'd done something the adult considered dangerous, but the logic isn't there. I saw someone drive dangerously today, and I caught up with him in traffic. Would it have been ok to punch him? Or just to smack him? Or not ok to physically assault him in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Your question is a little misleading. If you replace 'smacking' with 'standing on one leg' you end up with an argument that reads: I don't end up with an argument at all, because I'm not making an argument. I'm asking a question. Could you answer it instead of deflecting? It really would make a pleasant change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMoran Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I'm sure the killers of Baby P, of Victoria Climbie and of many other children murdered by lunatics would agree with you there. Thats up tp them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Thats up tp them. That's a very weak response. If, as you suggest, parents should discipline their children any way they see fit then you give a green light to all kinds of hideous abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMoran Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 That's a very weak response. Fair enough, i supose it wasnt the best of answers. If, as you suggest, parents should discipline their children any way they see fit then you give a green light to all kinds of hideous abuse. People like that will do it anyway. You cant stop them sadly. Its not giving the green light to anything but more saying "we trust you to bring up your kids the way you feel is best". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 People like that will do it anyway. You cant stop them sadly. Sometimes you can stop them - and it's certainly easier to do so in an environment where smacking, hitting and other forms of abuse are not seen as the norm and are not tolerated. Its not giving the green light to anything but more saying "we trust you to bring up your kids the way you feel is best". And it's precisely that kind of attitude that can allow such gross abuses to flourish. Do the parents of the hundreds of children who die as a result of abuse and neglect each year really know best? Far better wouldn't you say to take the view that since hitting children is unneccesary and damaging we ought not to tolerate it all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 . . .. . Far better wouldn't you say to take the view that since hitting children is unneccesary and damaging we ought not to tolerate it all?That certainly the view of many soft-headed types, yes. Corporal punishment has its place - kids do need to associate consequences with doing right and wrong. I'm sure it would also be better to raise a child to be conditioned to understand and have experience of physical confrontation, rather than shelter them from the realities of life and raise a creature without backbone or confidence. While some parents may be too dim to understand the bounds between appropriate and excessive punishment, one could argue that such people shouldn't be allowed to breed in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Having read the link, I can only say ... what a strange attitude the man has. He needs some help. Seriously creepy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 With the sort of corporal punishment we are talking about, smacking, slippering and caning, what is more unsettling is the effect on the adult doling it out. In my long and varied experience of corporal punishment, they always seemed to enjoy it despite pointed expositions for my benefit, apparently, claiming they did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.