Number Six Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 Are you still a child then or an adult? The reason we have feral kids is because they get no discipline. To say you are a child at 30 is plain silly I didn't say I was a child. I have living parents though, who I presume you believe were once entitled to hit me. I merely wondered when you thought that 'right' stopped as presumably you don't feel they have the 'right' now? Perhaps on the grounds that it's vitally important to stop children being naughty because they might make a stain on the carpet or something, and that violence is the only language they understand. Whereas adults who may, oh I dunno, start illegal wars, blow up cars, rob banks and mug old ladies, can't be hit by their parents. Is that about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 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? What a ridiculous argument. You discipline a child if they are putting themselves in danger - if you see an ADULT driving dangerously you report him to the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Are you still a child then or an adult? The reason we have feral kids is because they get no discipline. To say you are a child at 30 is plain sillyWhy is discipline synomynous with hitting in so many people's minds? So called feral kids are more likely to have been slapped often and hard, than well behaved ones, imo. Discipline is an entire regimen, not just random slaps out of the blue on the rare occasions that a child 'runs into the road', is 'kicking off and not listening' or on a daily or hourly basis by parents who are too lazy to actually get with the programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 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? What a ridiculous argument. You discipline a child if they are putting themselves in danger - if you see an ADULT driving dangerously you report him to the police. Why is it ridiculous? 1) I don't discipline my child if she puts herself in danger. I explain potential dangers in advance if I can, and she listens because she knows we look out for her. She very rarely gets herself in danger as a result. If she forgets what's been said, I distract her if there is time, or just pick her up and take her out of harms way (she's 2) and then explain why it's dangerous again. (Look, the cars are going really fast and it'd really hurt if they hit you') I fail to see how hitting her would explain this concept better. 2) I saw an adult putting both himself and myself in danger. If it had been a child, you think the best thing to do would be to hit it. Why is it different simply because the person was older? Perhaps they weren't hit enough as a child do you think? In which case a swift punch in the face would, by your logic, teach him all he needed to know about using his mirrors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Why is discipline synomynous with hitting in so many people's minds? So called feral kids are more likely to have been slapped often and hard, than well behaved ones, imo. Discipline is an entire regimen, not just random slaps out of the blue on the rare occasions that a child 'runs into the road', is 'kicking off and not listening' or on a daily or hourly basis by parents who are too lazy to actually get with the programme. Far more important programmes to "get with". The list is endless as most TV channels will prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 But not every parent is possessed of your strength of character Ruby and feral kids don't get hit because they know their rights. When I was a child smacking was not considered 'un-pc' and the cane was still permitted in schools. The cane was seldom used and I can't remember being smacked as a child although I did get other punishments but the threat was there and the majority of my generation grew into decent, law abiding citizens. When my niece was a child, she's now 37, she had the same teachers in juniors as me and my brother had ie old fashioned teachers. When her class moved to senior school she again got some teachers who had taught my brother. One of these told her class that they were best class he'd had in 20 years and it wasn't just one child it was the whole class. Prior to this children from this junior school had been sent to different senior school. Explain that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 But not every parent is possessed of your strength of character Ruby and feral kids don't get hit because they know their rights. When I was a child smacking was not considered 'un-pc' and the cane was still permitted in schools. The cane was seldom used and I can't remember being smacked as a child although I did get other punishments but the threat was there and the majority of my generation grew into decent, law abiding citizens. When my niece was a child, she's now 37, she had the same teachers in juniors as me and my brother had ie old fashioned teachers. When her class moved to senior school she again got some teachers who had taught my brother. One of these told her class that they were best class he'd had in 20 years and it wasn't just one child it was the whole class. Prior to this children from this junior school had been sent to different senior school. Explain that I think you ought to explain it! It's a big case of 'so what' from me - it doesn't explain anything about anything really does it? You appear to suggest that 'not all' parents have the strength of character to discipline their children without using violence against them - well, yes, but then not all men have the strength of character not to beat their womenfolk either. Hitting children should be as unnaceptable as wife beating and we don't help make it so by just shrugging our shoulders and saying not everyone can manage not to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 But not every parent is possessed of your strength of character Ruby and feral kids don't get hit because they know their rights. When I was a child smacking was not considered 'un-pc' and the cane was still permitted in schools. The cane was seldom used and I can't remember being smacked as a child although I did get other punishments but the threat was there and the majority of my generation grew into decent, law abiding citizens. When my niece was a child, she's now 37, she had the same teachers in juniors as me and my brother had ie old fashioned teachers. When her class moved to senior school she again got some teachers who had taught my brother. One of these told her class that they were best class he'd had in 20 years and it wasn't just one child it was the whole class. Prior to this children from this junior school had been sent to different senior school. Explain that The majority of every generation are 'decent law-abiding citizens.' I presume that when you mention the teacher who said your nieces class were the best she'd had in 20 years you are suggesting that she had been to school where they practices corporal punishment even though it was illegal to do so? I'm also 37, and corporal punishment was outlawed whilst I was at school. So what you seem to be saying is that the teacher thought your niece's class were the best behaved for 20 years and they were the first to have gone though junior school when corporal punishment wasn't legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The majority of every generation are 'decent law-abiding citizens.' I presume the teacher who said your nieces class were the best she'd had in 20 years you are suggesting that she had been to school where they practices corporal punishment even though it was illegal to do so? I'm also 37, and corporal punishment was outlawed whilst I was at school. So what you seem to be saying is that the teacher thought your nieces class were the best behaved and they were the first to have gone though junior school when corporal punishment wasn't legal? No I didn't say that I said that they were the first class that were sent to Colley school, prior to that they were sent to Ecclesfield comp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 [/color] No I didn't say that I said that they were the first class that were sent to Colley school, prior to that they were sent to Ecclesfield comp. But she was also the first year to have gone through junior school when corporal punishment was illegal if she's now 37. Coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.