Jump to content

Parental Discipline


Recommended Posts

 

It's a reasonable position to take, but the law makes it illegal for you to hit me, why does a child deserve less protection? This isn't really about interfering in parenting, it's about applying the same standards to interaction with children that we apply to interaction with everyone else. IMO.

 

The simple answer is that children are not yet adults.

 

---------- Post added 03-01-2014 at 15:42 ----------

 

No they aren't. They both involve an application of force intended to cause pain.

 

In that respect they're entirely the same.

 

If I spank a child on the posterior, I administer a dose of embarrassment and pain both of which resolve in a few minutes. If I punch you in the face I break bone, which won't resolve in a few minutes.

 

The two are very different.

 

---------- Post added 03-01-2014 at 15:43 ----------

 

Go on then clever lad. If you hit the kid

 

Weasel words from you Halibut? I'm surprised. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple answer is that children are not yet adults.

That is indeed simple, but it doesn't sound like a good reason to hit them.

 

If I spank a child on the posterior, I administer a dose of embarrassment and pain both of which resolve in a few minutes. If I punch you in the face I break bone, which won't resolve in a few minutes.

 

The two are very different.

And if I put you in an armlock and tan your behind it will leave no lasting injury, but I'd be up for an assault charge. Do you imagine that whether it causes injury or not is important? Only to the severity of the charge IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I spank a child on the posterior, I administer a dose of embarrassment and pain both of which resolve in a few minutes. If I punch you in the face I break bone, which won't resolve in a few minutes.The two are very different.

 

 

They still involve the application of violence to cause pain.

 

Weasel words from you Halibut? I'm surprised.

 

What's weaselly about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are pretty much identical. You impose your will by physical violence.

 

What do you mean teach? Do you mean hit them so that they obey you? Or some other method of teaching you haven't yet explained?

 

You are confusing the two again, and teaching them that there are consequences to their inappropriate behavior is a good life skill for them to learn.

 

How would you make sure your children followed your rules, or do your children simply do as they please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How would you make sure your children followed your rules, or do your children simply do as they please.

 

You make sure that they follow your rules by explaining things to them. By setting clear and reasonable boundaries and by being consistent with them when they need guidance.

 

By the way, are you related to angos? You seem to share a lot of opinions and quite a lot of unusual syntax:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make sure that they follow your rules by explaining things to them. By setting clear and reasonable boundaries and by being consistent with them when they need guidance.

 

 

How do you make sure they follow the rules and what do you do if they don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...........

 

It's a reasonable position to take, but the law makes it illegal for you to hit me, why does a child deserve less protection? This isn't really about interfering in parenting, it's about applying the same standards to interaction with children that we apply to interaction with everyone else. IMO.

 

If you choose to use the word 'hit' then it has connotations.

There are gradations of my making physical contact with an adult (to their displeasure) that no court would find as being convictable assault.

To that extent the same standards do apply.

 

The interaction between a parent and a child are very different from the average interaction between unconnected adults.

There are rights and responsibilities that are very different.

There is no reason that there shouldn't be different laws to cover these interactions.

 

None of which should be used to 'hit' a child though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just told you.

 

Why do you advocate beating children? Do you have something that you'd like to share with us?

 

Thats great if your children always do as they are told and never do anything wrong. The realty though is that all children are different and no amount of explanation will stop some children from being naughty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They still involve the application of violence to cause pain.

 

 

 

What's weaselly about it?

 

I'm certain that you know, and I'm not going to waste my time by educating you.

 

---------- Post added 03-01-2014 at 17:19 ----------

 

And if I put you in an armlock and tan your behind it will leave no lasting injury, but I'd be up for an assault charge. Do you imagine that whether it causes injury or not is important? Only to the severity of the charge IMO.

 

Because you can, in theory, reason with an adult and such an application is usually not needed. When an adult cannot be reasoned with then the application of force to encourage them is sanctioned by law, but it's done by the police and not by other adults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.