Ban smacking, children's tsar urges
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
ofcorsa said:
I don't think anyone has claimed that to be a great parent all it takes is not hitting your kid!
Also well done on showing that little kid who is boss, you seem really proud. I might punch a kitten tonight to see if I can re-create that feeling
Yup! It was extremely well done. For the first time in the little sh*ts life, he learned that hurting other people whilst not getting anything back in return, was not the way the world works, and was perhaps not something he should be doing any more. It an worked an absolute treat to the extent I never saw him hurting anyone else again (at least not whilst I was around) Also well done on showing that little kid who is boss, you seem really proud. I might punch a kitten tonight to see if I can re-create that feeling
cause and effect, if you get my meaning.
Tonberry said:
Exactly.
Take a look at how we loot and riot whenever we believe there to be lapse in law and order.
People fighting, pushing and jostling to make sure our gain is maximised.
Take a look at any mass stampede, the person standing next to you will happily climb over you to save their own skin.
We do whatever it takes to further ourselves at the expense of others.
We haven't progressed after millions of years on this planet and never will do as what we're ingrained with by nature cannot be removed or untaught.
This basic instinct manifests in other areas of our live whether we like it or not.
I'll try to write this without offending you. If I fail at that please blame it on my English. Take a look at how we loot and riot whenever we believe there to be lapse in law and order.
People fighting, pushing and jostling to make sure our gain is maximised.
Take a look at any mass stampede, the person standing next to you will happily climb over you to save their own skin.
We do whatever it takes to further ourselves at the expense of others.
We haven't progressed after millions of years on this planet and never will do as what we're ingrained with by nature cannot be removed or untaught.
This basic instinct manifests in other areas of our live whether we like it or not.
You are primitive. Don't judge everyone else by your, predictably low, standards.
Do you often loot and riot?
jjlynn27 said:
I'll try to write this without offending you. If I fail at that please blame it on my English.
You are primitive. Don't judge everyone else by your, predictably low, standards.
Do you often loot and riot?
Not personally.You are primitive. Don't judge everyone else by your, predictably low, standards.
Do you often loot and riot?
But unlike you, I have the intelligence to understand that people do and why they do it.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Like you said no definitive answers. I have seen enough (and experienced) first hand the results of the simpering, new age we don't smack our children type upbringing to understand that it does not necessarily result in children who don't resort to violence.
When a child does not understand the pain it is inflicting on others, it will continue to do so, until it gets a dose of its own medicine, and begins to understand what it is doing to others,
One might have the ability to reason with an older child, but this is not the same for some younger children.
We give children a vaccine, which is the mild form of a virus, to prevent them from developing a more severe, life threatening form of the disease at a later date, Those who don't smack their kids when young, are those who don't even want to give their children some timely vaccine. in my book.
That's "no" to being interested in the evidence you asked for, then?When a child does not understand the pain it is inflicting on others, it will continue to do so, until it gets a dose of its own medicine, and begins to understand what it is doing to others,
One might have the ability to reason with an older child, but this is not the same for some younger children.
We give children a vaccine, which is the mild form of a virus, to prevent them from developing a more severe, life threatening form of the disease at a later date, Those who don't smack their kids when young, are those who don't even want to give their children some timely vaccine. in my book.
Rovinghawk said:
johnfm said:
What? You threaten children with violence?
A smack doesn't necessarily involve beating the crap out of the child, you know.Man Overboard !
Edited by mph1977 on Thursday 2nd July 23:24
Tonberry said:
jjlynn27 said:
I'll try to write this without offending you. If I fail at that please blame it on my English.
You are primitive. Don't judge everyone else by your, predictably low, standards.
Do you often loot and riot?
Not personally.You are primitive. Don't judge everyone else by your, predictably low, standards.
Do you often loot and riot?
But unlike you, I have the intelligence to understand that people do and why they do it.
t, it was someone imaginary, who was not hit as a child. If only they received some lovingly dispensed smacking when they were younger. Tonberry said:
Oh, and since you didn't like the reference to looting, try Black Friday.
Have you witnessed the effects of such an event?
Yes, I've seen bunch of fairly primitive people buying junk. I'm pleased to say that I don't know anyone like that IRL. How is that relevant on a thread about hitting children? Have you witnessed the effects of such an event?
Entirely relevant because it highligts the fact that, whilst you may not like it, we as humans exhibit undesirable behaviour.
Violence is a simple and effective control mechanism that goes a long way to curbing undesirable behaviour because it is one of few things universally understood. Pain is a very basic human receptor.
Without it, people (as a collective) are quite prone to do as they please. Both adults and children.
Other points just serve to highlight that we as collective, are primitive by nature.
The few of you who like to think of yourselves as intellectuals (whilst failing to understand these principles) are probably in the minority with your vehemence that you would never resort to such actions.
As always, there is a sliding scale as there is with most things in life.
I would love to know what some of you would do when the things or people you hold most dear are at risk by the actions of others.
Violence is a simple and effective control mechanism that goes a long way to curbing undesirable behaviour because it is one of few things universally understood. Pain is a very basic human receptor.
Without it, people (as a collective) are quite prone to do as they please. Both adults and children.
Other points just serve to highlight that we as collective, are primitive by nature.
The few of you who like to think of yourselves as intellectuals (whilst failing to understand these principles) are probably in the minority with your vehemence that you would never resort to such actions.
As always, there is a sliding scale as there is with most things in life.
I would love to know what some of you would do when the things or people you hold most dear are at risk by the actions of others.
Rowley Birkin said:
Tonberry said:
Entirely
I would love to know what some of you would do when the things or people you hold most dear are at risk by the actions of others.
Give the "others" a good stern talking to and demand that they sit on the naughty step, obviously.I would love to know what some of you would do when the things or people you hold most dear are at risk by the actions of others.
This idea that people never change is unhistorical. True it is that people can still behave in grotesquely barbaric ways, but general levels of violence in society have fallen over the millennia, and forms of behaviour once considered acceptable, such as slavery and cruelty to animals, have become unacceptable in many (not all) societies. Arguments that we are all just savages really, as well as being very pessimistic, can be an used as an excuse for people to be selfish.
Tonberry said:
Entirely relevant because it highligts the fact that, whilst you may not like it, we as humans exhibit undesirable behaviour.
Thread is about smacking children. If you know what you are doing, and you are consistent, and patient, there is no need for smacking. Loving or otherwise. Why is this so hard for you to understand?Tonberry said:
Without it, people (as a collective) are quite prone to do as they please. Both adults and children.
So solution to solving behavioural issues is violence. Very good.Tonberry said:
Other points just serve to highlight that we as collective, are primitive by nature.
No, not at all. It's you and people similar to you. I do however understand why you think that everyone you know, as collective, are primitive.Tonberry said:
The few of you who like to think of yourselves as intellectuals (whilst failing to understand these principles) are probably in the minority with your vehemence that you would never resort to such actions.
Tonberry said:
I would love to know what some of you would do when the things or people you hold most dear are at risk by the actions of others.
From the top, this is a thread about smacking children. What are you on about, what risk? What others?Tonberry said:
Someone raised the point over hitting other adults being illegal whilst we're free to smack our children which I think is central to the debate.
Why is one ok but not the other?
Similarly why are we perfectly happy dropping bombs on countries which aren't in tune with our way of thinking?
Because my friends, talking does indeed rarely solve a dispute.
To all those bleating on about being civilised people and reasoned arguement, what sort of sheltered environment did you grow up in?
Lest we not forget that our own country is founded on the colonisation and conquer of other nations.
Did we sail over and ask in our politest tone that perhaps those people should relinquish their land and fall under our rule?
It is a basic principle in both the animal world and ours that a food chain exists, one purely dominated by aggression and therefore power.
We are afterall nothing but animals despite what the arrogant of you may think.
Get off your high horses and consider it in it's basic form.
You are comparing a "food chain" and the conquering of nations to bringing up your own children!Why is one ok but not the other?
Similarly why are we perfectly happy dropping bombs on countries which aren't in tune with our way of thinking?
Because my friends, talking does indeed rarely solve a dispute.
To all those bleating on about being civilised people and reasoned arguement, what sort of sheltered environment did you grow up in?
Lest we not forget that our own country is founded on the colonisation and conquer of other nations.
Did we sail over and ask in our politest tone that perhaps those people should relinquish their land and fall under our rule?
It is a basic principle in both the animal world and ours that a food chain exists, one purely dominated by aggression and therefore power.
We are afterall nothing but animals despite what the arrogant of you may think.
Get off your high horses and consider it in it's basic form.
If you feel you need to hit a 3 year old in order to establish the food chain in your house you need to consider what parenting is. Clue: it isn't the same as imperial rule of the East Indies...
Tonberry said:
Entirely relevant because it highligts the fact that, whilst you may not like it, we as humans exhibit undesirable behaviour.
Violence is a simple and effective control mechanism that goes a long way to curbing undesirable behaviour because it is one of few things universally understood. Pain is a very basic human receptor.
Without it, people (as a collective) are quite prone to do as they please. Both adults and children.
Other points just serve to highlight that we as collective, are primitive by nature.
The few of you who like to think of yourselves as intellectuals (whilst failing to understand these principles) are probably in the minority with your vehemence that you would never resort to such actions.
As always, there is a sliding scale as there is with most things in life.
I would love to know what some of you would do when the things or people you hold most dear are at risk by the actions of others.
I'm actually cringing while I read your post. It's like watching a rubbish film full of terrible clichés. Violence is a simple and effective control mechanism that goes a long way to curbing undesirable behaviour because it is one of few things universally understood. Pain is a very basic human receptor.
Without it, people (as a collective) are quite prone to do as they please. Both adults and children.
Other points just serve to highlight that we as collective, are primitive by nature.
The few of you who like to think of yourselves as intellectuals (whilst failing to understand these principles) are probably in the minority with your vehemence that you would never resort to such actions.
As always, there is a sliding scale as there is with most things in life.
I would love to know what some of you would do when the things or people you hold most dear are at risk by the actions of others.
Breadvan72 said:
This idea that people never change is unhistorical. True it is that people can still behave in grotesquely barbaric ways, but general levels of violence in society have fallen over the millennia, and forms of behaviour once considered acceptable, such as slavery and cruelty to animals, have become unacceptable in many (not all) societies. Arguments that we are all just savages really, as well as being very pessimistic, can be an used as an excuse for people to be selfish.
Alas, I'd say levels of violence are now on the rise again. I have no empirical evidence at this particular moment in time to support my theory, however going by personal experiences, and the experiences of friends - the levels of violence that teenagers and young adults are prepared to use, and indeed will use, compared to when I was in my youth, or when my parents were youths has increased exponentially.Tonberry said:
Entirely relevant because it highligts the fact that, whilst you may not like it, we as humans exhibit undesirable behaviour.
Violence is a simple and effective control mechanism that goes a long way to curbing undesirable behaviour because it is one of few things universally understood. Pain is a very basic human receptor.
Without it, people (as a collective) are quite prone to do as they please. Both adults and children.
I don't think "basic", "simple and effective control mechanisms" are a very good idea when applied to a fairly complex young child who is hopefully in the process of learning to control their own emotions. There's too much risk that punishment will teach the wrong lesson.Violence is a simple and effective control mechanism that goes a long way to curbing undesirable behaviour because it is one of few things universally understood. Pain is a very basic human receptor.
Without it, people (as a collective) are quite prone to do as they please. Both adults and children.
Fundamentally, a child should be able to trust their parents, not be afraid of them under certain conditions (which are often those under which they are already in some sort of distress).
aizvara said:
Fundamentally, a child should be able to trust their parents, not be afraid of them under certain conditions (which are often those under which they are already in some sort of distress).
Well, that's your view. It's not the view of many. My mum and her siblings used to get the belt if they misbehaved. They were scared stless of it. My dad used to get a wooden spoon.Neither of them assaulted anyone in adult life btw, and they are quite well adjusted. Just saying.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff