Ban smacking, children's tsar urges
Discussion
Hugo a Gogo said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
In my view the children who don't / did not get smacked, who become bullies, are those who learn from an early age, that no matter what they say, who they hurt, what they do, whose property they destroy, they will not ever receive any meaningful retribution for doing so, so they just carry on doing it.
Also this post refers to physical smacking, but using psychological punishment rather than smacking, can just as easily lead to some unpleasant (pshycological behaviours on the part of the child.
The anti smackers seem to be trying to imply, that a smacked child always turns out to be a monster, whereas a child who has not been smacked, always turns out to be a fluffy loving angel. Plain common sense, and a reality check tells us that this is not what happens in real life.
again, no-one has claimed or implied that simply not smacking a child will make them perfect, whereas you ARE trying to claim that a 'non-smacked' child will become a bully. Common sense and a reality check will tell us this is not what happens in real lifeAlso this post refers to physical smacking, but using psychological punishment rather than smacking, can just as easily lead to some unpleasant (pshycological behaviours on the part of the child.
The anti smackers seem to be trying to imply, that a smacked child always turns out to be a monster, whereas a child who has not been smacked, always turns out to be a fluffy loving angel. Plain common sense, and a reality check tells us that this is not what happens in real life.
Hugo a Gogo said:
nonsense, holding a child back is not the same as hitting them
That depends on the strength of the child, and the amount of force needed to restrain them.
you make holding back an aggressive child sound like you are just holding their hand, when in reality much greater force may be required to stop them from damaging you, and themselves.
This is the same as the distinction between using uncalled violence on a child, or giving them a small slap. It seems that some cannot tell the difference. they would be the ones I would be most worried about.
Breadvan72 said:
hornetrider said:
Breadvan72 said:
In which version of English is "not many" a statement as to quality and not quantity?
I realise you have a desire to demonstrate your intellectual superiority for the masses at every turn, however if you really need me to show you down the garden path I will.My use of the word many is my own personal estimate (as it must be) based upon the conversations I have had with the aforementioned groups of individuals during my lifetime.
I do hope this helps your understanding.
Regarding your point, indeed it does mean whom I know as I am unable to comment on those I don't. As... I don't know them. I would have thought that would have been obvious even to the obtuse or intellectually challenged who occasionally frequent PH (lol!), however that assumption is clearly my failing.
I humbly, unreservedly apologise for assuming you could make that leap of thought unaided. I shall endeavour to convey my thoughts more clearly in future, I owe you my thanks for helping me improve my communication skills.
Pan Pan Pan said:
In my view the children who don't / did not get smacked, who become bullies, are those who learn from an early age, that no matter what they say, who they hurt, what they do, whose property they destroy, they will not ever receive any meaningful retribution for doing so, so they just carry on doing it. .
The “retribution” only ever comes from people physically stronger than them, It’s just as likely to teach them that they can get away with behaving as they like against people that are physically weaker.Pan Pan Pan said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
nonsense, holding a child back is not the same as hitting them
That depends on the strength of the child, and the amount of force needed to restrain them.
you make holding back an aggressive child sound like you are just holding their hand, when in reality much greater force may be required to stop them from damaging you, and themselves.
This is the same as the distinction between using uncalled violence on a child, or giving them a small slap. It seems that some cannot tell the difference. they would be the ones I would be most worried about.
ofcorsa said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
In my view the children who don't / did not get smacked, who become bullies, are those who learn from an early age, that no matter what they say, who they hurt, what they do, whose property they destroy, they will not ever receive any meaningful retribution for doing so, so they just carry on doing it. .
The “retribution” only ever comes from people physically stronger than them, It’s just as likely to teach them that they can get away with behaving as they like against people that are physically weaker.Breadvan72 said:
Smacking involves pain or humiliation as a message delivery system. Pain may be a secondary consequence of restraint, but is not the object of restraint. Smacking is chastisement, reproof, punishment. Restraint is undertaken to protect the person restrained or others.
exactly the 'approved' restraint techniques used professionally are designed to minimise the risk of harm ...
ditto the techniques and rules used where impact etc is part of recreational activities ...
Breadvan72 said:
hornetrider said:
...
Regarding your point, indeed it does mean whom I know as I am unable to comment on those I don't. As... I don't know them.
...
At last, the penny appears to be falling.Regarding your point, indeed it does mean whom I know as I am unable to comment on those I don't. As... I don't know them.
...
You are advocating wholesale change in parenting based on your experience of one ten year old girl.
I would say hypocrisy doesn’t quite cover it.
mph1977 said:
exactly
the 'approved' restraint techniques used professionally are designed to minimise the risk of harm ...
ditto the techniques and rules used where impact etc is part of recreational activities ...
Perhaps training courses and certification should be mandatory before pregnancy occurs, that way everyone would be protected. the 'approved' restraint techniques used professionally are designed to minimise the risk of harm ...
ditto the techniques and rules used where impact etc is part of recreational activities ...
Pan Pan Pan said:
hornetrider said:
aizvara said:
hornetrider said:
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 s
tless 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.
I really don't want my son to be 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.
tless of me or his mother, so I can't really see anything to recommend in your approach.aizvara said:
I didn't say anything about children of parents who resort to violence going on to assault others. I expect that does happen, though, as children learn very quickly by copying. Just saying.
I didn't say you did. I expect it does happen too. However kids who don't get smacked also become bullies. What causes them to become bullies? Who's to say what the link is if indeed there is one. I think it's more about personality type of the individual.
Also this post refers to physical smacking, but using psychological punishment rather than smacking, can just as easily lead to some unpleasant (pshycological behaviours on the part of the child.
The anti smackers seem to be trying to imply, that a smacked child always turns out to be a monster, whereas a child who has not been smacked, always turns out to be a fluffy loving angel. Plain common sense, and a reality check tells us that this is not what happens in real life.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
1: 'scared stless' was the very phrase used by someone to describe a parent/child relationship
2: believing something is undesirable isn't the same as being fearful of it - you might want your kids to be wealthy and successful but not be afraid of them being skint
3: he doesn't mention 'using implements', but others have
4: seeing another child attacking your child, you stop the attack, restrain them, you don't go on to attack them in return - exactly the same as any other 'self defence' scenario and absolutely nothing to do with disciplining your own naughty child
If you `restrain' a child you are using physical force against that child. the moment this is done, the `I don't physical force against a child' argument is blown to bits. So it seems you are aware of situations where force `must' be used if a worse situation is to be avoided.tless' was the very phrase used by someone to describe a parent/child relationship2: believing something is undesirable isn't the same as being fearful of it - you might want your kids to be wealthy and successful but not be afraid of them being skint
3: he doesn't mention 'using implements', but others have
4: seeing another child attacking your child, you stop the attack, restrain them, you don't go on to attack them in return - exactly the same as any other 'self defence' scenario and absolutely nothing to do with disciplining your own naughty child
If a child `is' scared sh*tless by a parent using reasonable chastisement, (especially when a child knows it has done wrong) Then I would suggest that there is something seriously wrong with child, the parent, or possibly even both.
julian64 said:
Breadvan72 said:
hornetrider said:
...
Regarding your point, indeed it does mean whom I know as I am unable to comment on those I don't. As... I don't know them.
...
At last, the penny appears to be falling.Regarding your point, indeed it does mean whom I know as I am unable to comment on those I don't. As... I don't know them.
...
You are advocating wholesale change in parenting based on your experience of one ten year old girl.
I would say hypocrisy doesn’t quite cover it.
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.
And as if by magic:how the world became more violent
Welcome to the real world.
hornetrider said:
Breadvan72 said:
hornetrider said:
...
Regarding your point, indeed it does mean whom I know as I am unable to comment on those I don't. As... I don't know them.
...
At last, the penny appears to be falling.Regarding your point, indeed it does mean whom I know as I am unable to comment on those I don't. As... I don't know them.
...
julian64 said:
Breadvan72 said:
hornetrider said:
...
Regarding your point, indeed it does mean whom I know as I am unable to comment on those I don't. As... I don't know them.
...
At last, the penny appears to be falling.Regarding your point, indeed it does mean whom I know as I am unable to comment on those I don't. As... I don't know them.
...
You are advocating wholesale change in parenting based on your experience of one ten year old girl.
I would say hypocrisy doesn’t quite cover it.
Breadvan72 said:
julian64 said:
Breadvan72 said:
hornetrider said:
...
Regarding your point, indeed it does mean whom I know as I am unable to comment on those I don't. As... I don't know them.
...
At last, the penny appears to be falling.Regarding your point, indeed it does mean whom I know as I am unable to comment on those I don't. As... I don't know them.
...
You are advocating wholesale change in parenting based on your experience of one ten year old girl.
I would say hypocrisy doesn’t quite cover it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff