Ban smacking, children's tsar urges

[IroningMan]

My children were smacked, very infrequently, and it only ever felt like a failure on my part - I certainly wouldn't do it now.

Smacking is getting off lightly, though, if the alternative is being on the receiving end of the kind of hectoring, patronising, nannying tripe spouted by PH's evangelical anti-smackers...I'll take the clip round the ear every time, please.

[hornetrider]

Breadvan72 said:

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.

Ah that is good news, I'm glad you can now understand wot I wrote.

Just keep banging the rocks together, guys.

I know this isn't something trite to seem like you're having the last word as that's not your style, but I'm not sure what it actually means in this context. Is it another question in cunningly disguised legalese? Care to elucidate?

[anonymous-user]

Hitchhiker's Guide.

[hornetrider]

Oh, so it was something trite. My mistake.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Hugo a Gogo said:

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.

you can keep making up scenarios where you have to take down an attacking crazed ninja kid on PCP, and we'll carry on with the conversation about whether we should be disciplining kids with slaps etc

No point in carrying on this discussion, because those in each camp will never ever accept the comments or view points of those in the opposing camp.

[mph1977]

voyds9 said:

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.

i think you have missed the point here ... but that is unfortunately all too common on PH when anything other than the borderline sociopathic course is suggested

[jjlynn27]

Jinx said:

And as if by magic:

how the world became more violent

Welcome to the real world.

And the time scale for comparison is?

[Jinx]

jjlynn27 said:

And the time scale for comparison is?

I provided evidence that the asserted inexorable march towards civilisation is contradicted by the latest data. That is all. If you wish to cherry pick time frames then go ahead.

[jjlynn27]

hornetrider said:

Oh, so it was something trite. My mistake.

Translation; 'I don't read books, don't have the time, too busy failing as a parent, and lovingly smacking lil dah'lings. My mistake.'

You're welcome.

"Legalese" indeed.

[jjlynn27]

Jinx said:

jjlynn27 said:

And the time scale for comparison is?

I provided evidence that the asserted inexorable march towards civilisation is contradicted by the latest data. That is all. If you wish to cherry pick time frames then go ahead.

From the same article

Article said:

Such trends show that the distribution of peace across the globe is mirroring wealth: peaceful countries are becoming more peaceful while the most violent are becoming more violent.
Considering that more than two billion people live in the 20 least peaceful countries in the world, the net effect of this widening peace gap is disproportionately skewed to the negative.
Whether you believe the world is more peaceful depends on your frame of reference and statistical choices.

[anonymous-user]

hornetrider said:

Oh, so it was something trite. My mistake.

[Inigo Montoya] I don't think that means what you think it means. [/Inigo Montoya]

[ofcorsa]

Inconceivable!

[Jinx]

jjlynn27 said:

Jinx said:

jjlynn27 said:

And the time scale for comparison is?

I provided evidence that the asserted inexorable march towards civilisation is contradicted by the latest data. That is all. If you wish to cherry pick time frames then go ahead.

From the same article

Article said:

Such trends show that the distribution of peace across the globe is mirroring wealth: peaceful countries are becoming more peaceful while the most violent are becoming more violent.
Considering that more than two billion people live in the 20 least peaceful countries in the world, the net effect of this widening peace gap is disproportionately skewed to the negative.
Whether you believe the world is more peaceful depends on your frame of reference and statistical choices.

So if the above is true and wealth gap is increasing what does that tell us about civilisation?
The rich can afford peace and security. They can afford to give bribes and privileges (civilised methods of control) . Where's that leave the 99%?
Ivory towers may let you look down on people but a useless for defence.

[IroningMan]

Ivory towers don't do a great deal for elephants, either.

[hornetrider]

jjlynn27 said:

Translation; 'I don't read books, don't have the time, too busy failing as a parent, and lovingly smacking lil dah'lings. My mistake.'

You're welcome.

"Legalese" indeed.

The irony of this of course is that your response has shown you can't even read the thread.

I'm disappointed in BV as he lost the argument and resorted to name calling. Which I view as bad form.

[anonymous-user]

Do you get to decide who lost an argument that you were in? Cool powers! Another view is that you made a daft comment, could not justify it, and so attempted to change its meaning. Name calling? Maybe have a read of your own posts.

[hornetrider]

I must say I'm a trifle confused.

Which comment are you referring to as daft? If it was the one you took issue with 'many people don't hold this view' then I'm afraid this is true ergo you are incorrect ergo you've lost that particular argument. This much is simple fact.

If you dispute this can I suggest you look up 'many' in Oxford's finest and revise your opinion.

[hornetrider]

Anyhoo, I'm oot.

[anonymous-user]

You asserted that not many people hold a view. Asked to support that assertion you first said it was a qualitative statement and not quantitative, and later said you only meant not many people that you know. If that is what you call winning an argument, then feel free to award yourself a trophy.

[hornetrider]

Breadvan72 said:

You asserted that not many people hold a view.

For a lawyer your attention to detail is disappointing. I said 'many people don't hold that view'. Do you not know the difference between those two statements?!