Ban smacking, children's tsar urges
Discussion
Randy Winkman said:
fblm said:
El stovey said:
You're just describing different kinds of hitting. Smacking is hitting. It's Just a word you use to make it not sound as bad.
Are you seriously incapable of distinguishing between hitting someone and a little smack you might give a 2 year old? Get a grip.WinstonWolf said:
Randy Winkman said:
fblm said:
El stovey said:
You're just describing different kinds of hitting. Smacking is hitting. It's Just a word you use to make it not sound as bad.
Are you seriously incapable of distinguishing between hitting someone and a little smack you might give a 2 year old? Get a grip.Presumably before you decided to use smacking as a method to teach your children you had a think about why you thought it worked? Or did you just do it because your parents smacked you?
I'm only asking the same question because you don't seem to have the slightest understanding of why you smack your children.
Randy Winkman said:
fblm said:
El stovey said:
You're just describing different kinds of hitting. Smacking is hitting. It's Just a word you use to make it not sound as bad.
Are you seriously incapable of distinguishing between hitting someone and a little smack you might give a 2 year old? Get a grip.El stovey said:
WinstonWolf said:
Randy Winkman said:
fblm said:
El stovey said:
You're just describing different kinds of hitting. Smacking is hitting. It's Just a word you use to make it not sound as bad.
Are you seriously incapable of distinguishing between hitting someone and a little smack you might give a 2 year old? Get a grip.Presumably before you decided to use smacking as a method to teach your children you had a think about why you thought it worked? Or did you just do it because your parents smacked you?
I'm only asking the same question because you don't seem to have the slightest understanding of why you smack your children.
Can you honestly not tell the difference? (one answer makes you a liar, the other makes you thick)
WinstonWolf said:
Or I know you lack the ability to differentiate between a smack and hitting. They're two different words, that's why we have them.
Can you honestly not tell the difference? (one answer makes you a liar, the other makes you thick)
They are 2 different words, but nothing defines whether one hurts more than the other. You have made this distinction in your head and expect that is applies to everyone. The words are synonyms. Yes, "smack" usually means with the palm of the hand, but that doesn't mean it won't hurt and more/less than a hit would do. Can you honestly not tell the difference? (one answer makes you a liar, the other makes you thick)
smack1
smak/
noun
1.
a sharp slap or blow, typically one given with the palm of the hand.
"she gave Mark a smack across the face"
synonyms: slap, blow, spank, cuff, clout, thump, punch, rap, swat, thwack, crack; More
verb
1.
strike (someone or something), typically with the palm of the hand and as a punishment.
"Jessica smacked his face, quite hard"
synonyms: slap, hit, strike, spank, cuff, clout, thump, punch, rap, swat, thwack, crack; More
WinstonWolf said:
Or I know you lack the ability to differentiate between a smack and hitting. They're two different words, that's why we have them.
Can you honestly not tell the difference? (one answer makes you a liar, the other makes you thick)
I think that some of us are trying to work out why you think that a smack achieves the desired result.Can you honestly not tell the difference? (one answer makes you a liar, the other makes you thick)
Randy Winkman said:
WinstonWolf said:
Or I know you lack the ability to differentiate between a smack and hitting. They're two different words, that's why we have them.
Can you honestly not tell the difference? (one answer makes you a liar, the other makes you thick)
I think that some of us are trying to work out why you think that a smack achieves the desired result.Can you honestly not tell the difference? (one answer makes you a liar, the other makes you thick)
Coolbanana said:
I was smacked as a child. Caned at school. Usual for the times, I guess.
The smacking emanating from my parents inability and frustration to react intelligently to the problem of parenting and resort instead to anger and violence; to give in to their base instincts rather than behave in a civilised manner and encourage civilised parenting skills.
Make no mistake, parenting is a skill. Not everyone can be a good parent. Everyone who smacks their child and justifies it in any way is simply someone looking to mask their own failings. They cannot parent properly. They are failures. End of.
I wanted to smack my two kids but managed to resist. I found other solutions - and zero punishment beyond the temporary confiscation of a toy or video game. My wife and I managed to reason with them 99% of the time without resorting to anything more than a discussion.
I'm not suggesting I'm a great parent but I don't consider I failed.
Obviously some children will be harder to deal with and in extreme cases, professional help may be required but recognising that and using that approach is, to me, a sign of a parent performing good parenting instead of aggression and violence.
All this talk of "I got a good hiding and look how well I turned out" is just ignorant rubbish. Been there, got the canings, disrespected the Authority doing so and learned one will encourage a far better outcome for all if we abandon our primal, animalistic behaviour and employ more intelligent solutions.
Funny that. I bring it up again, but as one good song goes, 'Every generation blames the one before. And all of their frustrations come beating on your door.' Very true.The smacking emanating from my parents inability and frustration to react intelligently to the problem of parenting and resort instead to anger and violence; to give in to their base instincts rather than behave in a civilised manner and encourage civilised parenting skills.
Make no mistake, parenting is a skill. Not everyone can be a good parent. Everyone who smacks their child and justifies it in any way is simply someone looking to mask their own failings. They cannot parent properly. They are failures. End of.
I wanted to smack my two kids but managed to resist. I found other solutions - and zero punishment beyond the temporary confiscation of a toy or video game. My wife and I managed to reason with them 99% of the time without resorting to anything more than a discussion.
I'm not suggesting I'm a great parent but I don't consider I failed.
Obviously some children will be harder to deal with and in extreme cases, professional help may be required but recognising that and using that approach is, to me, a sign of a parent performing good parenting instead of aggression and violence.
All this talk of "I got a good hiding and look how well I turned out" is just ignorant rubbish. Been there, got the canings, disrespected the Authority doing so and learned one will encourage a far better outcome for all if we abandon our primal, animalistic behaviour and employ more intelligent solutions.
Disrespected authority?
Christ, take a long look around you today and see where we have progressed to. That is what we are supposed to do isn't it. Progress?
I would never advocate caning or beating. It's archaic. Not even smacking generally. But as somebody else pointed out, sometimes a smack or tap is necessary as a last resort to prevent a disaster, if a yell or scream at a child has had no effect.
I saw it today with a child 'on the loose' in Sainsbury's around 3.30. I had seen this little blighter two or three times down the aisles with mum yelling for him to stop. He even pulled stuff off lower shelves. Staff looked on shaking their heads, knowing that if they intervened something worse could happen (for them!), so not worth it, carry on and simply tut tut. Today's world, eh?
You just knew something would happen.
Yep, I turn a corner and the little bugger collides with a another mum (with her two kids) trolley pusher. As per usual today, mum with the 2 kids says 'Sorry!' But it was in no way her fault. Her kids look on mouths open as naughty kid's mum took his hand and slapped it (to a few aghast onlookers and a few 'smirks' from others who had probably seen him earlier). His mum did look exasperated and had probably restrained from doing it earlier.
His tail was firmly between his legs next time I saw him with mum. And the little tyke was holding her hand!
Will he do it next time. Who knows? But he will know what's coming so probably no.
What's missing totally is the requirement for some form of deterrent. By the way, I too, had a fair share the old-fashioned treatment. I'm cowering in the corner at the moment
- hang on, remember I said I don't advocate beatings (that was what caning was!). The worst was across the hand, and the (false) tale was to pull your hand back at the moment of impact. I saw blood on several palms running from the struck fingers on several occasions. Never mine. Although it f hurt! Back of the pants was preferable. Any day. We don't want to go back there. I agree with that. Brings to mind, I remember a old story given by the high profile 'scandal' lady, Christine Keeler, who as a child had brought home a live little dormouse. Her stepfather with his boot stamped the living daylights out of the live little creature. Cruel f adult. Whatever made him like that? The 'old' days, eh?
Fast forward to what I witnessed not that many years back, a young child swinging a cat around and around, then (after I yelled at him) the child letting go and the poor stricken creature hitting the pavement. Parental discipline or control? None existent. He was the kid at the local primary school who other children literally feared. His parents were constantly told about his behaviour but nothing happened. What could happen anyway? Expel him? That wasn't going to happen. Just like the supermarket today, tut tut and nothing done until there's a calamity. The secret is to prevent a calamity happening in the first place. A few years later I heard his parents had bought him a pet rabbit - other kids had them, so he stamped up and down (hey, blow me down, isn't that reminiscent of a particular group today
) until he got his own way and they bought him one. The first day it was let out of its hutch, the child stamped on its head until it ws dead. Parallels with Keeler's stepdad? Or worse. I sometimes wonder where that child is today? Held at HM pleasure?
However, there is one thing we did have back then, even if sometimes we rebelled against it. 'Respect', most especially for our elders. God, there are even so-called young adults on this forum who are so ageist it's got beyond worrying. They all forget one day they will be old.
And even back then if we did sometimes go against things, we most certainly 'knew right from wrong'.
Where is that today? Very lost I would say. Who/what do you blame?
FFS, many of my generation at around 10 years of age carried 'Bowie' knives in sheaves hanging on their belts holding up their short trousers, and in full view of everyone. I was one of them.
What was different? Nobody batted an eyelid simply because we never, ever, once, entertained the thought of sticking them in another human being! Right from wrong was instilled. The PC brigade soon brought a halt to that one.
Anyway, onwards with progress. That's what they call it, isn't it?
What's happened today?
Oh, a 'young adult' (loosest sense of the term!) says he thinks it's cool to throw acid in to women's faces 9 times out of 10.
Christ alive! Those 1960s were a terrible time.
Throw him off a f tower block then. Problem solved with him.
El stovey said:
Randy Winkman said:
WinstonWolf said:
Or I know you lack the ability to differentiate between a smack and hitting. They're two different words, that's why we have them.
Can you honestly not tell the difference? (one answer makes you a liar, the other makes you thick)
I think that some of us are trying to work out why you think that a smack achieves the desired result.Can you honestly not tell the difference? (one answer makes you a liar, the other makes you thick)
You can't be that thick, surely?
WinstonWolf said:
El stovey said:
Randy Winkman said:
WinstonWolf said:
Or I know you lack the ability to differentiate between a smack and hitting. They're two different words, that's why we have them.
Can you honestly not tell the difference? (one answer makes you a liar, the other makes you thick)
I think that some of us are trying to work out why you think that a smack achieves the desired result.Can you honestly not tell the difference? (one answer makes you a liar, the other makes you thick)
You can't be that thick, surely?
Smacking like slapping suggests an open hand whilst punching and thumping are to do with a clenched fist.
Thus if you punch someone in the face, you've hit them. If you smack a child you've also hit them. Clearly punching and slapping aren't the same. Both are however examples of hitting.
Now perhaps you could be so kind as to explain the benefit of smacking your children as a teaching method and why it works. What is it that encourages them to learn from being smacked.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 18th July 22:09
El stovey said:
What is it that encourages them to learn from being smacked.
Like any bit of learning from negative consequences, the encouragement comes from it being something unpleasant that they don't want to happen again. A basic negative association, and one that doesn't need particularly sophisticated comprehension skills to be effective.Though I suspect you already know this.
What you should be arguing isn't that something doesn't work, but that A is better than B because C.
Also for the slightly hard of thinking - and without condoning anything - the concept of a smack (or spank) is to cause a short but intense pain response without inflicting any injury.
By contrast a 'hit' or other assault usually involves an intent to or effect of causing damage or persistent hurt.
This is why we have the definition of 'reasonable chastisement' that we do that includes a 'smack' not causing harm or leaving a mark.
If you're going to argue about something and play with definitions at least make a decent job of it!
By contrast a 'hit' or other assault usually involves an intent to or effect of causing damage or persistent hurt.
This is why we have the definition of 'reasonable chastisement' that we do that includes a 'smack' not causing harm or leaving a mark.
If you're going to argue about something and play with definitions at least make a decent job of it!
Jonesy23 said:
El stovey said:
What is it that encourages them to learn from being smacked.
Like any bit of learning from negative consequences, the encouragement comes from it being something unpleasant that they don't want to happen again. A basic negative association, and one that doesn't need particularly sophisticated comprehension skills to be effective.Though I suspect you already know this.
What you should be arguing isn't that something doesn't work, but that A is better than B because C.
Is he trying to create shock from the sound? is it pain? is it humiliation?
Various smackers are saying it doesn't actually hurt, others are saying they only hurt their kids a bit, but it's the most effective way of teaching their children etc.
Obviously I think methods that don't involve smacking work better as do pretty much anyone involved in child psychology. Smacking simply isn't effective.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and...
http://www.online-psychology-degrees.org/psycholog...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/family/ok-smack-...
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx
El stovey said:
fblm said:
El stovey said:
I'm using pictures to explain it better.
I can see why you don't smack. Talking to you is fvcking painful enough.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff