Ban smacking, children's tsar urges

[hornetrider]

mph1977 said:

the use of physical punishment is an assault / battery ...

What does the law say? Perhaps BV can inform us.

mph1977 said:

aschildren / young people learn by example and absorb the social norms of the society they live in - what lesson does this actually teach ...

Perhaps you should ask those who have had their 'hides tanned'. For me, the lesson taught was, don't do that again.

P.S. I've never been to prison for assault.

mph1977 said:

physicla 'punishments' also have some interesting issues with 'arosued states' - hence the popularity of of BDSM techniques that are drawn from historical physical punishment / torture methods ( and moral high ground people you are 'guilty' of this kind of thing who you have ever tickled someone to submission or held your partner down during 'ordinary' sex - the difference with the kinky community is just they have accepted these concepts and don;t attach shame and self imposed guilt to it.)

Struggling to decipher this however I'll give it a shot. Are you saying that those who opt for corporal punishment are closet paedos? Is this a paedobomb statement? Help me out here.

[WinstonWolf]

mph1977 said:

ofcorsa said:

WinstonWolf said:

Breadvan72 said:

Do you approve of hitting children with belts or wooden spoons? Do you think that children should fear their parents? Do you have any children?

I was hit with wooden board rubbers and canes/belts as a kid. As an "angry young man" the whole point of some days was to see how far you could push people. Eventually you found the limit. Many kids grow up without the need to be put in their place, but not all do.

I wonder which came first, Your anger or the hitting ?

which is the essential arguement here

the use of physical punishment is an assault / battery ...

aschildren / young people learn by example and absorb the social norms of the society they live in - what lesson does this actually teach ...

physicla 'punishments' also have some interesting issues with 'arosued states' - hence the popularity of of BDSM techniques that are drawn from historical physical punishment / torture methods ( and moral high ground people you are 'guilty' of this kind of thing who you have ever tickled someone to submission or held your partner down during 'ordinary' sex - the difference with the kinky community is just they have accepted these concepts and don;t attach shame and self imposed guilt to it.)

I didn't and still don't view it as such, I just view it as a consequence of my actions. I was bored, I intentionally set out to get a reaction knowing the risks.

It does raise an interesting point though, some teachers just made you stand outside the door in the corridor, god that was even more boring than the lesson I really really hated that but I'd still wind those teachers up. I didn't tend to wind up the ones who gave you a wallop again though, a stern look was usually enough after that.

How do you deal with wilful and bored teenagers who are intent on testing people?

[Pan Pan Pan]

I love the way the anti smacking brigade try make out that giving a small slap to a young child (one who is far too young to be verbally reasoned with) is somehow akin to tearing its head off with our teeth, and eating what is left, When in reality it is NO such thing. The slap doesn't not even need to hurt the child, but the action alone is usually sufficient to make the child understand it has done wrong, even before the child knows how to speak, and can be verbally reasoned with.
I was a college lecturer for 13 years, and during my teacher training, had to undertake several weeks of child psychology, Some of the lecturers were sound, but some actually made me, and the other trainees angry, with their, faintly ridiculous, new age, probably Spock inspired, out of touch with the real world views on the subject. They were clearly spouting from some text books `they' had read during `their' training, rather than from real life. One was so angry that we disagreed with her, she packed up her material, and stormed out of the lecture room halfway through the session. Very mature!
During my time as a lecturer, I had a number of problem students, out of the literally thousands of kids of all ages that I was charged with teaching, but they all had one key ingredient that very young children do not, they could (generally) be verbally reasoned with .
If we `are' going into the psychology of it, I wonder if the anti smacking brigade are so weak and fearful that their children will not love or even like them anymore if the parents smack them, they try to avoid doing so for this reason alone.
As posted before I have seen children brought up by the `we don't smack our child type of parents' and they some of them turned out to be nasty aggressive little sh*ts, with no respect for their parents or anyone else for that matter.
If some parents want to bring up `their' children that way, no problem, but don't get all holier than thou, you are a monster parent, hysterical, with others, who do not share your view. and believe me there are many, many, many who do not.

[mph1977]

hornetrider said:

mph1977 said:

the use of physical punishment is an assault / battery ...

What does the law say? Perhaps BV can inform us.

CPS guideline on offences against the person http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_agains...

the fact that 'reasonable chastisement of a child' exists points to the fact that these actions are ones which would otherwise be an offence against a person.

hornetrider said:

mph1977 said:

aschildren / young people learn by example and absorb the social norms of the society they live in - what lesson does this actually teach ...

Perhaps you should ask those who have had their 'hides tanned'. For me, the lesson taught was, don't do that again.

P.S. I've never been to prison for assault.

and never mind the countless counter exampleso r as we say in the 80s and 90s and onwards the pattern of the bullies in school being, in the main, those who considered the way to get your way was to inflict violence ....often taught this by their parents ( of course there will always be a proprtion of people who through quirk of genetics are pre-disposed to sociopathic traits regardlessof nuture )

hornetrider said:

mph1977 said:

physicla 'punishments' also have some interesting issues with 'arosued states' - hence the popularity of of BDSM techniques that are drawn from historical physical punishment / torture methods ( and moral high ground people you are 'guilty' of this kind of thing who you have ever tickled someone to submission or held your partner down during 'ordinary' sex - the difference with the kinky community is just they have accepted these concepts and don;t attach shame and self imposed guilt to it.)

Struggling to decipher this however I'll give it a shot. Are you saying that those who opt for corporal punishment are closet paedos? Is this a paedobomb statement? Help me out here.

it's you that has got issues if you automatically try and associated anything beyond a cis-gender heteronormative missionary position sexual relationship with paedophila ... the only P-bomb is yours.

[hornetrider]

Pan Pan Pan said:

If some parents want to bring up `their' children that way, no problem, but don't get all holier than thou, you are a monster parent, hysterical, with others, who do not share your view. and believe me there are many, many, many who do not.

Uh-oh. BV quantitative stat request incoming.

[hornetrider]

mph1977 said:

hornetrider said:

mph1977 said:

the use of physical punishment is an assault / battery ...

What does the law say? Perhaps BV can inform us.

CPS guideline on offences against the person http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_agains...

the fact that 'reasonable chastisement of a child' exists points to the fact that these actions are ones which would otherwise be an offence against a person.

So to be clear, adults are legally allowed to reasonably chastise a child?

mph1977 said:

hornetrider said:

mph1977 said:

aschildren / young people learn by example and absorb the social norms of the society they live in - what lesson does this actually teach ...

Perhaps you should ask those who have had their 'hides tanned'. For me, the lesson taught was, don't do that again.

P.S. I've never been to prison for assault.

and never mind the countless counter exampleso r as we say in the 80s and 90s and onwards the pattern of the bullies in school being, in the main, those who considered the way to get your way was to inflict violence ....often taught this by their parents ( of course there will always be a proprtion of people who through quirk of genetics are pre-disposed to sociopathic traits regardlessof nuture )

So I think you are saying there is research showing a causal link between reasonable chastisement of a child and that child being a bully. Is that right? That is certainly interesting and I'd be interested in that, do you have a link?

mph1977 said:

hornetrider said:

mph1977 said:

physicla 'punishments' also have some interesting issues with 'arosued states' - hence the popularity of of BDSM techniques that are drawn from historical physical punishment / torture methods ( and moral high ground people you are 'guilty' of this kind of thing who you have ever tickled someone to submission or held your partner down during 'ordinary' sex - the difference with the kinky community is just they have accepted these concepts and don;t attach shame and self imposed guilt to it.)

Struggling to decipher this however I'll give it a shot. Are you saying that those who opt for corporal punishment are closet paedos? Is this a paedobomb statement? Help me out here.

it's you that has got issues if you automatically try and associated anything beyond a cis-gender heteronormative missionary position sexual relationship with paedophila ... the only P-bomb is yours.

Wow, ok. I thought we were talking about chastising children. Might I point out that you're the one raising BDSM and kinky sex with regards to this chat regarding kids. If you could clarify what you are trying to say maybe you could help with my understanding of the point you are trying to raise.

[Pan Pan Pan]

hornetrider said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

If some parents want to bring up `their' children that way, no problem, but don't get all holier than thou, you are a monster parent, hysterical, with others, who do not share your view. and believe me there are many, many, many who do not.

Uh-oh. BV quantitative stat request incoming.

In the group of 28 trainees I was in, 22 did not agree with the anti smacking lecturer (which I think was why the woman giving the lecture stormed out of the room) and of the 22, 8 were in fact nurses. Not sure if that tells of anything one way, or the other though?

[aizvara]

Pan Pan Pan said:

I love the way the anti smacking brigade try make out that giving a small slap to a young child (one who is far too young to be verbally reasoned with) is somehow akin to tearing its head off with our teeth, and eating what is left, When in reality it is NO such thing. The slap doesn't not even need to hurt the child, but the action alone is usually sufficient to make the child understand it has done wrong, even before the child knows how to speak, and can be verbally reasoned with.
I was a college lecturer for 13 years, and during my teacher training, had to undertake several weeks of child psychology, Some of the lecturers were sound, but some actually made me, and the other trainees angry, with their, faintly ridiculous, new age, probably Spock inspired, out of touch with the real world views on the subject. They were clearly spouting from some text books `they' had read during `their' training, rather than from real life. One was so angry that we disagreed with her, she packed up her material, and stormed out of the lecture room halfway through the session. Very mature!
During my time as a lecturer, I had a number of problem students, out of the literally thousands of kids of all ages that I was charged with teaching, but they all had one key ingredient that very young children do not, they could (generally) be verbally reasoned with .
If we `are' going into the psychology of it,I wonder if the anti smacking brigade are so weak and fearful that their children will not love or even like them anymore if the parents smack them, they try to avoid doing so for this reason alone.
As posted before I have seen children brought up by the `we don't smack our child type of parents' and they some of them turned out to be nasty aggressive little sh*ts, with no respect for their parents or anyone else for that matter.
If some parents want to bring up `their' children that way, no problem, but don't get all holier than thou, you are a monster parent, hysterical, with others, who do not share your view. and believe me there are many, many, many who do not.

In reference to the bit in bold. No. I don't smack children, or anyone else, because I don't need to.

I also haven't ever been afflicted with hysteria - based on that post you seem quick to temper, though - getting angry at lecturers you disagree with, hysterically hyperbolic statements about what you imagine to be an "anti smacking brigade" (copyright Daily Mail), and so on.

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 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.

I really don't want my son to be scared stless of me or his mother, so I can't really see anything to recommend in your approach.

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.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Pan Pan Pan said:

I love the way the anti smacking brigade try make out that giving a small slap to a young child (one who is far too young to be verbally reasoned with) is somehow akin to tearing its head off with our teeth, and eating what is left, When in reality it is NO such thing.

wow, you really smashed that straw man, well done

[Hugo a Gogo]

WinstonWolf said:

ofcorsa said:

WinstonWolf said:

Breadvan72 said:

Do you approve of hitting children with belts or wooden spoons? Do you think that children should fear their parents? Do you have any children?

I was hit with wooden board rubbers and canes/belts as a kid. As an "angry young man" the whole point of some days was to see how far you could push people. Eventually you found the limit. Many kids grow up without the need to be put in their place, but not all do.

I wonder which came first, Your anger or the hitting ?

Without a doubt my anger. Some people are naturally rebellious, I was one of those. School was frequently boring, one way to pass the day was to wind up the teachers just to see when they cracked. I heard a rumour that Mr College used to give you a straight fingered jab to the solar plexus, the rumour was true. I didn't feel the need to wind him up again after that, it was an effective method of discipline.

but but, these weren't your parents (who always know best) in effect it was the state beating you

and these teachers presumably didn't love you (any more than we all do ) so how could they give a proper measured 'loving' punishment?

[WinstonWolf]

Hugo a Gogo said:

WinstonWolf said:

ofcorsa said:

WinstonWolf said:

Breadvan72 said:

Do you approve of hitting children with belts or wooden spoons? Do you think that children should fear their parents? Do you have any children?

I was hit with wooden board rubbers and canes/belts as a kid. As an "angry young man" the whole point of some days was to see how far you could push people. Eventually you found the limit. Many kids grow up without the need to be put in their place, but not all do.

I wonder which came first, Your anger or the hitting ?

Without a doubt my anger. Some people are naturally rebellious, I was one of those. School was frequently boring, one way to pass the day was to wind up the teachers just to see when they cracked. I heard a rumour that Mr College used to give you a straight fingered jab to the solar plexus, the rumour was true. I didn't feel the need to wind him up again after that, it was an effective method of discipline.

but but, these weren't your parents (who always know best) in effect it was the state beating you

and these teachers presumably didn't love you (any more than we all do ) so how could they give a proper measured 'loving' punishment?

My mum always used to tell me a tale about when I went a bit wacko in Hillards so she gave me a smack round the leg. She spent the rest of the shop mortified by her clearly visible hand print on my leg

[hornetrider]

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 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.

I really don't want my son to be scared stless of me or his mother, so I can't really see anything to recommend in your approach.

Who's approach? Not mine.

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.

[Pan Pan Pan]

aizvara said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

I love the way the anti smacking brigade try make out that giving a small slap to a young child (one who is far too young to be verbally reasoned with) is somehow akin to tearing its head off with our teeth, and eating what is left, When in reality it is NO such thing. The slap doesn't not even need to hurt the child, but the action alone is usually sufficient to make the child understand it has done wrong, even before the child knows how to speak, and can be verbally reasoned with.
I was a college lecturer for 13 years, and during my teacher training, had to undertake several weeks of child psychology, Some of the lecturers were sound, but some actually made me, and the other trainees angry, with their, faintly ridiculous, new age, probably Spock inspired, out of touch with the real world views on the subject. They were clearly spouting from some text books `they' had read during `their' training, rather than from real life. One was so angry that we disagreed with her, she packed up her material, and stormed out of the lecture room halfway through the session. Very mature!
During my time as a lecturer, I had a number of problem students, out of the literally thousands of kids of all ages that I was charged with teaching, but they all had one key ingredient that very young children do not, they could (generally) be verbally reasoned with .
If we `are' going into the psychology of it,I wonder if the anti smacking brigade are so weak and fearful that their children will not love or even like them anymore if the parents smack them, they try to avoid doing so for this reason alone.
As posted before I have seen children brought up by the `we don't smack our child type of parents' and they some of them turned out to be nasty aggressive little sh*ts, with no respect for their parents or anyone else for that matter.
If some parents want to bring up `their' children that way, no problem, but don't get all holier than thou, you are a monster parent, hysterical, with others, who do not share your view. and believe me there are many, many, many who do not.

In reference to the bit in bold. No. I don't smack children, or anyone else, because I don't need to.

I also haven't ever been afflicted with hysteria - based on that post you seem quick to temper, though - getting angry at lecturers you disagree with, hysterically hyperbolic statements about what you imagine to be an "anti smacking brigade" (copyright Daily Mail), and so on.

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 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.

I really don't want my son to be scared stless of me or his mother, so I can't really see anything to recommend in your approach.

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.

You have just proved my point, with your comment `I really don't want my son to be scared sh*tless of me and his mother' so yes, you are fearful, and scared that your child will not like you if you administer reasonable chastisement. and again you are equating reasonable chastisement with using implements or uncalled for violence on a child. Why can you not understand that the two, are not the same? so why do you try to make out, that they are?
If you saw another child, seriously beating your own, would you just stand there simpering `don't do that it isn't very nice, to the perpetrator, in the `hope' that the aggressive child would stop doing it? If you did I would have little hope for the future of your child, or his respect for you.

[Pan Pan Pan]

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 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.

I really don't want my son to be scared stless of me or his mother, so I can't really see anything to recommend in your approach.

Who's approach? Not mine.

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.

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.

[Hugo a Gogo]

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

[Hugo a Gogo]

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 life

[hornetrider]

Hugo a Gogo said:

again, no-one has claimed or implied that simply not smacking a child will make them perfect

And yet it seems those advocating 'sparing the rod' here in this thread all have little angels who never misbehave due to their excellent parenting skills. Aren't they just excellent parents! Hurray!

Hugo a Gogo said:

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 life

I agree. Bullies are a mix of kids who are smacked, and kids who aren't, probably. I wonder what the message is here? Who knows eh.

[anonymous-user]

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.

So "not the view of many" means " not the view of many whom I know"? I am sorry if being challenged on unsupported sweeping statements upsets you. One solution is to avoid making unsupported sweeping statements. HTH.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 3rd July 11:12

[Hugo a Gogo]

hornetrider said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

again, no-one has claimed or implied that simply not smacking a child will make them perfect

And yet it seems those advocating 'sparing the rod' here in this thread all have little angels who never misbehave due to their excellent parenting skills. Aren't they just excellent parents! Hurray!

well, I have 4 kids
oldest one is pretty good, the occasional stomp around and slam doors - if we only had her we probably would think we were excellent parents!
2nd one is a bit wild, attacks the others a little bit, I'll admit I have smacked him, it doesn't help though
3rd one is only 4, occasionally throws a tantrum
4th is a baby

maybe cos the oldest is a girl and the others are all boys, I dunno

I don't want to smack any of them, I don't think it works, I don't think it's a good idea even if it did work

[Pan Pan Pan]

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.
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.