When child abuse isn't child abuse?

[chippy17]

Tiggsy said:

chippy17 said:

there is a difference between the odd clip round the ear and child abuse

sorry - lost me. What is the reality of a clip round the ear? you flick their ear? you smack thier head? what is the exact action you are suggesting?

if my boys were badly behaved and looking at a punishment i'm not sure "clipping their ear" would do much???? what do you think it would achive?

if I have to spell it out, if i punch a child in the face with a closed fist I would call that child abuse, if I gave the child a light smack on the back of say the leg I would call that discipline

[Tiggsy]

a light smack on the back of the leg? what does that do then? whats your objective? are you just lashing out to make yourself feel better (that the only reason i can see that i would do it) or do you belive its a better punishmnet that the non phsical alteratives...and why? is it because it's quick and easy....do you want them to fear it as the ultimate punishment (because i can guarantee you mine would take a "light smack" over 100 lines and no TV in the blink of an eye!)

[chippy17]

Tiggsy said:

chippy17 said:

but if they were seriously out of order I would consider it and believe me the VERY few times I have done it sorted the problem out there and then

so you felt it was the best action in that case? if so, why not just use it for all issues....just hit less hard for less severe problems? or do you keep it on reserve in the belief your kids wont do certain things on the basis to do so would result in you hitting them?

Edited by Tiggsy on Friday 12th June 12:39

what a ridiculous thing to say, it is an extreme last resort and i do not go round smacking children on a regualr basis, differnet approaches solve different problems, it is in ones quiver amongst many other things such a bribery, I guess your children are saints mine certainly aren't

[Tiggsy]

mine arent saints...they get punished plenty - i just dont think smacking is a useful arrow for my quiver and i'm curious as to why you think it is. do you really believe it has merritts over the alternatives available to you...and if so, what?

serious point - i'm just trying to see what people think hurting their children results in that a non physical punishment doesnt....because i can only see benefits to the adult (its a vent, its quick, its easy, etc)

[andy400]

Tiggsy said:

are you just lashing out to make yourself feel better (that the only reason i can see that i would do it)

OMFG

Which is worse, the fact that you are accusing others of lashing out at their kids 'to make yourself feel better', or admitting that's why you would do it!!??

[Tiggsy]

OMFG? are you under 16...if so, your opinion is biased in this debate!

I am saying i see NO benifit to a smack for the child....i see a benifit to the adult only. If you are saying there is other benifits to smacking...what are they? because no one is saying!

Edited by Tiggsy on Friday 12th June 13:16

[chippy17]

Tiggsy said:

a light smack on the back of the leg? what does that do then? whats your objective? are you just lashing out to make yourself feel better (that the only reason i can see that i would do it) or do you belive its a better punishmnet that the non phsical alteratives...and why? is it because it's quick and easy....do you want them to fear it as the ultimate punishment (because i can guarantee you mine would take a "light smack" over 100 lines and no TV in the blink of an eye!)

it is if all else fails, and as I have said I cannot even remember when I last used this form of punishment, but I do believe in certain circumstances it is valid and effective

I am not going to rise to your silly comments regarding my self esteem, strange

[andy400]

Tiggsy said:

OMFG? are you under 16...if so, your opinion is biased in this debate!

I am saying i see NO benifit to a smack for the child....i see a benifit to the adult only.

Your post clearly states that the only reason you would hit a child is to make you feel better.

Word it better if you don't want to be picked up for it, old sport!

[Cara Van Man]

Tiggsy said:

a light smack on the back of the leg? what does that do then? whats your objective? are you just lashing out to make yourself feel better (that the only reason i can see that i would do it) or do you belive its a better punishmnet that the non phsical alteratives...and why? is it because it's quick and easy....do you want them to fear it as the ultimate punishment (because i can guarantee you mine would take a "light smack" over 100 lines and no TV in the blink of an eye!)

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between discipline and violence.

How odd. You accuse people of lashing out, when they have quite cleasrly explained that a 'light tap on the legs' can be used effectively as a way of disciplining a child.

I rarely smack my daughter, but if I have tried all means possible to correct her behaviour and they have failed, I will threaten her with a smacked bum. The mere threat often works. It's a good last resort for a parent to have in their 'armoury' as long as it's controlled and not because of anger.

I know the difference between discipline and abuse. I've been there in ways you've probably not encountered.

So don't preach to me that a small smack or a clip around the ear is abuse. It's not.

Getting kicked until you piss yourself is.

[chippy17]

Cara Van Man said:

Tiggsy said:

a light smack on the back of the leg? what does that do then? whats your objective? are you just lashing out to make yourself feel better (that the only reason i can see that i would do it) or do you belive its a better punishmnet that the non phsical alteratives...and why? is it because it's quick and easy....do you want them to fear it as the ultimate punishment (because i can guarantee you mine would take a "light smack" over 100 lines and no TV in the blink of an eye!)

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between discipline and violence.

How odd. You accuse people of lashing out, when they have quite cleasrly explained that a 'light tap on the legs' can be used effectively as a way of disciplining a child.

I rarely smack my daughter, but if I have tried all means possible to correct her behaviour and they have failed, I will threaten her with a smacked bum. The mere threat often works. It's a good last resort for a parent to have in their 'armoury' as long as it's controlled and not because of anger.

I know the difference between discipline and abuse. I've been there in ways you've probably not encountered.

So don't preach to me that a small smack or a clip around the ear is abuse. It's not.

Getting kicked until you piss yourself is.

well put

[Tiggsy]

andy400 said:

Tiggsy said:

OMFG? are you under 16...if so, your opinion is biased in this debate!

I am saying i see NO benifit to a smack for the child....i see a benifit to the adult only.

Your post clearly states that the only reason you would hit a child is to make you feel better.

Word it better if you don't want to be picked up for it, old sport!

i worded it right. i see NO reason to hit a child OTHER than to feel better myself..to vent. On that basis, the only thing to be gained from hitting them would be that...for me. I dont hit them much because i dont feel the need to put my need to vent ahead of hurting them.

[escargot]

Cara Van Man said:

Tiggsy said:

a light smack on the back of the leg? what does that do then? whats your objective? are you just lashing out to make yourself feel better (that the only reason i can see that i would do it) or do you belive its a better punishmnet that the non phsical alteratives...and why? is it because it's quick and easy....do you want them to fear it as the ultimate punishment (because i can guarantee you mine would take a "light smack" over 100 lines and no TV in the blink of an eye!)

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between discipline and violence.

How odd. You accuse people of lashing out, when they have quite cleasrly explained that a 'light tap on the legs' can be used effectively as a way of disciplining a child.

I rarely smack my daughter, but if I have tried all means possible to correct her behaviour and they have failed, I will threaten her with a smacked bum. The mere threat often works. It's a good last resort for a parent to have in their 'armoury' as long as it's controlled and not because of anger.

I know the difference between discipline and abuse. I've been there in ways you've probably not encountered.

So don't preach to me that a small smack or a clip around the ear is abuse. It's not.

Getting kicked until you piss yourself is.

[Jesus TF Christ]

Cara Van Man said:

Tiggsy said:

a light smack on the back of the leg? what does that do then? whats your objective? are you just lashing out to make yourself feel better (that the only reason i can see that i would do it) or do you belive its a better punishmnet that the non phsical alteratives...and why? is it because it's quick and easy....do you want them to fear it as the ultimate punishment (because i can guarantee you mine would take a "light smack" over 100 lines and no TV in the blink of an eye!)

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between discipline and violence.

How odd. You accuse people of lashing out, when they have quite cleasrly explained that a 'light tap on the legs' can be used effectively as a way of disciplining a child.

I rarely smack my daughter, but if I have tried all means possible to correct her behaviour and they have failed, I will threaten her with a smacked bum. The mere threat often works. It's a good last resort for a parent to have in their 'armoury' as long as it's controlled and not because of anger.

I know the difference between discipline and abuse. I've been there in ways you've probably not encountered.

So don't preach to me that a small smack or a clip around the ear is abuse. It's not.

Getting kicked until you piss yourself is.

When I were a lad the threat of a smack would certainly normally be enough. I can remember very few occasions when I did wander off with a pink bum and it is not as if it really hurts, it's just quite a shock to receive such a punishment from a loving parent.
Child abuse it most certainly isn't.

[Tiggsy]

Cara Van Man said:

So don't preach to me that a small smack or a clip around the ear is abuse. It's not.

Getting kicked until you piss yourself is.

Not preaching - just asking what the point is of smacking. I just cant see what you think it achieves that alternatives dont. Still waiting for ANYONE to explain why a smack is better...whether its light or hard, fist or palm, finger, foot..whatever!

also - if you need to give extremes then your argument is weak.....smacking kids isnt violence because kicked to death is...is like saying skinny girls arent hot because dead anorexics dont do anything for me!

I get that you dont hit the kids hard....i still dont see what it does (in fact, if you remove pain from the benefit's...i see even less things you could be achieving that you might want to)

[Justayellowbadge]

I've never had to smack my son, and I don't intend to.

But, I bloody well reserve the right to if I feel it necessary.

[chippy17]

Tiggsy said:

andy400 said:

Tiggsy said:

OMFG? are you under 16...if so, your opinion is biased in this debate!

I am saying i see NO benifit to a smack for the child....i see a benifit to the adult only.

Your post clearly states that the only reason you would hit a child is to make you feel better.

Word it better if you don't want to be picked up for it, old sport!

i worded it right. i see NO reason to hit a child OTHER than to feel better myself..to vent. On that basis, the only thing to be gained from hitting them would be that...for me. I dont hit them much because i dont feel the need to put my need to vent ahead of hurting them.

in that case perhaps you need to look inward and not assume all share the same 'feelings'as you do that violence is good, can I suggest counselling

[Jesus TF Christ]

Tiggsy said:

andy400 said:

Tiggsy said:

OMFG? are you under 16...if so, your opinion is biased in this debate!

I am saying i see NO benifit to a smack for the child....i see a benifit to the adult only.

Your post clearly states that the only reason you would hit a child is to make you feel better.

Word it better if you don't want to be picked up for it, old sport!

i worded it right. i see NO reason to hit a child OTHER than to feel better myself..to vent. On that basis, the only thing to be gained from hitting them would be that...for me. I dont hit them much because i dont feel the need to put my need to vent ahead of hurting them.

It's called punishment, the child doesn't like it. That is the reason.
Surely that's not hard to understand?
It's the same as dishing out lines or banning TV, the child doesn't like it.
Unless you get a sadistic pleasure from it which I'm sure you don't.

[Tiggsy]

Jesus TF Christ said:

it's just quite a shock to receive such a punishment from a loving parent.

ahhh...shock! Nice for someone to list a viable benifit!

by the way - i never said it was abuse....i said it was pointless.

[DrTre]

Jesus TF Christ said:

When I were a lad the threat of a smack would certainly normally be enough. I can remember very few occasions when I did wander off with a pink bum and it is not as if it really hurts, it's just quite a shock to receive such a punishment from a loving parent.
Child abuse it most certainly isn't.

Me too. Horses for courses I guess, for instance am not sure the threat of not watching TV would have been of any use, I didn't really watch much of it.

It does no one any good mislabelling discipline as abuse ETA or "pointless"...certainly wasn't pointless when I was on the receiving end...it had exactly the desired result.

Back to the OP though...I can certainly see your point but, playing devils avocado, could it not be taken by some as "nanny state interference"? Where does that label begin and end?

Edited by DrTre on Friday 12th June 13:39

[andy400]

Tiggsy said:

andy400 said:

Tiggsy said:

OMFG? are you under 16...if so, your opinion is biased in this debate!

I am saying i see NO benifit to a smack for the child....i see a benifit to the adult only.

Your post clearly states that the only reason you would hit a child is to make you feel better.

Word it better if you don't want to be picked up for it, old sport!

i worded it right. i see NO reason to hit a child OTHER than to feel better myself..to vent. On that basis, the only thing to be gained from hitting them would be that...for me. I dont hit them much because i dont feel the need to put my need to vent ahead of hurting them.

You worded it right?? Bloody hell.

Backing away slowly from this disturbing discussion........