Smacking Ban

[Strider]

It's been on the radio and news today about how MPs are attempting to force a smacking ban into both England an Wales. (BBC NEWS SITE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7657878.stm))

Even though i could imagine it being difficult/impossible to enforce i would like to know where the people of N-E stand on the matter. Do you agree with smacking kids or are you against?

My View:
I was smacked as a kid when i was misbehaving, not especially hard, but hard enough to know that i shouldn't have been doing whatever it was that i shouldn't have. Basically it just taught me not to do it again. Therefore i don't mind people smacking kids if they're misbehaving, so long as they know when enough is enough.

Thoughts...

[uəʌəsʎɐɾ]

More evidence of a nanny state. I said "yes, I agree with smacking" because I was smacked, and I'm pretty much ok. The government works this way all the time; imagine that you have this tree and there's a rotten branch but you can't quite reach it. It's not really affecting the other branches, but it still isn't right to leave the tree rotting like that. So you chop the whole FUCKING TREE DOWN.

... Yeah that simile needs a bit of work.

[Jimbob]

My thoughts: Yes, parents should be able to smack their own children if they are misbehaving. I misbehaved so i was smacked when i was younger and it taught me to not do what i did again and to listen to your parents. If this law was passed then i think the whole UK would have un-controllable kids even more so than now

On the positive side of this law, there would be little chance of properly enforcing it because parents would still smack their kids and put up a fight against this law being passed and so on.

[rokhed00]

A good spanking never hurt anyone.

[nightwolf]

I had to switch the tv off this morning, I got that annoyed at the argument.

I was clipped on the back of the legs as a kid, so were my parents and grandparents.

Do I remember any of it? No! It's ridiculous how the government want to control how parents bring up their children, don't get me wrong I can understand that it can be taken to far, as with everything, but it's just getting out of proportion.

A woman on tv this morning was saying about having items taken away from a child instead. Nuhuh...useless. As a child if I had something taken away from me I'd only scream louder and be more annoying.

It's similar to walking into something, pain tells you not to do it again.

edit: smacking to me is quite a big word, clipping or tapping a kid compared to slapping them in the face haha ^_^

[Android18a]

Smacking absolutely should be allowed. Kids understand pain, or the threat thereof... they don't care about "punishments" like "no supper" or "no sweets"... of course, smacking shouldn't just be done willy-nilly for the hell of it either.

[Pookiablo]

A good spanking never hurt anyone.

Nuff said.

[g0recki]

I don't think smacking works.

However I don't think banning it is appropriate. It would criminalise well-meaning people who have a different opinion from me on how to discipline their sprogs.

[King_V]

A good spanking never hurt anyone.

...Infact, i got quite a lot of pleasure out of it mmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Saying the word "no" teaches nothing. Especially with my nephew as when you say no the request goes from "Can I..." to "I want to...". The threatening of a beating may shut them up, but soon they'll learn you're full of shit and challenge you properly.

As many here I was smacked as a kid, and either way my kids are going to get it also. Saying "No" doesn't teach proper positive/negative reinforcement. They need to understand that bad things = pain.

[Mr_Odwin]

My opinion has changed over time. Pre-parenthood I thought that smacking would be okay, but now I don't see a need for it.

There are alternative punishments that work that don't involve violence (that's what it is).

Naughty steps are the way forward. Has anyone seen Supernanny? Often the kids on there are being smacked but misbehave wildly because it is generally done in anger, which relieves only the parent. If there's a non-violent option and a violent option I think we should go for the non-violent.

I don't think it should be banned, but the old adage violence begets violence rings true.

[EEVILMURRAY]

That's all Supernanny seems to be about. I've seen roughly 3 [not all the way through] and all it involves is naughty steps, with an element of some point system. And it never seems to work, you chase them down and look them in the eye and shout [in a stern tone] to remind them that they are your bitch.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I don't believe violence is needed to bring up children. Discipline, yes, but violence - nono. Violence ain't the answer, peeps. Not in my book it isn't.

[ReZourceman]

Im indifferent to smacking children.

I could take them or leave it.

[Jordan]

I'm really against it. I was never smacked as a child, its an incredibly stupid way of teaching children right from wrong. What are we animals? (okay, we technically are, but we have a larger range of communication skills.)

[D_prOdigy]

In some cases, it probably is needed. I don't believe it influences children to be violent themselves, myself case in point, I'm the most non-violent person I know.

And it's also the only language the little buggers ever understand.

[Cube]

It should be up to the parents.

[Gentleben]

A good smacking/beating followed by some shaking never hurt anyone..right?

I was smacked as a child never did me any harm. But in todays culture/society it's frowned upon. I guess every parent has their own way of enforcing their childs behaviour and so long as it doesn't become overly violent/child abuse I don't think a little smack from time to time is uncalled for.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

And it's also the only language the little buggers ever understand.

It's opinions like this that I hate. Do people think kids are animals that need to have sense beaten into them?

[D_prOdigy]

It's opinions like this that I hate. Do people think kids are animals that need to have sense beaten into them?

Westernised culture has determined yes. Yes they are.

[rokhed00]

A great method of controlling unruly boys they used back in victorian times, and to a lesser extent today, is petticoat punishment. Just dress them up as little girls, gets all the fight out of them and they are much more compliant.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Westernised culture has determined yes. Yes they are.

What's that supposed to mean?

[Gentleben]

A great method of controlling unruly boys they used back in victorian times, and to a lesser extent today, is petticoat punishment. Just dress them up as little girls, gets all the fight out of them and they are much more compliant.

I can't see that working today. But it is a pretty funny/embrassing punishment.

[EEVILMURRAY]

It's opinions like this that I hate. Do people think kids are animals that need to have sense beaten into them?
Having a stern talk about them being a naughty boy doesn't really work when they can't understand shit.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Having a stern talk about them being a naughty boy doesn't really work when they can't understand shit.

Do you see the pattern here? You all presume kids are stupid and evil per definition. It's all about upbringing. And frankly, in my opinion, many parents are the ones who don't understand shit today.

[rokhed00]

I can't see that working today. But it is a pretty funny/embrassing punishment.

Can't see many kids causing trouble dressed like that, specially not with the threat of inviting all their mates over to see them like that.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Do you see the pattern here? You all presume kids are stupid and evil per definition. It's all about upbringing. And frankly, in my opinion, many parents are the ones who don't understand shit today.
I didn't say all kids. I'm talking about when they're really young, thus they can't understand words on the whole.

[D_prOdigy]

A great method of controlling unruly boys they used back in victorian times, and to a lesser extent today, is petticoat punishment. Just dress them up as little girls, gets all the fight out of them and they are much more compliant.

You learn something new every day. That's bloody genius, though.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I didn't say all kids. I'm talking about when they're really young, thus they can't understand words on the whole.

But they're not evil at that point. They're just curious. It's natural. Surely they shouldn't be smacked for that.

[Jonnas]

Honestly, they shouldn't ban smacking. It's a last resort kind of thing. If the kids keep disobeying time after time, or if they do something really bad, something equally serious is needed.

Of course, there's child abuse, but there are laws againt that already.

[MoogleViper]

No they shouldn't ban it.

Why? Because the problem children aren't the ones who have been smacked, they are the ones that get no discipline.

To people who are saying that there are better ways of smacking, that may be so, and that's your decision. But it's up to a parent to decide what they believe best for their child.

[EEVILMURRAY]

But they're not evil at that point. They're just curious. It's natural. Surely they shouldn't be smacked for that.
Ok, I'm going to go stab someone. I'm not evil [despite what the name says], I'm just goddam curious.

[Tellyn]

I was as a child, but not hard, just hard enough to know that I shouldn't be doing whatever I was doing. I've turned out fine, I'm not violent and don't go out stabbing pensioners for pocket change. I agree with it providing the kids aren't being beaten to a bloody pulp. I don't really think banning it will do anything positive though, they should be looking to sterilise chavs, really.

[Shino]

Is punching ok?

Smacking is not entirely necessary, but is a good option.

Danny boy, kids ARE animals. It takes them time do develop their brain and even conciousness. Of course it depends of their age, but by 5 they should know that a smack means the parents are really pissed.

[MoogleViper]

Pain is nature's way of teaching us when something is wrong. When I was a child I never knew what the fag lighter thing was. When we were camping I decided to put my thumb on it. Needless to say I've never done it again.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Ok, I'm going to go stab someone. I'm not evil [despite what the name says], I'm just goddam curious.
You clearly don't get the point here ...

I still find violence wrong. No matter how you put it, I still find it wrong.

[EEVILMURRAY]

You clearly don't get the point here ...
I get what your point is, I just disagree.

[Sooj]

I was smacked as a kid, I believe that it has actually had a positive effect on my personality. I'm a great guy haha

I don't believe in beating a child up, for obvious reasons but a smack on the bum is fine in my books.

When I have children, in fact even with my little brothers/cousin's children I just have to look at them in a certain way or if I had to, I would shout and they would get a fright and do as they were told.

I would never smack but just because I wouldn't do it doesn't mean I would look down on other people who do. If it works for you then do it within reason, there is no need to ban smacking.

[MoogleViper]

You clearly don't get the point here ...

I still find violence wrong. No matter how you put it, I still find it wrong.

When I was in year 8 one of my friends used to get bullied on the school bus home. Now this kid was quite a big bully. Always hung around with a gang of people intimidating others. One day as me friend was about to get off of the bus, this kid starts bullying him, so my friend turns round and punches the guy in the face. After that the guy was always friendly with my friend and even with me. And I hardly ever saw him bully anyone again.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I get what your point is, I just disagree.

No, you don't. You know stabbing is wrong. Children don't. You can't teach children till a certain age what is right and wrong. You just keep them from doing it.

I think we need to make clear that there is a difference between babies/toddlers and from about age 5 and up. Babies/toddlers are not old enough to be taught what is right and wrong. But they're so young that they're easily influenced without the need for violence.

When they get older, you begin to teach them WHY something is wrong, slowly buolding their moral grounds. Smacking only teaches them fear, which isn't the same as respect. Children should have a good relationship with their parents. Respect is what drives a well-functioning society. Fear is what drives a dictatorship.

I hate going to extremes like this, but it seems I have to to explain what I mean.

[EEVILMURRAY]

You can't teach children till a certain age what is right and wrong. You just keep them from doing it.
You wish to bubblewrap them? But they're so curious!

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

When I was in year 8 one of my friends used to get bullied on the school bus home. Now this kid was quite a big bully. Always hung around with a gang of people intimidating others. One day as me friend was about to get off of the bus, this kid starts bullying him, so my friend turns round and punches the guy in the face. After that the guy was always friendly with my friend and even with me. And I hardly ever saw him bully anyone again.

Fighting fire with fire? Not the way to go. Force only ups resistance and it escalates. Sure, maybe it works in some lucky cases, but imagine if the bully had gotten mad - one way ticket to the hospital.

You wish to bubblewrap them? But they're so curious!

Sorry, but would you mind trying to explain instead of being sarcastic? I really don't see your point.

[MoogleViper]

I think we need to make clear that there is a difference between babies/toddlers and from about age 5 and up. Babies/toddlers are not old enough to be taught what is right and wrong. But they're so young that they're easily influenced without the need for violence.


I wouldn't hit a baby/toddler. And yes I would teach them what right and wrong are. But children toe the line. And sometimes they won't listen. Smacking would be used as a last resort. But they need to know that there is a greater punishment for going too far.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I wouldn't hit a baby/toddler. And yes I would teach them what right and wrong are. But children toe the line. And sometimes they won't listen. Smacking would be used as a last resort. But they need to know that there is a greater punishment for going too far.

I know I'll get attacked severely for this, but I believe that if brought up properly, kids wouldn't behave in a way that was bad enough to require hitting them. Hitting is just the ultimate sign of giving up. It shows you can't bring up your children without fear.

That's how I see it. You see it differently. But none of us really have the experience needed, have we? None of us have tried to bring up a child from scratch.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Fighting fire with fire? Not the way to go. Force only ups resistance and it escalates. Sure, maybe it works in some lucky cases, but imagine if the bully had gotten mad - one way ticket to the hospital.

Force escalates I agree with, but I can't see it happening with a kid, assuming they keep upping the disobedience.

I assume you're a fan of incarceration then?
Sorry, but would you mind trying to explain instead of being sarcastic? I really don't see your point.
If you take away the last sentence, that's about it.

[Slaggis]

I think as a last resort, if your child is behaving in such a way that it's out of control then yes I don't see anything wrong in doing it. I was smacked as a child, but only on rare occasions when I was being a complete dick. The only thing is, I'm sure it has adverse effects on the relationship between the child and the parent doing the smacking later on in development.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Force escalates I agree with, but I can't see it happening with a kid, assuming they keep upping the disobedience.

I assume you're a fan of incarceration then?

If you take away the last sentence, that's about it.

Incarceration, as in imprisonment? Well, I wouldn't say I'm a fan of any type of punishment, and the preemptive effect isn't as effective as we could have wished. Which is why people need to be taught why doing something is wrong, not just be scared away from doing it. They don't learn anything from that.

By your last sentence, I assume you mean I'm being sarcastic instead of explaining myself? But I have explained myself. A toddler doesn't know what is right and wrong. It's human nature to be curious. But a toddler is too young to be taught what is right and wrong, ergo we need to keep them away from doing bad stuff until they're old enough to understand. You, on the other hand, should know why curiousity isn't even near being an excuse for stabbing someone.

[Kirkatronics]

Dependant on how you word it effects peoples oppinions.
Do you think its right to smack a child?
Do you think its right to hit a child?
Do you think its right to slap a child?
Personally i think a light slap/smack is aqcceptable, but the line of acceptable and unacceptable is very fine.

People have different oppinions on what is too hard and what isnt ahrd enough, ive seen kids cry after the softest tap ever and children not evenflicker an eye lid after an all out smack.

Ifelt more sorry for the child in tears personally.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I think as a last resort, if your child is behaving in such a way that it's out of control then yes I don't see anything wrong in doing it. I was smacked as a child, but only on rare occasions when I was being a complete dick. The only thing is, I'm sure it has adverse effects on the relationship between the child and the parent doing the smacking later on in development.

And that's exactly the point. It's not good for the relationship between the parents and the child. The child should learn to respect its parents, not fear them.

And if it's a last resort, like I said, it's the ultimate act of surrender.

[Paj!]

Thing is, it's all the extremes.

I agreed, since there've been loads of times I would gladly have slapped digusting children. (And by children, I mean like 9+, so they know what they're doing)

On very young children, I think it's innapropriate, but yeah.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Incarceration, as in imprisonment? Well, I wouldn't say I'm a fan of any type of punishment, and the preemptive effect isn't as effective as we could have wished. Which is why people need to be taught why doing something is wrong, not just be scared away from doing it. They don't learn anything from that.

By your last sentence, I assume you mean I'm being sarcastic instead of explaining myself? But I have explained myself. A toddler doesn't know what is right and wrong. It's human nature to be curious. But a toddler is too young to be taught what is right and wrong, ergo we need to keep them away from doing bad stuff until they're old enough to understand. You, on the other hand, should know why curiousity isn't even near being an excuse for stabbing someone.
I'm not sure if you're getting my point either, because you keep using the word sarcastic as if it's the entire basis for our banging debate.

That aside, you're not a fan of pimpsmacking, you're not a fan of locking up. What do you think is your best method of teaching them? You keep mentioning about "teaching them" what is right and wrong, but you don't say how, do you give them a little lecture or something and hope they understand?

[Ramar]

Shit I thought the question said "do you agree with the smacking ban" and voted no. So count one of those nos and a yes if you really care that much.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I'm not sure if you're getting my point either, because you keep using the word sarcastic as if it's the entire basis for our banging debate.

That aside, you're not a fan of pimpsmacking, you're not a fan of locking up. What do you think is your best method of teaching them? You keep mentioning about "teaching them" what is right and wrong, but you don't say how, do you give them a little lecture or something and hope they understand?

Actually, yes. I know it sounds stupid and that it won't work on some and etc. But my philosophy is this: From infancy, we tell kids what they should and shouldn't do. Don't try to explain to them why, as they're too young to understand. Later on, you begin to explain to them the reasons for some things being right and wrong. My philosophy is to try to make children responsible human beings. I know, it sounds awfully paedagogical, but that's my opinion.

[MoogleViper]

Incarceration, as in imprisonment? Well, I wouldn't say I'm a fan of any type of punishment, and the preemptive effect isn't as effective as we could have wished. Which is why people need to be taught why doing something is wrong, not just be scared away from doing it. They don't learn anything from that.

Actually, yes. I know it sounds stupid and that it won't work on some and etc. But my philosophy is this: From infancy, we tell kids what they should and shouldn't do. Don't try to explain to them why, as they're too young to understand. Later on, you begin to explain to them the reasons for some things being right and wrong. My philosophy is to try to make children responsible human beings. I know, it sounds awfully paedagogical, but that's my opinion.

I think you live in some sort of dream world or you have never encountered the sorts of people who commit crimes. Many people aren't brought up with any sense or right or wrong. And you think a lecture will change that? They aren't even scared of prison. They know that they are unlikely to be caught and if they are then they will be out in 6 months time.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I think you live in some sort of dream world or you have never encountered the sorts of people who commit crimes. Many people aren't brought up with any sense or right or wrong. And you think a lecture will change that? They aren't even scared of prison. They know that they are unlikely to be caught and if they are then they will be out in 6 months time.

Note that I said that they need to be taught it from childhood. If they don't learn it then, it's very hard to change their behaviour. Which is why we need things like prison.

[Serebii]

Alternative to smacking...electro shock.

They haven't banned that yet have they? It'll get the kid knowing that whatt they did is not acceptable. I was smacked when I was unruly as a younger child...now I'm a very good adult, would never do anything wrong unless I fully believe that what I'm doing is right.

[Ville]

I know I'll get attacked severely for this, but I believe that if brought up properly, kids wouldn't behave in a way that was bad enough to require hitting them. Hitting is just the ultimate sign of giving up. It shows you can't bring up your children without fear.

I agree. Non-violence all the way.

I remember getting a fillip or two (learning new words :D) in my childhood, but nothing more. No bad memories or anything. Still, I don't see fear and violence as a method of upbringing myself, though children can no doubt be very unruly at times. However, I'd rather keep on exploring alternative options instead of resorting to any kind of violence. I think smacking children is now illegal in Finland anyway.

[Paj!]

Does anyone else see the thread title of this on first glance as "Smacking Ben"?

I thought it might be some new rad TV show.

[MoogleViper]

Does anyone else see the thread title of this on first glance as "Smacking Ben"?

I thought it might be some new rad TV show.

Haha what a coincidence. I've just read it as that before I came in, having been in a few times and not reading it as that.

[Kirkatronics]

Alternative to smacking...electro shock.

They haven't banned that yet have they? It'll get the kid knowing that whatt they did is not acceptable. I was smacked when I was unruly as a younger child...now I'm a very good adult, would never do anything wrong unless I fully believe that what I'm doing is right.
Works both ways though, im a good lad and i never got smacked even when i was out of control.

[Zero]

I was slapped on the wrist as a kid if I done something wrong and I would say it worked.

If you think a slap on the wrist or a clip behind the ear is violent then let's hope you don't get mugged and beaten anytime soon.

[ShadowV7]

I went for yes. I got smacked as a kid and it done me good, shows kids can't get away with everything, what's a light telling off and sent to a room gonna do anyway.

[The fish]

I'm worried by the fact that 43 people on this forum approve of the idea that the only person you can legally assault or batter in this country is your own child.

[Roostophe]

^ So a good old-fashioned clip around the ear is classed as "assault" in your case?

[ShadowV7]

Are you kidding? The word 'assault' or 'batter' is far to strong of a word. If you pat someone on the shoulder that's not a push is it?

If the kid does something to earn a smack or anything to show what he/she's done bad, it shows that what the did do was something they shouldn't do again. Send them up to their room where they spend most of their time anyway to show what they did was wrong...

Not as if moaning at them will do anything, just end up doing it again since the parents won't or can't do anything about it.

[The fish]

^ So a good old-fashioned clip around the ear is classed as "assault" in your case?

It's still an assault (hitting someone with the intention of hurting them is most definitely battery), and being traditional doesn't make it acceptable. A parent shouldn't need to hit a child, if they've brought them up properly.

[Serebii]

I went for yes. I got smacked as a kid and it done me good, shows kids can't get away with everything, what's a light telling off and sent to a room gonna do anyway.
"Whoa no, your room is full of toys. Go to the...garage!"
http://www.serebii.net/garage.jpg

That just sprung to mind :p

[The fish]

Are you kidding? The word 'assault' or 'batter' is far to strong of a word. If you pat someone on the shoulder that's not a push is it?

If the kid does something to earn a smack or anything to show what he/she's done bad, it shows that what the did do was something they shouldn't do again. Send them up to their room where they spend most of their time anyway to show what they did was wrong...

Not as if moaning at them will do anything, just end up doing it again since the parents won't or can't do anything about it.

Patting someone on the shoulder is, actually, technically an assault...

Sending a child to their room works, providing you don't, say, put a TV in it first. A parent shouldn't need to batter their child to show them they can't do what ever they like.

[Roostophe]

You're disciplining a child, not beating the snot out of them. It's a whole world away from the normal types of assault like mugging and beating.

And patting someone on the shoulder is "assault"? Even if you have evidence, that's just bollocks.

[Serebii]

It's still an assault (hitting someone with the intention of hurting them is most definitely battery), and being traditional doesn't make it acceptable. A parent shouldn't need to hit a child, if they've brought them up properly.
At the age that a child is logically smackable (I'm thinking 4 to 10ish), they arent brought up fully yet and they're doing these things to test the boundaries

[The fish]

You're disciplining a child, not beating the snot out of them. It's a whole world away from the normal types of assault like mugging and beating.

Neither of them are assault, oddly enough.

I love the way people who support the battery of children use the term "disciplining", it almost sounds acceptable. There are ways of disciplining kids without hitting them. If hitting them is all you can think of, then you shouldn't have kids...

And patting someone on the shoulder is "assault"? Even if you have evidence, that's just bollocks.

Touching someone without their prior permission is assault. Doing so with any significant force is battery.

[Serebii]

Neither of them are assault, oddly enough.

I love the way people who support the battery of children use the term "disciplining", it almost sounds acceptable. There are ways of disciplining kids without hitting them. If hitting them is all you can think of, then you shouldn't have kids...



Touching someone without their prior permission is assault. Doing so with any significant force is battery.
In my eyes, smacking is a last resort...if they continue to play up despite what you do then you give them a smack. Of course other disciplining techniques come first...what do you take us for? Vikings?

[The fish]

At the age that a child is logically smackable (I'm thinking 4 to 10ish), they arent brought up fully yet and they're doing these things to test the boundaries

You still don't have to hit them. Send them to their room, and make sure that their room is not a place they want to spend lots of their time whilst awake.

In my eyes, smacking is a last resort...if they continue to play up despite what you do then you give them a smack. Of course other disciplining techniques come first...what do you take us for? Vikings?

I think you're just being stupid. You seem to think that just because they're your offspring you have the moral high ground if you hit them. The fact that they're a defenceless child makes it all the more worse. Try doing the same thing to someone in the street, and see what happens.

[Flaight]

I think Dannyboy makes a good point, from intellectual perspective. What I don't agree, though, is the underlying assumption that a very young child can be taught effectively through a dialogue. By dialogue, I mean a discussion between 2 people in order to "pass on the wisdom". This doesn't require "reasoning" ability. Just a matter of inheriting the wisdom at face value. I believe many young children are unable to do this.

I have 2 points here on this:

1,
I believe every child is different, as in extreme cases a child prodigy learns to read and reason by the age of 3. Some years later, some go on to develop mathematical or linguistic skills that goes beyond those of adults. So, I can see that some kids do have a greater capacity than others. But, assuming that for every child seems unreasonable. It's a very small proportion of babies who are born that way.

2,
We all have the tendency to drift down the easier path. It's human nature to choose an easier path, when there are choices. Learning through "fear" is the fundamental learning tool we instinctively have, as we inherited it from the Animal Kingdom.

Before we gain the ability to listen and inherit the wisdom of other people, this elemental fear is what will change our fundamental behaviour. In my view, it's how you use it which decides whether it was good or evil. In other words, I don't see smacking itself as the root of the problem. Rather, the application and context surrounding the act of smacking, that is the problem.

In fact, even in adulthood we repeatedly make mistakes. Many of us speed while driving, until one day we go through a life & death experience. Many of us spend money when we shouldn't, till we're debt ridden and everything gets taken away. These painful lessons often penetrate to the depth of our hearts more than when we're just reading about it in a book. In other words, even in adulthood, "reasoning" does not equal to "changing our ways".

Naturally some of us have greater discipline than others, but there is no unifying model out there into which all of us can fit. The point is, even in adulthood, often "fear" is the decisive factor which allows us to change our ways.

So, in a way, the difference may be that I just interpret "fear" as often a good thing (or call it a necessary evil, if that phrase sits better with you). Until we find another way to tap into this elemental fear in a person (maybe in the future we might have a helmet which sends a weak electric current into our brain to create the same effect), I think smacking should be a part of upbringing.

[ShadowV7]

That doesn't work at all. You need to discipline kids so they know twhat they done was bad and get an appropriate outcome. If your kid went out, jumped and beat someone up, you won't just go "Go to your room", even if you do take stuff out, they're still getting away with it and they don't get punished for it.

I got sent to my room for hours with my TV/Computer etc gone. There's always something to do and it solves nothing and you just don't learn.

[Serebii]

Oh so if your child is going around, trashing the place, breaking things and being generally unruly, and they wont listen to you saying for them to go to their room or that <INSERTITEMHERE> is off limits to them for X days/weeks/months, then you wouldnt physically grab them, possibly smack them once and just sort them out? Please. Don't try taking the moral high-ground here

[Flaight]

Just so that you all know, I am all for smacking... (if that long post was too long to make that clear)

[The fish]

I got sent to my room for hours with my TV/Computer etc gone. There's always something to do and it solves nothing and you just don't learn.

Well, I never had a TV or computer in my room until I was 17, so it works providing the place the kid is sent is void of "fun".

Oh so if your child is going around, trashing the place, breaking things and being generally unruly, and they wont listen to you saying for them to go to their room or that <INSERTITEMHERE> is off limits to them for X days/weeks/months, then you wouldnt physically grab them, possibly smack them once and just sort them out? Please. Don't try taking the moral high-ground here

No, I wouldn't. I don't ever hit people unless it's in defence, and I doubt my own child would pose a serious threat...

[Jonnas]

Well, I never had a TV or computer in my room until I was 17, so it works providing the place the kid is sent is void of "fun".

What place do you suggest, then? An empty room is the only thing I can think of.

[ipaul]

I voted yes but I wouldn't smack my kids and I think parents should avoid it all costs where possible. However, the Government can fuck right off where this is concerned, it is a matter for the individual. Do they just think we have a nation of bad parents or something? Sick of all these laws and autocratic measures by these people :angry:

[The fish]

What place do you suggest, then? An empty room is the only thing I can think of.

A bedroom, but without a TV or computer in, for starters...

[EEVILMURRAY]

Alternative to smacking...electro shock.
I "read" an article that they were going to start using cattle prods in Australia on people who took the piss finding a job.
You still don't have to hit them. Send them to their room, and make sure that their room is not a place they want to spend lots of their time whilst awake.
They have to be scared of going to their own room? Where they can watch TV and play games etc.
Well, I never had a TV or computer in my room until I was 17, so it works providing the place the kid is sent is void of "fun".
I would say you're one of the rare ones, but I'm not sure. But even if you lacked a TV or computer, I daresay you had some delightful toys you could play with or books to pass the time of your punishment. You'd certainly learn that way.

I don't think it's been posted here yet, but the Maddox advice on child punishment is a real eye opener.
www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat
Website isn't working for me at present.

[Emasher]

I would have to say I agree with your government. Canada has had this law for years now.

There are much better ways to solve problems without resorting to violence.

[Zell]

I guess smacking can be related to pain reflexes and the like as a young child. Children sort of associate pain with "wrong", if you get what I'm saying: if a child touches a flame, pain tells them that they won't do it again. Similarly if a child feels pain after misbehaving then they will learn that it's wrong. So I have no doubt that it as effective way to discipline a child.

I think people relate smacking too much to child abuse, which is wrong since smacking doesn't cause any harm. Obviously though it shouldn't be used all the time, just when the child has been really bad or is completely out of control.

[Shino]

What if there's no room around? What if you're in the middle of a restaurant and your kind is throwing food at other people? You can try to reason him to death and make him understand that he's hurting the other persons feelings but you'll be the one losing.

And why is enclosure morally better than a little smacking? After denying the kid's freedom, should we deny food and water? Besides, kids are extremely creative, an empty room is full of possibilities.

I've seen parents that won't even yell at their kids and they just keep getting what they wish. I'm don't like bullies (having been bullied myself) but they do have a good part in this, as soon as this spoiled kids get to school they soon learn that there's always someone bigger (I've seen this happen to my cousins and other kids).

[Emasher]

Its not a question of wether or not its effective, its a question of wether or not its right.

[Iun]

Its not a question of wether or not its effective, its a question of wether or not its right.

What? Seriously, what?

Of course it's right!

The problem is the generation of children who were brough up by hippies are now starting to breed and they weren't smacked like they should have been.

Smacking is NOT the only form of punishment, in fact it should be the very LAST weapon n your arsenal. But that does not mean you should be afraid to use it.

Shouting, exclusion, naughty steps, the corner, removal of privileges are all effective when used in the right manner. The firm whack across the very much deserving backside of the little shit who believes himself immune to punishment should be used to snap the little bastard back into reality.

But again, it's about balance. If you smack for every offence, then the child knows that no matter what he does wrong, he will receive the same punishment. Similarly, if you discipline for trivial offences like fidgeting or playing with hair, then the child thinks it really does not matter what he or she does, because they will always be punished for it. So therefore the child just ignores the rules as irrelevant, because they will always be in the wrong.

The rule of three is a damn good way of getting things sorted:

Stage one: Tell the child what you want e.g. "stop biting your sister"

If the child does not respond, go to Stage 2.

Stage 2: Tell the child what you want, and the consequences of not doing it.

"Stop biting your sister, or you will go and stand in the corner."

If the child does not does as he/she is told, then immediately enact the consequences at Stage 3.

Stage 3: "You did not stop biting your sister, now you stand in the corner." Take child, place in corner.

The issue here is that a lot of people get to stage 3 and then the child says they will stop being naughty. Igore them. They had adequate chance to comply, and now it is time to show the consequences of their actions.

Punishments should also always be immediate and appropriate. If you wait to discipline a child, then they can dissociate the action with the result, and repeat it again.

This is not the only way to do things, but it is generaqlly a good starting point. Some children will not respond and there are other methods. Such as a good smack.

For example, we had a child in our kindergarten who was just basically a piece of shit with legs. Rude, inconsiderate of other kids around him and a general spoilsport whenever he did not get what he wanted. We tried so many methods of discipline with him: exclusion, the rule of three, rewards for good behaviour... we even asked his parents what they did with hime. The answer was unsurprisingly "At home, he can do whatever he likes. We're too busy enjoying our social life and watching TV to take the time."

The solution: WHACK!

One day he was subjected to the rule of three, and the consequence was a smack. It scared him shitless. He'd been living in his own little world where he was king for so long that he could just ignore reality. The swift, forewarned consequence of his action snapped him back ino reality. Ever since then: model pupil.

You tried the rest, there was only one solution remaining. Of course, schools in the West aren't prone to smacking kids, in fact I was shocked at my colleague for what she did, but it turned out it was exactly what he needed.

[Jonnas]

A bedroom, but without a TV or computer in, for starters...

Books, Action figures, Footballs, Legos, Jumping on the bed, climbing bookshelves and tables, etc.

Kids can have fun with a lot of stuff.
The point is, they won't necessarily see "going to your room" as a punishment.

[Dazz]

I don't think it should be banned. As everyone has said here, a little clip tells you not to do it again. If you just take away their stuff and say you can't have it for such an amount of time, then they are just going to moan and scream at you.

I know there are parents out there who take it just a little too far and I disagree with that, but I had clips when I was doing something I wasn't supposed to do. I think almost everyone has had clips when they were a child.

But I think there shouldn't be a ban on it.

[Rummy]

My opinion has changed over time. Pre-parenthood I thought that smacking would be okay, but now I don't see a need for it.

There are alternative punishments that work that don't involve violence (that's what it is).

Naughty steps are the way forward. Has anyone seen Supernanny? Often the kids on there are being smacked but misbehave wildly because it is generally done in anger, which relieves only the parent. If there's a non-violent option and a violent option I think we should go for the non-violent.

I don't think it should be banned, but the old adage violence begets violence rings true.

I agree(and with later posts, this is the first I read and quoted). However, I also agree with Cube that it should be up to the parents.
Me personally, I took a good old beating as a child, I wouldn't say my parents were abusive, it was just how they were raised(physical discipline maybe being a bit more extreme than the average child's over here). Though on that note, my dad never really hit my sister, only me and my brother, and my mum kind of hit us all equally(come to think of it, not my sister so much!) but yeah, both my parents hit us but they still tried different things. Some people might look on some of the things I could tell you and say it was too far, but I think it only ever went too far two or three times that I remember. The biggest thing of note though? I don't begrudge my parents for it at all(though of course I did at the time), because I'll admit I'm a little angry sometimes and people have jokingly blamed a harsh upbringing(i guess we can't say though) but on top of that, I think I'm a rather awesome person and I think my parents did an amazing job to raise me like this. It makes me seriously worried for when I have kids, will I ever be able to do the job as well as they did? On which note, my parents were also more strict than my friends' on average(was allowed out alot less, had to be in earlier, no tv in my room, no games on weekdays), and in the later years I had to break free of it, but I'm still glad.

Also Danny, it's all well and good trying to say you just tell your kids what to do, but you've already said that children are naturally curious, just telling will not work, they need to understand it and sometimes they don't. In fact, you try and TELL you children not to do something with no reason as to why, I'd say there's a 90% chance they'll try and do it when you're not looking.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

To the comment about my argumentation being intellectual, I can only agree. :) My thinking will always be very intellectual, though I also like to think of myself as socially thinking.

I have had time since yesterday to think about it, and while I on the whole still don't agree with you, I can see your points. I was told a story by some of friends that for a period of time some years ago, their daughter had been completely hysterical to the point where they couldn't even get through to her. A slap in the face brought her out of it, just like a slap in the face is used to get people out of a state of shock. It turned out she may have had some psychological problems somewhere in her unconscious that she was later treated for through hypnosis, after which she calmed completely down.

Reading people's well-argued opinions, I have reached the conclusion that it's a very grey area with many nuances. It seems almost impossible to set up anything but guidelines regarding upbrining, as children are vastly different. Even though they get most of their personality through upbringing (especially in the youngest years where the right upbringing is thus of utmost importance), they still have very different reaction patterns from birth.

My conclusion is that a slap might be the only solution in extreme cases where nothing else can be used to get through. But many of you still seem to think that children behave badly and will cross any rule regardless of prior upbringing. My theory (i.e. the theory of a 17 year old male) is that if brought up properly from the beginning, they won't do anything so bad that they need smacking.

I like Iun's 3-step-method very much, especially because I like the idea of showing children that actions have consequences. It fits very nicely with my intellectual way of thinking. :heh: I still find smacking to the wrong way to go, though.

If anyone is wondering, laying hand on your child has been illegal in Denmark since 1997.

----------

Sorry if the above seems a little rambling. I had a lot that I wanted to say, so it may be a little unorganised.

[Jim]

Glad to see the yes's are winning, by a large margin. There is some sense left in the world..

[EEVILMURRAY]

Danny, it almost seems like you're admitting you were wrong but not completely. :s

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Danny, it almost seems like you're admitting you were wrong but not completely. :s

I admit to the fact you guys have made me think about my opinion with your good arguments. I must say, though, that I find it complicated and confusing. That being said, I still find laying hand on you children - even if it's only a smack - very wrong. It's just so wrong in my head. Blame my upbringing for that. I had a difficult childhood because I suffered from Autism, something I have since almost completely overcome, but it resulted in me having a very deep relationship with my parents. I was extremely dependent on them, so I really felt bad about doing something I knew I wasn't supposed to do. Not to say I didn't do things I wasn't supposed to do, but my parents' disappointment was often just too much for me.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Autism aside, were you pimpsmacked as a kid?

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Autism aside, were you pimpsmacked as a kid?

Nope, never. Considering my state, it would only have been for the worse.

[MoogleViper]

My conclusion is that a slap might be the only solution in extreme cases where nothing else can be used to get through. But many of you still seem to think that children behave badly and will cross any rule regardless of prior upbringing. My theory (i.e. the theory of a 17 year old male) is that if brought up properly from the beginning, they won't do anything so bad that they need smacking.

You're right, to a certain extent. But to say they will never misbehave and will always obey the rules then you're living in a dream world.

For starters children learn what is wrong by doing what is wrong. They learn that it is wrong by the punishment and consequences. So they will misbehave at some point no matter how well their upbringing.

Also you aren't in control of you children 24/7 they go to school. Maybe you lived in a nice area but I lived in quite a rough area, where primary school children smoked, and stole and vandalised. You can't hide your children from this. So you need to teach them that it is wrong. But peer pressure is a powerful thing. And one day that child is going to do something that oversteps the line, and if all they get is the punishment that they receive when they do things that are a lot less worse, then they will think, "If I get the same punishment for both of these things then I may as well do the worse one." Or something along those lines. A smack tells them that there is a punishment worse than the naughty step. And it tells them that what they have done is very wrong.

[The fish]

Glad to see the yes's are winning, by a large margin. There is some sense left in the world..

Yeah, thanks god we can still legally assault those who can't defend themselves! What would the world be like without that!

Oh, wait, it would be better...

Autism aside, were you pimpsmacked as a kid?

I wasn't either, and neither was my sister. My father is a senior nurse specialist/manager working in child and adolescent mental health - he's been in the field long enough to notice the correlation between getting hit and being badly behaved. As such, he (nor my mother) never hit either of us.

[MoogleViper]

Yeah, thanks god we can still legally assault those who can't defend themselves! What would the world be like without that!

Oh, wait, it would be better...

Assault? Get real. If you want to go down that route then I could say that forcing your child to stay in a room with no fun is taking away his human rights.

And a better world? Most of the complete dicks in this world were brought up without any discipline. And we want to limit the amount of discipline a parent can use? What a fucking joke.

[Jonnas]

Yeah, thanks god we can still legally assault those who can't defend themselves! What would the world be like without that!

Oh, wait, it would be better...

We are voting against banning the choice of smacking. As in, a single last resort slap, if the child ever crosses the line.
Wether you agree with it or not is one thing, but the choice shouldn't be taken away.

Beating them senseless is still illegal (thankfully), as far as I know.

[The fish]

Assault? Get real. If you want to go down that route then I could say that forcing your child to stay in a room with no fun is taking away his human rights.

And a better world? Most of the complete dicks in this world were brought up without any discipline. And we want to limit the amount of discipline a parent can use? What a fucking joke.

The only reason it's not currently, in England and Wales, an assault is because they're your own defenceless child. It's a sad state of affairs when it's worse to hit someone who can defend themselves than your own, defenceless child. Restricting movement is very, very different from assault - hence why I'm against capital punishment but not an anarchist (and that was your straw man before you whine about it being an unfair comparison).

There is a difference (a massive difference) between discipline and assaulting your own, defenceless child.

We are voting against banning the choice of smacking. As in, a single last resort slap, if the child ever crosses the line.
Wether you agree with it or not is one thing, but the choice shouldn't be taken away.

Beating them senseless is still illegal (thankfully), as far as I know.

People shouldn't assault other adults in the street when they aren't co-operating - think that should be an option available, eh?

[MoogleViper]

The only reason it's not currently, in England and Wales, an assault is because they're your own defenceless child. It's a sad state of affairs when it's worse to hit someone who can defend themselves than your own, defenceless child. Restricting movement is very, very different from assault - hence why I'm against capital punishment but not an anarchist (and that was your straw man before you whine about it being an unfair comparison).

There is a difference (a massive difference) between discipline and assaulting your own, defenceless child.



People shouldn't assault other adults in the street when they aren't co-operating - think that should be an option available, eh?

Well I'm all for capital punishment. And no matter how much you say it, a little slap on the bum of your child is not assault.

And if some guy in the street started attacking you, you wouldn't fight back? You'd tell him to stand over there and think about what he had done.

[Shino]

Way to be manipulative and demagogic Fish. You label it as you want but it still isn't true.

[Zero]

The only reason it's not currently, in England and Wales, an assault is because they're your own defenceless child.

There is a difference (a massive difference) between discipline and assaulting your own, defenceless child.

Last time I checked assualting your child was illegal.

[The fish]

Last time I checked assualting your child was illegal.

It's perfectly legal, as is battery. GBH and ABH, however, are illegal.

Well I'm all for capital punishment. And no matter how much you say it, a little slap on the bum of your child is not assault.

And if some guy in the street started attacking you, you wouldn't fight back? You'd tell him to stand over there and think about what he had done.

Touching anyone without their prior permission is assault.

Oh, and I probably would defend myself. However, a child is unlikely to pose a threat to me. Responding with any amount of force is beyond unacceptable in my eyes.

Way to be manipulative and demagogic Fish. You label it as you want but it still isn't true.

Thing is, it's the truth - they are your own child, and they are defenceless.

[ipaul]

The only reason it's not currently, in England and Wales, an assault is because they're your own defenceless child. It's a sad state of affairs when it's worse to hit someone who can defend themselves than your own, defenceless child. Restricting movement is very, very different from assault - hence why I'm against capital punishment but not an anarchist (and that was your straw man before you whine about it being an unfair comparison).

There is a difference (a massive difference) between discipline and assaulting your own, defenceless child.



People shouldn't assault other adults in the street when they aren't co-operating - think that should be an option available, eh?


Fish, although I agree with most of what you say on here and can see the point your trying to make, but the way you make your point can be a pain the arse. Through your theory out of the window for one fucking second about what is and what is not assault. Like many people on here have pointed out, a light smacking never does anyone any real harm. It's better the child receives this discipline than if they are ignored completely by their parents, who might let them get away with anything. Although I am quite against smacking and believe if I had children, I would not do it, I think people should still have the right to choose how they discipline their own child.

Besides, what exactly are you imagining when we talk about smacking? The child does something wrong - the parent goes kung fu fighting on them and smacks the shit out of them? A light slapping on the backside never did anyone any harm. What about all the people on here who were smacked as a child for discipline purposes? Are you calling all their parents terrible ones because they used some slight physical force to ensure the child knew between right and wrong?

Bigger question, not just to Fish, but how do they enforce a thing like this anyway?

[Chuck]

Ill smack you in a minute paul.

I dont think that physical punishment is the answer. Take away a priviledge or something but not hitting a kid.

[ipaul]

Ill smack you in a minute paul.

I dont think that physical punishment is the answer. Take away a priviledge or something but not hitting a kid.

Bit early isn't it :wink:


I don't think it's the answer either. But I think it is a matter for the individual, not the state. Smacking your child is not neccesarily a mark of bad parenting.

[Zero]

It's perfectly legal, as is battery. GBH and ABH, however, are illegal.

If you are going to take the most literal sense of the word then I still say there is nothing wrong it.

Getting hit as a kid worked for me and not getting hit as a kid worked for you. The point is, they both worked.

So, why should it be banned?

[Kirkatronics]

If you are going to take the most literal sense of the word then I still say there is nothing wrong it.

Getting hit as a kid worked for me and not getting hit as a kid worked for you. The point is, they both worked.

So, why should it be banned?
Because it can soon turn nasty, parents can go over board. I dont believe it should be banned, but there should be very STRICT guidlines on what is acceptable.

[Zero]

Because it can soon turn nasty, parents can go over board. I dont believe it should be banned, but there should be very STRICT guidlines on what is acceptable.

I agree with that. There should be guide lines but, it shouldn't be banned.

If it does turn nasty does that not count actual bodily harm and becomes illegal. Even if, it does become banned I doubt it will stop parents from giving the occasional clip.

[MoogleViper]

Because it can soon turn nasty, parents can go over board. I dont believe it should be banned, but there should be very STRICT guidlines on what is acceptable.

But that has little to do with banning. Smacking your child and abusing them physically are to different things.

[Jonnas]

People shouldn't assault other adults in the street when they aren't co-operating - think that should be an option available, eh?

I'm assuming that you know a child and an adult can't be treated the same way. In that case, I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

Look, as Zero said, smacking works in certain cases. Why should we take away one of the methods?

Also, occasional smacking doesn't harm children for life. It's very different than whipping them with the belt. And THAT is illegal, because it actually causes serious injury.

[rokhed00]

It's perfectly legal, as is battery. GBH and ABH, however, are illegal.



Touching anyone without their prior permission is assault.

Oh, and I probably would defend myself. However, a child is unlikely to pose a threat to me. Responding with any amount of force is beyond unacceptable in my eyes.



Thing is, it's the truth - they are your own child, and they are defenceless.

You've obviously never been smacked in the balls by a kid.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

You're right, to a certain extent. But to say they will never misbehave and will always obey the rules then you're living in a dream world.

For starters children learn what is wrong by doing what is wrong. They learn that it is wrong by the punishment and consequences. So they will misbehave at some point no matter how well their upbringing.

Also you aren't in control of you children 24/7 they go to school. Maybe you lived in a nice area but I lived in quite a rough area, where primary school children smoked, and stole and vandalised. You can't hide your children from this. So you need to teach them that it is wrong. But peer pressure is a powerful thing. And one day that child is going to do something that oversteps the line, and if all they get is the punishment that they receive when they do things that are a lot less worse, then they will think, "If I get the same punishment for both of these things then I may as well do the worse one." Or something along those lines. A smack tells them that there is a punishment worse than the naughty step. And it tells them that what they have done is very wrong.

You're assuming things.

Like I've said a few times, of course children will misbehave sometimes, as they do it to test boundaries and limits. This is where discipline and consequence come into the picture. But if the right amount of punishment is issued at the right time for the right causes, I don't believe one would ever get to the point where smacking is necessary.

Influence from the outer world, now that's an interesting aspect that complicates the matter even more. Of course children will be influences from the outer world, but the upbringing will have to be adjusted accordingly.

You seem to think it's inevitable that children will misbehave to the point where smacking is necessary. I won't deny that it can come to that point, but this is where it gets difficult for me. Because even though I see the sense in what you are saying, it's just wrong in my head.

[Kirkatronics]

You've obviously never been smacked in the balls by a kid.
If that happened, say by a random kid, are we alowwed to kick 'em back?

[Jonnas]

You seem to think it's inevitable that children will misbehave to the point where smacking is necessary. I won't deny that it can come to that point, but this is where it gets difficult for me. Because even though I see the sense in what you are saying, it's just wrong in my head.

Well, we can agree on that. I hope I never have to resort to violence either. Definately only if the kid does A LOT of crap.

If that happened, say by a random kid, are we alowwed to kick 'em back?

By the time you can feel your legs again, he's already gone :heh:

[Kirkatronics]

Well, we can agree on that. I hope I never have to resort to violence either. Definately only if the kid does A LOT of crap.



By the time you can feel your legs again, he's already gone :heh:
Its an automatic reaction to deck whoever did it, but would we get introuble for it?

[Kurtle Squad]

Maybe the Govt. should be dealing with young offenders and all other criminals properly before they start telling the decent people how to bring up their children.

They're letting crime get "out of control" due to an individual's rights being seen as more important than those of society. Lock the bastards up and make them pay for policing, courts and the victims, not the innocent.

[MoogleViper]

You're assuming things.

Like I've said a few times, of course children will misbehave sometimes, as they do it to test boundaries and limits. This is where discipline and consequence come into the picture. But if the right amount of punishment is issued at the right time for the right causes, I don't believe one would ever get to the point where smacking is necessary.

Influence from the outer world, now that's an interesting aspect that complicates the matter even more. Of course children will be influences from the outer world, but the upbringing will have to be adjusted accordingly.

You seem to think it's inevitable that children will misbehave to the point where smacking is necessary. I won't deny that it can come to that point, but this is where it gets difficult for me. Because even though I see the sense in what you are saying, it's just wrong in my head.

Ok question for you (I'm not sure if you've answered it already), you don't believe in smacking, but would you condemn a parent that does?

[uəʌəsʎɐɾ]

Ok, ok, guys.

Theorising and debating over imaginary margins is silly. If my kid kicked someone else in the nuts, the other person wouldn't slap my kid (or he'd be in trouble), and nor would I. I'd pull the kid aside and be very stern, putting on my Angry Voice which the kid'll know means oh shit I did a bad thing. Largely it's the threat of a smack that put the fear in me as a child, and smart-alec kids who know their parents can't hit them wouldn't have that fear. But then, the ban won't actually stop any parents hitting their kids.

I think I was only smacked when I thought the angry voice was playful, and where I'd persisted in my bad behaviour. So if my kid then kicks another adult in the nuts I would probably grab him by the arm, pull him away and do angry voice again, with the threat to lay the smack down. If he did it again, he'd get a smack and be crying too much to do it again.

As they get older, you just threaten to pull their pants down and smack them in public. Worse than just a smack and not screwing with their mentality as much as dressing the boy up as a girl.

Here's a dictionary definition of Assault and battery;

"assault and battery noun, law the act of threatening to physically attack someone which is then followed by an actual physical attack, even when any damage sustained is minimal."

Assault is regarded as an act that causes someone else to feel physically threatened, and to be honest kids fucking feel like that all the way through school so shh with it being a big deal.

Life isn't one padded cell after bubble-wrapped room after cushioned fall. Life is hard. We will feel physically, mentally and emotionally threatened all of the time, and I would gladly argue that it's better a kid experiences physical threats from their parents than some random stranger in the street, because at least the kid knows the parents love them. Because at least the kid will feel guilt for what he did to get it in the first place. Because the kid will seek the love and comfort of the parent after the slap, and wouldn't retaliate like they might do with a random stranger on the street (ok, flawed argument due to lack of specificity, but just roll with it)...

Beating up your kids is not ok. But surely if you love your kids and want what's best for them then you're not going to beat them up, are you?

[EEVILMURRAY]

Depends on your definition of "beating up". For me it normally means kicking the shit out of someone.

Not a light pimpsmack so they know who's boss.

But the webpage is back up!

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat

Full of useful hints for the confusion among us.

[thunderer]

I wish maddox was my dad :heh:

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Ok question for you (I'm not sure if you've answered it already), you don't believe in smacking, but would you condemn a parent that does?

It's difficult to answer and depends very much on the circumstances. Do you have a specific situation in mind?

I know you probably want a straight yes/no answer from me, but the truth is there's no simple yes/no or black/white when debating a subject as serious as this.

Depends on your definition of "beating up". For me it normally means kicking the shit out of someone.

Not a light pimpsmack so they know who's boss.

But the webpage is back up!

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat

Full of useful hints for the confusion among us.

Sorry, but I can't take that webpage seriously. Call me a paedagocial hippie, but the tone alone on that webpage shows the pattern of thought. Hell, he lists different beating manoeuvres?! Doesn't this just show that an upbringing with beating produces people who have no problems hitting their kids?

Violence is a bad way to handle problems, people. I have begun to possibly accept the fact that it may be necessary in some extreme situations, but that page is just ridiculous.

[The fish]

Sorry, but I can't take that webpage seriously. Call me a paedagocial hippie, but the tone alone on that webpage shows the pattern of thought. Hell, he lists different beating manoeuvres?! Doesn't this just show that an upbringing with beating produces people who have no problems hitting their kids?

Joke ------->

Head

Maddox, however, is a completely unfunny dickweed who rants about nothing of the slightest importance, and he thinks everyone loves him for it.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Joke ------->

Head

Maddox, however, is a completely unfunny dickweed who rants about nothing of the slightest importance, and he thinks everyone loves him for it.

I sometimes get too caught up in debates that I feel passionate about. Sorry about that. :heh:

[EEVILMURRAY]

Hell, he lists different beating manoeuvres?! Doesn't this just show that an upbringing with beating produces people who have no problems hitting their kids?
You're right. You need random spontaneity.

[Rummy]

Even with the fear of a proper smacking, sometimes it just wasn't enough to stop me(and it WAS fear, as soon as you knew the wooden spoon was coming you'd run and hide) but to have put that fear in me, I had to have been smacked previously. I think often my parents did use it as some form or last resort, as they'd often tell me nicely, sternly, very clearly, not to do something/to do something and warned me of the consequences(which'd sometimes spur me to do it) before they did it. I think it was rare a smack came out of nowhere.
Though having said that, I KNOW people CAN be raised without physical discipline, but I think both are viable options and choices for the parents to decide upon. I know on the whole healthy and well rounded individuals who have been so, but then again, people think I'm a fairly regular kind of person too, so I am not going to be in favour of one over the other.
If the government wants to tell parents how to raise their children, then let the government raise them for them. Until recent years, I'd thought we'd actually been doing quite all right as the whole human race, and I'm sure smacking has been around forever, just dwindling lately with more political correctness(if you can call it that, you know what I mean). I swear you did NOT have such shits running round the towns as you do these days, nor so many back 10-15 years ago(which is about the extent of my memory, and I'll admit it's not the sort of thing I'd be looking out for).

[EEVILMURRAY]

Anyone else have the "wash your mouth out with soap" punishment? :-D

[MoogleViper]

It's difficult to answer and depends very much on the circumstances. Do you have a specific situation in mind?

I know you probably want a straight yes/no answer from me, but the truth is there's no simple yes/no or black/white when debating a subject as serious as this.

Well I mean the parent is doing so in a responsible way without taking it too far as a form of punishment. They aren't abusing their children or beating them senseless. Just a slap on the bum when they have badly misbehaved.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Well I mean the parent is doing so in a responsible way without taking it too far as a form of punishment. They aren't abusing their children or beating them senseless. Just a slap on the bum when they have badly misbehaved.

Well, I guess I could accept it. As mentioned, the idea of using any form of "physical discipline" seems wrong in my head, but the different arguments in here has made me think a lot about it, pushing my opinion a little.

[Wesley]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/beatkid4.jpg

[Flaight]

It scares me how black and white the world is for some people. There is a trend to make everything into a rule and the beauty of discretion is something of a lost art. Our decision making is becoming like that of machines and computers. Physical contact is, technically, an assault. But come on. This is all semantics. There is a difference between a parent who lightly smacks a child out of genuine love and a stranger who beats up a kid with a stick.

There is a difference of opinion here, but why should your opinion be forced down other people's throats? A ban is a law, which forces a certain opinion of SOME people on all of the population. Banning or making smacking compulsory by law isn't the answer here. Education is. The rest is an individual's informed choice; it is YOUR choice too, as well as for the others.

I'm scared by the misconceived perception of human rights these days. It leads to a bizarre over-protectionism at face value, discounting any depth or wisdom of social dynamics, like the sense of discipline that used to exist.

At this rate, the future will be ridiculous: the compulsory education will become illegal as forcing a child to go to school is a human rights abuse. Also if a parent doesn't buy a toy for a child when he's crying, the parent will be taken to court and have his income checked, and if he could afford one, he'll be prosecuted for not buying a toy and for an emotional abuse of the child.

It's all a black&white, technically correct bollox if you ask me. Talk about political correctness gone mad.

[uəʌəsʎɐɾ]

It scares me how black and white the world is for some people. There is a trend to make everything into a rule and the beauty of discretion is something of a lost art. Our decision making is becoming like that of machines and computers. Physical contact is, technically, an assault. But come on. This is all semantics. There is a difference between a parent who lightly smacks a child out of genuine love and a stranger who beats up a kid with a stick.

There is a difference of opinion here, but why should your opinion be forced down other people's throats? A ban is a law, which forces a certain opinion of SOME people on all of the population. Banning or making smacking compulsory by law isn't the answer here. Education is. The rest is an individual's informed choice; it is YOUR choice too, as well as for the others.

I'm scared by the misconceived perception of human rights these days. It leads to a bizarre over-protectionism at face value, discounting any depth or wisdom of social dynamics, like the sense of discipline that used to exist.

At this rate, the future will be ridiculous: the compulsory education will become illegal as forcing a child to go to school is a human rights abuse. Also if a parent doesn't buy a toy for a child when he's crying, the parent will be taken to court and have his income checked, and if he could afford one, he'll be prosecuted for not buying a toy and for an emotional abuse of the child.

It's all a black&white, technically correct bollox if you ask me. Talk about political correctness gone mad.

I love you.

[The fish]

It's all a black&white, technically correct bollox if you ask me. Talk about political correctness gone mad.

I think hitting a defenceless child is fairly black and white. I'd rather it were not illegal for two adults to fight in the street than for a parent to essentially teach a child that violence is a viable answer for, say, not being co-operative.

I should also point out that smacking a child is fairly pointless, as it teaches the child nothing of benefit - the key difference between simply punishing children and disciplining children in an instructive manner.

[uəʌəsʎɐɾ]

So is it just the kids who never got smacked that are complaining that it was a bad thing? Surely those with experience would actually have a much more valid opinion on the subject.

[Flaight]

I should also point out that smacking a child is fairly pointless, as it teaches the child nothing of benefit - the key difference between simply punishing children and disciplining children in an instructive manner.That is a generalization and an opinion based on your perception and environmental experience. And based on that, it is black&white, I accept that.

What I am saying is that there are many people out there with varying experiences which don't fit into your one-size-fits-all model. Therefore, forcing one model in all cases for all children and parent-to-child relationship is unreasonable and unfair.

We aren't debating on whether smacking works or doesn't, we're debating on whether a ban should be in place. While I accept that your version of events is possible - in various cases smacking may be the wrong decision - that doesn't warrant an exclusive ban based on the particular model of upbringing that you believe in.

We should educate the society and parents as a whole, so that we may make a more informed judgment on case by case basis. Individuals must be entrusted with their wisdom on when to apply smacking. In many cases, it might so turn out that it's not necessary at all. At this point in time, saying that smacking is entirely unnecessary is a premature assumption as many of us have been effectively raised with an occasional smacking.

I don't think one can write a definitive guide on what the "right upbringing" is, which will result in a perfect human being. That's why I think an education for greater ability to judge a particular circumstance and context of smacking, combined with the art of discretion, is the way forward. Your concern on smacking is a fair one, and I agree to an extent, but that's just one side of the story.

[Rummy]

I would also like to know how you consider it 'fairly pointless' and that it 'teaches the child nothing of benefit'. If you're being silly and mean JUST smacking with no words or no explanation or anything, then yes, but otherwise how can you actually say that?
I would also like to say something more in the favour of smacking, as I said I think I probably recieved harsher than the average and would like to point out that whilst I can be violent now, and angry, and have at times in the past done silly things out of anger, I never got like it until about halfway through secondary school, and that was due to nothing to do with my parents. So any arguments about smacking teaching your children violence is the answer of solution to everything, I highly disagree with.