13 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59Why is that?
I hope neither of you waste further time on this thread.
Have they not given you a satisfactory debate about the subject at hand?
Do you not realize that bbarr's comment about not wasting time was in direct response to your and ToO's failure to take up the challenge to prove your point?
It almost seems as if you don't want them commenting any further because you are having trouble convincing them of your view.
Like you want to claim a victory through a timeout even though you are a queen down.
13 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Proponents of child swatting have always stated that it is not meant to cause injury. That a child should only be swatted around the buttocks or thighs (never the head), and that it should never be done out of anger.
I still don't understand (yeah call me names!) what this swatting is!!!
Previously "swatting" was defined as doing no harm and causing no pain.
Can you tell me the difference between "mild child-swatting" and moderate?
What did you mean in that post as "mild" ????????
That it is a practice that is nearly always phased out very quickly, as soon as the child understands the immediate problems/danger at hand.
This is a debate between two loving sides.
It is not about causing harm or trauma to children.
I'm sure you can understand the difference.
I am by and large a peaceful person, and I am a peaceful parent.
I recognize that children learn through my examples.
I realize that children listen to my words and then see if I back them up.
It seems bbarr has grown up without any animosity toward his sometimes child swatting grandma.
I too am the same. I understand why I needed a swat or two when I was young, however I describe my childhood as idealic and great.
When you go on about defenceless children , you really are taking the point out of context. Parents are not using their full force when swatting a child. THEY ARE USING THE BEST METHOD AT HAND TO CORRECT AN IMMEDIATE PROBLEM.
While I do not advocate using swatting against tantrums, I would not dismiss a person as a bad parent on that basis alone.
After all, when a child doesn't realize it's place in society, (s)he causes problems for teachers and parents of their friends, alike.
Discipline is important for young children, (and I dare say that parents that dont get physical with their kids when they really ought to), may grow to disrespect their parents just as much as kids who were smacked too much when younger.
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelI think you and I are mostly on the same page and I am not condemning anyone here. My post was just asking a question : what is "mild swatting" compared to "swatting" ???
Proponents of child swatting have always stated that it is not meant to cause injury. That a child should only be swatted around the buttocks or thighs (never the head), and that it should never be done out of anger.
That it is a practice that is nearly always phased out very quickly, as soon as the child understands the immediate problems/danger at h ...[text shortened]... grow to disrespect their parents just as much as kids who were smacked too much when younger.
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNobody has a problem with grabbing a kid in a perilious situation.
Contact is more effective for getting attention in a perilous situation than shouting. If someone grabs you, you look at them. If someone shouts at you, you may just be bewildered. So grabbing a kid is more likely to prevent an accident than yelling.
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59'A light cuff' is my interpretation. Rather than an intention to crush.
I think you and I are mostly on the same page and I am not condemning anyone here. My post was just asking a question : what is "mild swatting" compared to "swatting" ???
The absurdity of arguing from the dictionary: the description of 'swat' as 'crush' clearly has application in the case of 'swatting a fly'. Does anyone seriously think bbarr's grandmother tried to crush him (with a hard object)?
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59Well bbarr did introduce the term, I was happy to call it 'smacking' but then realized that the distinction was important.
I think you and I are mostly on the same page and I am not condemning anyone here. My post was just asking a question : what is "mild swatting" compared to "swatting" ???
The answer is obvious.
Mild child swatting is less harsh than child swatting, simple as that.
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelSufficient force to draw attention without causing pain, is my understanding. A nice distinction.
Well bbarr did introduce the term, I was happy to call it 'smacking' but then realized that the distinction was important.
The answer is obvious.
Mild child swatting is less harsh than child swatting, simple as that.
13 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelSaid swatting could be as mild as a judiciously applied flick (to the ear, maybe) ... Or would a flick also induce irreparable trauma?
Yes, and then there is plain old neglect.
All of which are worse than the child swatting that we have been referring to here.
13 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI pointed out earlier that some parents used "throwing water on kids" as an alternative to smacking.
Said swatting could be as mild as a judiciously applied flick (to the ear, maybe) ... Or would a flick also induce irreparable trauma?
Again I think it is the context. A neglected child may feel traumatized by flicking or water as much as by swatting.
A proper loving parent will not traumatize their kids. These actions in and of themselves do not cause trauma.
It is the whole childhood, and the consistent discomfort of a child where trauma sets in. Children are fairly resilient normally.