13 Nov 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelWe have been told that child swatting equates to zero pain.
The answer is obvious.
Mild child swatting is less harsh than child swatting, simple as that.
You say that mild child swatting is "less harsh" than child swatting.
Less than zero?
That must mean that "mild child swatting" is enjoyable.
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59less harsh of a surprise. Less harsh of a reminder and call to attention.
We have been told that child swatting equates to zero pain.
You say that mild child swatting is "less harsh" than child swatting.
Less than zero?
That must mean that "mild child swatting" is enjoyable.
A swat can be so tame as to get a laugh from a child. It is upto the parent to know what the individual child needs.
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDoes it?
Which at a stroke reduces all argumentation prior to Samuel Johnson to absurdity.
I guess that depends on what you mean by absurdity.
Or argumentation,
Or stroke (quite apt!)
We have to have a lingua franca for discussion
and in this internet world definitions are very useful.
13 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFacts:
Well let's merge them into one and see if you have an answer:
Where does child prodding lie on the (open-ended?) wolfgang59 scale of being sickened?
Use 'prod' as you would in ordinary conversation.
1. I have used the word "sickening " in one - and only one - post with regard to CP for children.
2. There is no wolfgang59 scale (unless someone other than me has created it)
3. Googling "child prodding" gave nothing relevant.
(How I use 'prod' and you use 'prod' will get us into another pointless semantics argument)
13 Nov 12
3 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59Funny that you should think that there has been no attempt to define the term 'child swatting' when not that long ago I said:
Is only less absurd than arguing without definitions.
"I would say that the term ‘child swatting’ should be defined as the act of striking a child which:
• is performed with an open hand (i.e. is not a punch and does not involve the use of an implement)
• is not intended to, and does not, cause pain
• is of short duration
The circumstances under which such ‘child swatting’ is acceptable are when it is:
• in response to an immediate need to cause an instant change in the child’s behaviour
• not as a punishment for bad behaviour
• when other methods of discipline have proven ineffective, are not available or will not work for other reasons
• applied infrequently"
No-one objected to that basic definition, although I am sure it can be improved upon.
You may object to using the term 'swatting' to describe this, but this is what was being discussed. It is a coinage that some posters have used as a short-hand way of expressing a type of action.
We can call it the 'Pink Porcupine Method' provided that we are clear that this is how it is defined. We are debating actions and consequences, not semantics.
13 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59I took it that corporal punishment is 'sickening' for you, with no exceptions. Please correct me if necessary.
Facts:
1. I have used the word "sickening " in one - and only one - post with regard to CP for children.
2. There is no wolfgang59 scale (unless someone other than me has created it)
3. Googling "child prodding" gave nothing relevant.
(How I use 'prod' and you use 'prod' will get us into another pointless semantics argument)
Child prodding would be - prodding a child. Perhaps sharply, to draw their attention - in the same manner that 'mild swatting' has been described. Draw from experience or failing that your imagination. Or are you one of those for whom nothing is real unless it's on Google?
The 'wolfgang59 scale' is, of course, your own personal measure of these things. Unless you've got a blind spot for metaphor, it's disingenuous of you to pretend not to understand this simply metaphor. Allow me to rephrase: Would it be sickening to you or not if an adult prodded a child to draw the child's attention, and if so, would it be as sickening as hitting?
An easy answer would be: not sickening at all, since I don't consider prodding to be corporal punishment. Would you go with that?
I'm quite happy to go with how you would use 'prod'. I'm sure we could figure out any difference between our usages. I'd be surprised if they differed substantially, to be honest.
As for semantics, sincere interlocutors can find their way towards each other despite differences in usage or definition, because they have the power to explain and interpret. (The limits of rapprochement are often the ideological fault lines where schools of thought diverge.)
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59I am not talking wolfie of troubled kids, I am talking of ill disciplined brats for want of a
My experience is contrary to this. Troubled kids come from families where CP is the norm. Violence breeds violence and the school bullies are often the ones who are physically disciplined at home.
I would be interested to hear from other teachers on here and what their experience is.
better term, who come from concerned and loving families, whose parents are full of
the latest parenting techniques and yet unable to instil in their children a sense of
decorum.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhat age do the j.w's decide is too old to smack?
I am not talking wolfie of troubled kids, I am talking of ill disciplined brats for want of a
better term, who come from concerned and loving families, whose parents are full of
the latest parenting techniques and yet unable to instil in their children a sense of
decorum.