corporal punishment

Originally posted by radioactive69
😀

ok, i concede, most teenagers could do with a good cuff on the ear and most secular
liberals as well 😀

Originally posted by stellspalfie
absurd, exactly, smacking an adult is absurd. what about hitting a 15yr old is that absurd? i would say so. at what point does it stop being absurd and become acceptable? 13, 10, 8, 7 - all seem absurd. does it become more acceptable the younger they are? would we smack an adult with the mental age of a child?

the question is not pertinent to age, but to the severity of the misdemeanour. I had a
friend who took out every window on a farmhouse with his air gun, every single one,
gleefully smashed the lot, what punishment would you prescribe for this teenager, just
out of interest, grounding, talking to, reasoning with?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the question is not pertinent to age, but to the severity of the misdemeanour's. I had a
friend who took out every window on a farmhouse with his air gun, every single one,
gleefully smashed the lot, what punishment would you prescribe for this teenager, just
out of interest, grounding, talking to, reasoning with?

obviously the age is pertinent as you wouldnt smack a 15yr old no mater what they had done. so age does come into it.


regarding you friend, it would be impossible for me to say, i would need to know the kid and his personal circumstances, a lot of bad behavior from children is a result of issues cause by the parent (that they are usually unaware of), professor tanya byron did a documentary a few years back where she showed a lot of bad behavior in toddlers was not because they were 'naught' kids, but because their mothers had very difficult births, for some different reasons caused the mother to feel guilty and caused them high levels of stress when dealing with their children which lead to all sorts of behavior problems . smashing a load of windows would indicate to me that he has a behavioral problem that may take some time to deal with, nothing that could be fixed there and then. my instant reaction in the short term would be to snap his air rifle in half and stick it in the bin. im not sure a child should be playing with an air rifle anyway.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
would we smack an adult with the mental age of a child?

I might do a lot worse.

If I had in my charge an adult with the mental age of a child who was intent on throwing themselves in front of a train, and there was no other option, I might wrestle them to the ground, knock them over, knock them out etc.

If they were a distance off, and I was an expert marksman, and they were running to a cliff, having tried to kill themselves before in the same way, and they were a few seconds from going over, I might shoot them in the leg.

You simply cannot answer questions of this nature without setting them in context.

Posters have advocated this measure for children as a temporary infrequently applied measure which is then phased out as the child's understanding, and response to other measures, improves. There presumably is no reason to believe that the adult with the mental age of a child will ever improve, and so the use of this measure would be inappropriate.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
obviously the age is pertinent as you wouldnt smack a 15yr old no mater what they had done. so age does come into it.


regarding you friend, it would be impossible for me to say, i would need to know the kid and his personal circumstances, a lot of bad behavior from children is a result of issues cause by the parent (that they are usually unaware o half and stick it in the bin. im not sure a child should be playing with an air rifle anyway.

He came from a loving family, he knew that what he was doing was wrong, but he
did it anyway. He had no behavioural problems, he just wanted to test out his air
gun on something that made an excellent target. He also had a shotgun and a
crossbow as his father was into hunting. You would snap his air gun, I see and that
would would deter him from doing it again. What his parents actually did was make
him work the summer to pay for the reparation of all the windows, which he did and
vowed never to do it again. Yes yes, lets blame the parent for everything from bad
behaviour to an inability to form lasting relationships when older, jeez, the history of
childrearing is littered with transient fads and experiments gone wrong as teams of
scientists have stepped up to apply scientific methods to the problem when a good
smack in the bum or a kick on the arse ( I apologise this is actually a swear word in
Scotland but not in England) would have solved everything.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I might do a lot worse.

If I had in my charge an adult with the mental age of a child who was intent on throwing themselves in front of a train, and there was no other option, I might wrestle them to the ground, knock them over, knock them out etc.

If they were a distance off, and I was an expert marksman, and they were running to a cliff, having ...[text shortened]... mental age of a child will ever improve, and so the use of this measure would be inappropriate.

"You simply cannot answer questions of this nature without setting them in context.

my apologies, ill try to remember more context next time. although im pretty sure most people reading would understand the context remained the same as hit has for the last 10 or so pages. at no point has anybody changed to context to such extremes as shooting kids in the legs. but its no problem, you want context, im happy to oblige.

"There presumably is no reason to believe that the adult with the mental age of a child will ever improve"

this is true, but not all the examples given are about educating a child, many have been to sharply acquire the childs attention. i cant imagine an adult with childs intellect would be 'swatted' to get their attention.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
He came from a loving family, he knew that what he was doing was wrong, but he
did it anyway. He had no behavioural problems, he just wanted to test out his air
gun on something that made an excellent target. He also had a shotgun and a
crossbow as his father was into hunting. You would snap his air gun, I see and that
would would deter him ...[text shortened]... se this is actually a swear word in
Scotland but not in England) would have solved everything.

'he knew what he was doing was wrong' yet he did it anyway. he knew it was going to upset his parents, but he did it anyway. thats not normal behavior. there are many alternatives to test an air-gun on. no reason to shoot out windows. the question is why didnt he care if it upset his parents? his parents may well be loving, the overwhelming majority are, but that doesnt mean kids cant develop issues.
i think working it off is a good idea. i have no problem with that. if his parents felt that they needed to smack him then, okay. i dont like it, i think its lazy parenting and i dont think it really resolves anything. it would be better to teach the kid more empathy rather than not doing something out of fear.
i agree there are lots of transient fads and experiments when it comes to parenting . some have more creditably than others. just becasue some dont work doesnt mean you should sweep aside all science from parenting. our understanding of behavior and the workings of the brain are only going to improve the science behind understanding childred.
a kick up the arse has never proven to do anything. we all know kids that got smacked and turned out great and equally we know kids who got smacked and turned out bad. the methods im interested in are designed to avoid ever getting into the situation where you need to smack.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
He came from a loving family, he knew that what he was doing was wrong, but he
did it anyway. He had no behavioural problems, he just wanted to test out his air
gun on something that made an excellent target. He also had a shotgun and a
crossbow as his father was into hunting. You would snap his air gun, I see and that
would would deter him ...[text shortened]... se this is actually a swear word in
Scotland but not in England) would have solved everything.

scientists have stepped up to apply scientific methods to the problem when a good
smack in the bum or a kick on the arse ( I apologise this is actually a swear word in
Scotland but not in England) would have solved everything.

would this kick on the arse cause pain??

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]scientists have stepped up to apply scientific methods to the problem when a good
smack in the bum or a kick on the arse ( I apologise this is actually a swear word in
Scotland but not in England) would have solved everything.

would this kick on the arse cause pain??[/b]

would this kick on the arse cause pain?? yes but not injury.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"You simply cannot answer questions of this nature without setting them in context.

my apologies, ill try to remember more context next time. although im pretty sure most people reading would understand the context remained the same as hit has for the last 10 or so pages. at no point has anybody changed to context to such extremes as shooting n. i cant imagine an adult with childs intellect would be 'swatted' to get their attention.[/b]

On context point, some posters are quite deliberately trying to equate 'child swatting' with something that has not been envisaged since page one. It helps their case if they can try and align child swatting with the type of spanking that has been the subject of more detailed research.

The only evidence I have seen (which is desperately thin on the ground I admit) which addresses the issue of mild forms of corporal punishment (and many would argue we are not even talking about corporal punishment) has either a) said it doesn't have any negative impact and/or b) may be beneficial.

Therefore they are trying to get the term 'child swatting' (as defined) equated with 'spanking' so that they can argue that the evidence supports their contention.

I do wonder about the lexicon of people who think that an occassional swat on the backside is 'barbaric' and 'sickening'. How do they express themselves when they see a case where some kid has had his ribs cracked through the 'corporal punishment' of an abusive parent?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Well, as usual, you only quote the one sentence that you think supports your view. Again, I like to read the full context. Here it is:

[quote]Where We Stand: Spanking

The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.

If a spanking is spontaneous, parents should later explain calmly why they did it, the spe not so much about the individual isolated acts themselves, but rather where they might lead.

Not sure what you don't understand about the following statement:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason."

It means that regardless of whatever "reason" might be given, the AAP is STRONGLY OPPOSED to striking a child.

Therefore, the AAP are:
STRONGLY OPPOSED to striking a child even if it "is not intended to, and does not, cause pain;
STRONGLY OPPOSED to striking a child even if it is "of short duration";
STRONGLY OPPOSED to striking a child even if "in response to an immediate need to cause an instant change in the child’s behaviour";
STRONGLY OPPOSED to striking a child even if it is "not as a punishment for bad behaviour";
STRONGLY OPPOSED to striking a child even if "other methods of discipline have proven ineffective, are not available or will not work for other reasons";
STRONGLY OPPOSED to striking a child even if it is "applied infrequently";
STRONGLY OPPOSED to striking a child even if it called "swatting";
STRONGLY OPPOSED to striking a child even if it is to "get the child's attention";
...and so on with whatever other "reasons" you or anybody else may dream up.

Do you understand the statement now?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
would this kick on the arse cause pain?? yes but not injury.

im struggling to understand how you can advocate giving a kid a kick up the arse, but wouldnt kick rapist or child molester caught in the act up the arse? how do you reconcile the two.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not sure what you don't understand about the following statement:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason."

It means that regardless of whatever "reason" might be given, the AAP is STRONGLY OPPOSED to striking a child.

Therefore, the AAP are:
STRONGLY OPPOSED to striking a child even if it "is not int ...[text shortened]... ou or anybody else may dream up.

Do you understand the statement now?

Would that include prodding and flicking? How about grabbing?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
im struggling to understand how you can advocate giving a kid a kick up the arse, but wouldnt kick rapist or child molester caught in the act up the arse? how do you reconcile the two.

how do you know i wouldn't kick a rapist or a child molester caught in the act of rape or
molestation? Id certainly kick a teenagers ass if I caught him trying to break into my
property. These types of discussion tend to drag the thread to the level of a tabloid
newspaper, try to provide empirical evidence as you have done before, citing
references and sources, even as thinkofone and rank outsider are doing, it saves the
thread from becoming personal.