13 Nov 12
1 edit
I know it's illegal. It's illegal in the UK to drop litter and yet.....
Ok you get where I am coming from.
However, more seriously, I don't think there has been any study which shows that children in Sweden are more psychologically well-adjusted as a result of the complete ban on smacking than they are in the UK which permits 'child swatting'.
It is also important to note that, in the UK, when they banned corporal punishment other than 'child swatting', many MPs did not vote for the change because they felt that moderate CP was harmful.
Just as the AAP, in taking its absolute stance, is not doing so because they believe that all forms of CP are harmful.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI might use the type of smack you are suggesting where the situation related to something which might otherwise result in severe danger to the child. E.g. the child runs out into the road despite your constant warnings on the matter...I would not use the smack to say 'if you run out in the road, you need to learn that you will be smacked'. I mean 'you have to stop that now and I can't risk you not obeying'.
And if you recall I entered the debate with the statement:
I might use the type of smack you are suggesting where the situation related to something which might otherwise result in severe danger to the child. E.g. the child runs out into the road despite your constant warnings on the matter.
This, as far as I am concerned, has noth '. If I was certain other techniques would be as effective I would use them in preference.
Do you seriously believe that even the parent who takes a strap or even his fists to his child believes he is saying the former rather than later? No matter how a parent thinks of it, i.e., rationalizes it, the child is being punished in order to gain compliance.
If I was certain other techniques would be as effective I would use them in preference.
I've already pasted this before, so please actually go to the effort of comprehending what it says in its entirety. For that matter, it would seem you'd benefit from going to the effort of comprehending the entire article.
Parents often ask, "Should I spank my child?" Many parents occasionally lose their patience or, in anger or fear, may spank their youngster. For instance, if a child runs out into the street, a parent may sweep the child up and, in a moment of anxiety for the child's well-being, spank her to emphasize the parent's sense of urgency or worry. Actually, it is the parent's expression of disapproval that is an effective deterrent in this situation, not the spanking.
Spanking may relieve a parent's frustration for the moment and extinguish the undesirable behavior for a brief time. But it is the least effective way to discipline. It is harmful emotionally to both parent and child. Not only can it result in physical harm, but it teaches children that violence is an acceptable way to discipline or express anger. While stopping the behavior temporarily, it does not teach alternative behavior. It also interferes with the development of trust, a sense of security, and effective communication. (Spanking often becomes the method of communication.) It also may cause emotional pain and resentment.
Pasted from <http://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/family-dynamics/communication-discipline/Pages/What-About-Punishment.aspx>
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderJust as the AAP, in taking its absolute stance, is not doing so because they believe that all forms of CP are harmful.
I know it's illegal. It's illegal in the UK to drop litter and yet.....
Ok you get where I am coming from.
However, more seriously, I don't think there has been any study which shows that children in Sweden are more psychologically well-adjusted as a result of the complete ban on smacking than they are in the UK which permits 'child swatting'.
...[text shortened]... s absolute stance, is not doing so because they believe that all forms of CP are harmful.
Then why, in your opinion?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderim not suggesting kids in sweden are more psychologically well adjusted. it was a response to the suggestion that smacking kids is the best way to stop them from doing things like running out into the road. children in countries that have a ban on smacking dont have problems with kids getting ran over anymore than any other country which would indicate that smacking kids to stop them doing dangerous things is no more effective than other methods. so given the options id go for the one where i dont have to hit my kids.
I know it's illegal. It's illegal in the UK to drop litter and yet.....
Ok you get where I am coming from.
However, more seriously, I don't think there has been any study which shows that children in Sweden are more psychologically well-adjusted as a result of the complete ban on smacking than they are in the UK which permits 'child swatting'.
...[text shortened]... s absolute stance, is not doing so because they believe that all forms of CP are harmful.
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhy do I care how other parents rationalise their behaviour?
[b]I might use the type of smack you are suggesting where the situation related to something which might otherwise result in severe danger to the child. E.g. the child runs out into the road despite your constant warnings on the matter...I would not use the smack to say 'if you run out in the road, you need to learn that you will be smacked'. I mean 'you ...[text shortened]... mily-dynamics/communication-discipline/Pages/What-About-Punishment.aspx>
[/quote]
The terms of child swatting have been set out, and the posting you have given does not refer to this.
Do you have any evidence that infrequent child swatting has any negative short, medium or long term consequences?
I realise I am repeating myself, but you seem to think rehashing the same old irrelevant material is effective, so perhaps you can answer the question you have ducked consistently.
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieSo would I, and when it happened, I did.
im not suggesting kids in sweden are more psychologically well adjusted. it was a response to the suggestion that smacking kids is the best way to stop them from doing things like running out into the road. children in countries that have a ban on smacking dont have problems with kids getting ran over anymore than any other country which would indicate ...[text shortened]... ive than other methods. so given the options id go for the one where i dont have to hit my kids.
I didn't say that I thought that smacking (as defined) was the best way to stop them running out into the road. I said that I might use it when other options have failed, are not available and when immediate compliance was necessary on that occasion.
I also said that a parent using a smack in such cirumstances is not harming their child by doing so.
Though TOO won't believe me, I really would change my mind if someone could provide me with even a shred of evidence that it is.
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderLet's see, you made the following ridiculous statement in an attempt to defend your action:
Why do I care how other parents rationalise their behaviour?
The terms of child swatting have been set out, and the posting you have given does not refer to this.
Do you have any evidence that infrequent child swatting has any negative short, medium or long term consequences?
I realise I am repeating myself, but you seem to think rehashing the ...[text shortened]... vant material is effective, so perhaps you can answer the question you have ducked consistently.
"I would not use the smack to say 'if you run out in the road, you need to learn that you will be smacked'. I mean 'you have to stop that now and I can't risk you not obeying'."
I responded with the following:
"Do you seriously believe that even the parent who takes a strap or even his fists to his child believes he is saying the former rather than later? No matter how a parent thinks of it, i.e., rationalizes it, the child is being punished in order to gain compliance."
And you reply with a question as ridiculous as your first statement:
"Why do I care how other parents rationalise their behaviour?"
The point was that I can't imagine any parent no matter how abusive "us[ing] the smack to say 'if you run out in the road, you need to learn that you will be smacked'". He's going to use a rationalization just as YOU did. Neither of you is in the right.
From what I can tell, all you've done the last several posts is try to avoid the following:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason."
Once again, here's the explanation that you seemed to require:
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?
13 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieI used to date a Swedish girl, she was a flautist, her sister essentially blamed her
im not suggesting kids in sweden are more psychologically well adjusted. it was a response to the suggestion that smacking kids is the best way to stop them from doing things like running out into the road. children in countries that have a ban on smacking dont have problems with kids getting ran over anymore than any other country which would indicate ...[text shortened]... ive than other methods. so given the options id go for the one where i dont have to hit my kids.
parents for her lack of ability to maintain lasting relationships, I am not saying she was
messed up, but come on, lets take responsibility for our own actions. I have generally
found the Swedish to have little tolerance for nonsense, whereas, I love it.
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThough TOO won't believe me, I really would change my mind if someone could provide me with even a shred of evidence that it is.
So would I, and when it happened, I did.
I didn't say that I thought that smacking (as defined) was the best way to stop them running out into the road. I said that I might use it when other options have failed, are not available and when immediate compliance was necessary on that occasion.
I also said that a parent using a smack in such cirumst ...[text shortened]... lly would change my mind if someone could provide me with even a shred of evidence that it is.
You've got to be one of the most disingenuous posters I've come across and that's saying a lot given what's been said on this forum.
Once again:
I've already pasted this before, so please actually go to the effort of comprehending what it says in its entirety. For that matter, it would seem you'd benefit from going to the effort of comprehending the entire article.[/quote]
[quote]Parents often ask, "Should I spank my child?" Many parents occasionally lose their patience or, in anger or fear, may spank their youngster. For instance, if a child runs out into the street, a parent may sweep the child up and, in a moment of anxiety for the child's well-being, spank her to emphasize the parent's sense of urgency or worry. Actually, it is the parent's expression of disapproval that is an effective deterrent in this situation, not the spanking.
Spanking may relieve a parent's frustration for the moment and extinguish the undesirable behavior for a brief time. But it is the least effective way to discipline. It is harmful emotionally to both parent and child. Not only can it result in physical harm, but it teaches children that violence is an acceptable way to discipline or express anger. While stopping the behavior temporarily, it does not teach alternative behavior. It also interferes with the development of trust, a sense of security, and effective communication. (Spanking often becomes the method of communication.) It also may cause emotional pain and resentment.
Pasted from <http://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/family-dynamics/communication-discipline/Pages/What-About-Punishment.aspx>
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneLet me use one of your techniques and answer a question with a question.
[b]Just as the AAP, in taking its absolute stance, is not doing so because they believe that all forms of CP are harmful.
Then why, in your opinion?[/b]
If it is so clear that infrequent child swatting is harmful, why have the many organisations who support an outright ban never been able to provide any evidence this is the case? Many are extremely well resourced and motivated to do so.
Many supporters of an outright ban are motivated by the fear that, if they give any ground, or send out a mixed message, parents will use this as a justification for more abusive behaviour. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile, as it were.
That is not the same thing as saying every instance of child swattting is harmful and the APA has not said it is.
13 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThere is no evidence in the post you have given. There are statements.
[b]Though TOO won't believe me, I really would change my mind if someone could provide me with even a shred of evidence that it is.
You've got to be one of the most disingenuous posters I've come across and that's saying a lot given what's been said on this forum.
Once again:I've already pasted this before, so please actually go to the ynamics/communication-discipline/Pages/What-About-Punishment.aspx>[/quote][/b]
Come back to me when you have evidence.
13 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI may be wrong, but I am not being disingenuous.
[b]Though TOO won't believe me, I really would change my mind if someone could provide me with even a shred of evidence that it is.
You've got to be one of the most disingenuous posters I've come across and that's saying a lot given what's been said on this forum.
Once again:I've already pasted this before, so please actually go to the ...[text shortened]... ynamics/communication-discipline/Pages/What-About-Punishment.aspx>[/quote][/b]
As someone who does not use CP, or child swatting, on his son, I am not sure why you would think I have any reason to act in this way. My first comment to you was that you had a valid position.
But you haven't followed it up with any convincing arguments on the very specific, and narrow, situations we were debating.