corporal punishment

Originally posted by wolfgang59
"Swatting"is not a term I am familiar with in this context, I do not think it in common usage in UK or NZ.

I was asking for clarification and you start to get rude.

Maybe we are on the same side?

I know slapping a child is illegal in UK and now (2009?) in NZ.

Safe restraint is as far as I would go with a child ... or indeed an adult.

I wou ...[text shortened]... ave the same rights as adults - perhaps greater rights - and we should all be mindful of that.

Actually, you can legally hit a child in the UK. This makes my point that the degree of violence inflicted is relevant to the debate.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
"Swatting"is not a term I am familiar with in this context, I do not think it in common usage in UK or NZ.

I was asking for clarification and you start to get rude.

Maybe we are on the same side?

I know slapping a child is illegal in UK and now (2009?) in NZ.

Safe restraint is as far as I would go with a child ... or indeed an adult.

I wou ...[text shortened]... ave the same rights as adults - perhaps greater rights - and we should all be mindful of that.

You would never force a child to go to bed?

Do you mean physically force? I have to 'force' my son to do it every night!

Originally posted by Rank outsider
You would never force a child to go to bed?

Do you mean physically force? I have to 'force' my son to do it every night!

Is he afraid of the dark, bad dreams, or just having too much fun being awake?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Is he afraid of the dark, bad dreams, or just having too much fun being awake?

If I let him, he would watch Power Rangers till the early hours.

Do you really think if he was experiencing bad dreams or was afraid of the dark I would simply 'force' him to bed?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
If I let him, he would watch Power Rangers till the early hours.

Do you really think if he was experiencing bad dreams or was afraid of the dark I would simply 'force' him to bed?

I think most parents have this problem, i know i did and still do. I quizzed my kid, why don't you want to go to sleep, your body needs to recuperate, your mind needs time to make sense of the days events, sleep is natural and refreshing, he stated that sleep was boring. I determined to set limits, which have gradually crept up later and later as he got older. If his friends are staying, which they frequently do, they get to stay up, as long as its not a school night, but within the bounds of reason. If he requested, just five minutes longer, i timed him out, I really did and it worked. When he was really younger I used to read to him every night, in the hope that he would come to appreciate books, which instead seems to have had the opposite effect, now, its easier, he comes home from school and is so tired because of the workload, that he falls to sleep with no prompting whatsoever.

It appears to me that discipline must be governed by reason in that a child must understand why the discipline is being administered. I have seen countless examples of a distraught mother trying to handle unruly boys, 'if you do that again i will smack you', 'I've warned you, if you do that again I will smack you', and the kid oblivious to his mothers protestations has no intention of stopping his behaviour safe in the knowledge that his mother is bluffing. A threat is hardly a threat unless we are prepared to carry it out and corporal punishment or the threat of such can be used as a deterrent, but only if we are prepared to carry it out. Probably the most annoying are the two extremes, the pampered kid whose parent rather than disciplining them seeks to placate them, they are wailing and crying and throwing a tantrum and the parent does nothing and the kid is bringing the house down or parents who take their own frustrations out on the kid by walloping them rather than trying to reason with them. So for what its worth, disciple should come with reason, the recipient should understand why they are being disciplined and corporal punishment should be used as a deterrent and a last resort when all recourse to reason has failed.

Originally posted by bbarr
I make a big deal out of word choice because you persist in presenting "arguments" that are are question-begging and based on the connotations of the words with which you're hysterically attempting to redescribe my view.

Oh, no! Epistemological worries! Give me a break.... I recommend swatting yourself repeatedly until you figure out how much force is ...[text shortened]... attention. My grandmother seemed to have a pretty robust understanding of painless swatting.

I make a big deal out of word choice because you persist in presenting "arguments" that are are question-begging and based on the connotations of the words with which you're hysterically attempting to redescribe my view.

Seriously? I was pointing to the fact that you were making a big deal out of the use of the word ‘violence’ by me and the word ‘hit’ by Wolfgang instead of addressing the actual points. You’re just deflecting. Your use of the word ‘HYSTERICALLY’ can only be termed ‘ironic’.

Oh, no! Epistemological worries! Give me a break.... I recommend swatting yourself repeatedly until you figure out how much force is sufficient for a painless yet pretty immediate call to attention. My grandmother seemed to have a pretty robust understanding of painless swatting.

Seems like you are claiming that after repeatedly ‘swatting’ themselves, parents will be able to thereafter deliver ‘swats’ to a child wherein each given 'swat' gets an ‘immediate call to attention’ yet is not perceived as pain by the child. Is that correct?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I make a big deal out of word choice because you persist in presenting "arguments" that are are question-begging and based on the connotations of the words with which you're hysterically attempting to redescribe my view.

Seriously? I was pointing to the fact that you were making a big deal out of the use of the word ‘violence’ by me and the wo ...[text shortened]... ‘immediate call to attention’ yet is not perceived as pain by the child. Is that correct?[/b]

Are you for real?

Originally posted by bbarr
Are you for real?

Are you going to address the germane points of the post or continue to deflect?

EDIT: Actually I really don't care if you address the first section. It's just a dead end that is a result of your deflection. That gets to the heart of the matter is the second section. That's what I'm interested in doing and have been all along.

Originally posted by bbarr
Are you for real?

I am Just posting to say that I agree with you, and that I have not been posting as you
have been making my points for me, and more articulately that I was going to.



I would object to the term Corporal Punishment though.

If a child is doing something wrong I have, and would never, advocate Punishing
them with violence.

However as you have said, sometimes small children just don't pay any attention to the
responsible adult in charge of them and need something to get their attention that they
can't ignore.

That is where physically restraining and occasionally delivering a smack to the butt to get
their attention is useful.

Like you I can remember (one) instance in my very young childhood where I was on the
receiving end of a smack because I wasn't paying attention while throwing a tantrum.

It did no damage (emotionally or physically) and got my attention.
Which was all it was supposed to do.


Those throwing histrionics and calling this "sickening" are starting to seriously piss me off.

Particularly as they have yet to show a shred of evidence that this is bad or harmful and
are resorting to the worst kind of emotional blackmail to cover for the inadequacies of their
arguments.


Of course beating a child as a punishment is abhorrent and damaging and there is plenty of
evidence supporting this.

However confusing a quick smack to get a very young child's attention when they are beyond all
reason and beating a child as a punishment is ridiculous.



And as for the idiotic question as to "Is it OK for you to swat an adult?"

There are times when it's ok to kill an adult.

If a man comes up to a woman in a bar and without permission grabs her breasts/crotch I have no problem
with the woman laying the guy out, let alone 'swatting' him.

In the attempts to draw simplistic moral black and white arguments in this discussion there are some
really stupid over simplifications being made.


I would recommend that there is some climbing off the 'moral high horse' that some people seem to have got
onto. If you start calling your opponents ignorant and wrong headed you had really better be provably right.

You are not. (or have not in any way come close to demonstrating that you are as yet).

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am Just posting to say that I agree with you, and that I have not been posting as you
have been making my points for me, and more articulately that I was going to.



I would object to the term Corporal [b]Punishment though.

If a child is doing something wrong I have, and would never, advocate Punishing
them with violence.

Howe are not. (or have not in any way come close to demonstrating that you are as yet).[/b]

What I've been speaking against is striking children to change their behavior.

From what I can tell, you are against striking children in general and believe it to be harmful. Correct?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I make a big deal out of word choice because you persist in presenting "arguments" that are are question-begging and based on the connotations of the words with which you're hysterically attempting to redescribe my view.

Seriously? I was pointing to the fact that you were making a big deal out of the use of the word ‘violence’ by me and the wo ...[text shortened]... ‘immediate call to attention’ yet is not perceived as pain by the child. Is that correct?[/b]

hysterically???? I think bbar has asked perfectly reasonable questions, although
admittedly, I did have to read them more than once to get the gist.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hysterically???? I think bbar has asked perfectly reasonable questions, although
admittedly, I did have to read them more than once to get the gist.

Not sure what you're getting at, but bbarr brought up the word "hysterically" in reference to wolfgang's post.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Not sure what you're getting at, but bbarr brought up the word "hysterically" in reference to wolfgang's post.

ok, my bad i thought you used it to describe bbars post.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What I've been speaking against is striking children to change their behavior.

From what I can tell, you are against striking children in general and believe it to be harmful. Correct?

Actually in your second post, you were clear that you thought there were no reasons to strike a child in any circumstances. ('There are no valid reasons to strike a child. Period.'😉

googlefudge has been clear, as have others, that they believe it can be acceptable to strike a child in certain limited circumstances and only using a certain level of force.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Actually in your second post, you were clear that you thought there were no reasons to strike a child in any circumstances. ('There are no valid reasons to strike a child. Period.'😉

googlefudge has been clear, as have others, that they believe it can be acceptable to strike a child in certain limited circumstances and only using a certain level of force.

Actually in your second post, you were clear that you thought there were no reasons to strike a child in any circumstances. ('There are no valid reasons to strike a child. Period.'😉

Yes, that's what I said. What are you driving at?

googlefudge has been clear, as have others, that they believe it can be acceptable to strike a child in certain limited circumstances and only using a certain level of force.

Yes, they have been clear about that. Hopefully I've been clear that I don't share that belief. What are you driving at?