Smacking Ban

[EEVILMURRAY]

Incarceration, as in imprisonment? Well, I wouldn't say I'm a fan of any type of punishment, and the preemptive effect isn't as effective as we could have wished. Which is why people need to be taught why doing something is wrong, not just be scared away from doing it. They don't learn anything from that.

 

By your last sentence, I assume you mean I'm being sarcastic instead of explaining myself? But I have explained myself. A toddler doesn't know what is right and wrong. It's human nature to be curious. But a toddler is too young to be taught what is right and wrong, ergo we need to keep them away from doing bad stuff until they're old enough to understand. You, on the other hand, should know why curiousity isn't even near being an excuse for stabbing someone.

I'm not sure if you're getting my point either, because you keep using the word sarcastic as if it's the entire basis for our banging debate.

 

That aside, you're not a fan of pimpsmacking, you're not a fan of locking up. What do you think is your best method of teaching them? You keep mentioning about "teaching them" what is right and wrong, but you don't say how, do you give them a little lecture or something and hope they understand?

[Ramar]

Shit I thought the question said "do you agree with the smacking ban" and voted no. So count one of those nos and a yes if you really care that much.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I'm not sure if you're getting my point either, because you keep using the word sarcastic as if it's the entire basis for our banging debate.

 

That aside, you're not a fan of pimpsmacking, you're not a fan of locking up. What do you think is your best method of teaching them? You keep mentioning about "teaching them" what is right and wrong, but you don't say how, do you give them a little lecture or something and hope they understand?

 

Actually, yes. I know it sounds stupid and that it won't work on some and etc. But my philosophy is this: From infancy, we tell kids what they should and shouldn't do. Don't try to explain to them why, as they're too young to understand. Later on, you begin to explain to them the reasons for some things being right and wrong. My philosophy is to try to make children responsible human beings. I know, it sounds awfully paedagogical, but that's my opinion.

[MoogleViper]

Incarceration, as in imprisonment? Well, I wouldn't say I'm a fan of any type of punishment, and the preemptive effect isn't as effective as we could have wished. Which is why people need to be taught why doing something is wrong, not just be scared away from doing it. They don't learn anything from that.

 

Actually, yes. I know it sounds stupid and that it won't work on some and etc. But my philosophy is this: From infancy, we tell kids what they should and shouldn't do. Don't try to explain to them why, as they're too young to understand. Later on, you begin to explain to them the reasons for some things being right and wrong. My philosophy is to try to make children responsible human beings. I know, it sounds awfully paedagogical, but that's my opinion.

 

I think you live in some sort of dream world or you have never encountered the sorts of people who commit crimes. Many people aren't brought up with any sense or right or wrong. And you think a lecture will change that? They aren't even scared of prison. They know that they are unlikely to be caught and if they are then they will be out in 6 months time.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I think you live in some sort of dream world or you have never encountered the sorts of people who commit crimes. Many people aren't brought up with any sense or right or wrong. And you think a lecture will change that? They aren't even scared of prison. They know that they are unlikely to be caught and if they are then they will be out in 6 months time.

 

Note that I said that they need to be taught it from childhood. If they don't learn it then, it's very hard to change their behaviour. Which is why we need things like prison.

[Serebii]

Alternative to smacking...electro shock.

 

They haven't banned that yet have they? It'll get the kid knowing that whatt they did is not acceptable. I was smacked when I was unruly as a younger child...now I'm a very good adult, would never do anything wrong unless I fully believe that what I'm doing is right.

[Ville]

-

Edited September 12, 2021 by Ville

[Paj!]

Does anyone else see the thread title of this on first glance as "Smacking Ben"?

 

I thought it might be some new rad TV show.

[MoogleViper]

Does anyone else see the thread title of this on first glance as "Smacking Ben"?

 

I thought it might be some new rad TV show.

 

Haha what a coincidence. I've just read it as that before I came in, having been in a few times and not reading it as that.

[Kirkatronics]

Alternative to smacking...electro shock.

 

They haven't banned that yet have they? It'll get the kid knowing that whatt they did is not acceptable. I was smacked when I was unruly as a younger child...now I'm a very good adult, would never do anything wrong unless I fully believe that what I'm doing is right.

Works both ways though, im a good lad and i never got smacked even when i was out of control.

[Zero]

I was slapped on the wrist as a kid if I done something wrong and I would say it worked.

 

If you think a slap on the wrist or a clip behind the ear is violent then let's hope you don't get mugged and beaten anytime soon.

[ShadowV7]

I went for yes. I got smacked as a kid and it done me good, shows kids can't get away with everything, what's a light telling off and sent to a room gonna do anyway.

[The fish]

I'm worried by the fact that 43 people on this forum approve of the idea that the only person you can legally assault or batter in this country is your own child.

[Roostophe]

^ So a good old-fashioned clip around the ear is classed as "assault" in your case?

[ShadowV7]

Are you kidding? The word 'assault' or 'batter' is far to strong of a word. If you pat someone on the shoulder that's not a push is it?

 

If the kid does something to earn a smack or anything to show what he/she's done bad, it shows that what the did do was something they shouldn't do again. Send them up to their room where they spend most of their time anyway to show what they did was wrong...

 

Not as if moaning at them will do anything, just end up doing it again since the parents won't or can't do anything about it.

[The fish]

^ So a good old-fashioned clip around the ear is classed as "assault" in your case?

 

It's still an assault (hitting someone with the intention of hurting them is most definitely battery), and being traditional doesn't make it acceptable. A parent shouldn't need to hit a child, if they've brought them up properly.

[Serebii]

I went for yes. I got smacked as a kid and it done me good, shows kids can't get away with everything, what's a light telling off and sent to a room gonna do anyway.

"Whoa no, your room is full of toys. Go to the...garage!"

 

That just sprung to mind :p

[The fish]

Are you kidding? The word 'assault' or 'batter' is far to strong of a word. If you pat someone on the shoulder that's not a push is it?

 

If the kid does something to earn a smack or anything to show what he/she's done bad, it shows that what the did do was something they shouldn't do again. Send them up to their room where they spend most of their time anyway to show what they did was wrong...

 

Not as if moaning at them will do anything, just end up doing it again since the parents won't or can't do anything about it.

 

Patting someone on the shoulder is, actually, technically an assault...

 

Sending a child to their room works, providing you don't, say, put a TV in it first. A parent shouldn't need to batter their child to show them they can't do what ever they like.

[Roostophe]

You're disciplining a child, not beating the snot out of them. It's a whole world away from the normal types of assault like mugging and beating.

 

And patting someone on the shoulder is "assault"? Even if you have evidence, that's just bollocks.

[Serebii]

It's still an assault (hitting someone with the intention of hurting them is most definitely battery), and being traditional doesn't make it acceptable. A parent shouldn't need to hit a child, if they've brought them up properly.

At the age that a child is logically smackable (I'm thinking 4 to 10ish), they arent brought up fully yet and they're doing these things to test the boundaries

[The fish]

You're disciplining a child, not beating the snot out of them. It's a whole world away from the normal types of assault like mugging and beating.

 

Neither of them are assault, oddly enough.

 

I love the way people who support the battery of children use the term "disciplining", it almost sounds acceptable. There are ways of disciplining kids without hitting them. If hitting them is all you can think of, then you shouldn't have kids...

 

And patting someone on the shoulder is "assault"? Even if you have evidence, that's just bollocks.

 

Touching someone without their prior permission is assault. Doing so with any significant force is battery.

[Serebii]

Neither of them are assault, oddly enough.

 

I love the way people who support the battery of children use the term "disciplining", it almost sounds acceptable. There are ways of disciplining kids without hitting them. If hitting them is all you can think of, then you shouldn't have kids...

 

 

 

Touching someone without their prior permission is assault. Doing so with any significant force is battery.

In my eyes, smacking is a last resort...if they continue to play up despite what you do then you give them a smack. Of course other disciplining techniques come first...what do you take us for? Vikings?

[The fish]

At the age that a child is logically smackable (I'm thinking 4 to 10ish), they arent brought up fully yet and they're doing these things to test the boundaries

 

You still don't have to hit them. Send them to their room, and make sure that their room is not a place they want to spend lots of their time whilst awake.

 

In my eyes, smacking is a last resort...if they continue to play up despite what you do then you give them a smack. Of course other disciplining techniques come first...what do you take us for? Vikings?

 

I think you're just being stupid. You seem to think that just because they're your offspring you have the moral high ground if you hit them. The fact that they're a defenceless child makes it all the more worse. Try doing the same thing to someone in the street, and see what happens.

[Flaight]

I think Dannyboy makes a good point, from intellectual perspective. What I don't agree, though, is the underlying assumption that a very young child can be taught effectively through a dialogue. By dialogue, I mean a discussion between 2 people in order to "pass on the wisdom". This doesn't require "reasoning" ability. Just a matter of inheriting the wisdom at face value. I believe many young children are unable to do this.

 

I have 2 points here on this:

 

1,

I believe every child is different, as in extreme cases a child prodigy learns to read and reason by the age of 3. Some years later, some go on to develop mathematical or linguistic skills that goes beyond those of adults. So, I can see that some kids do have a greater capacity than others. But, assuming that for every child seems unreasonable. It's a very small proportion of babies who are born that way.

 

2,

We all have the tendency to drift down the easier path. It's human nature to choose an easier path, when there are choices. Learning through "fear" is the fundamental learning tool we instinctively have, as we inherited it from the Animal Kingdom.

 

Before we gain the ability to listen and inherit the wisdom of other people, this elemental fear is what will change our fundamental behaviour. In my view, it's how you use it which decides whether it was good or evil. In other words, I don't see smacking itself as the root of the problem. Rather, the application and context surrounding the act of smacking, that is the problem.

 

In fact, even in adulthood we repeatedly make mistakes. Many of us speed while driving, until one day we go through a life & death experience. Many of us spend money when we shouldn't, till we're debt ridden and everything gets taken away. These painful lessons often penetrate to the depth of our hearts more than when we're just reading about it in a book. In other words, even in adulthood, "reasoning" does not equal to "changing our ways".

 

Naturally some of us have greater discipline than others, but there is no unifying model out there into which all of us can fit. The point is, even in adulthood, often "fear" is the decisive factor which allows us to change our ways.

 

So, in a way, the difference may be that I just interpret "fear" as often a good thing (or call it a necessary evil, if that phrase sits better with you). Until we find another way to tap into this elemental fear in a person (maybe in the future we might have a helmet which sends a weak electric current into our brain to create the same effect), I think smacking should be a part of upbringing.

[ShadowV7]

That doesn't work at all. You need to discipline kids so they know twhat they done was bad and get an appropriate outcome. If your kid went out, jumped and beat someone up, you won't just go "Go to your room", even if you do take stuff out, they're still getting away with it and they don't get punished for it.

 

I got sent to my room for hours with my TV/Computer etc gone. There's always something to do and it solves nothing and you just don't learn.