Smacking Ban

[The fish]

Assault? Get real. If you want to go down that route then I could say that forcing your child to stay in a room with no fun is taking away his human rights.

 

And a better world? Most of the complete dicks in this world were brought up without any discipline. And we want to limit the amount of discipline a parent can use? What a fucking joke.

 

The only reason it's not currently, in England and Wales, an assault is because they're your own defenceless child. It's a sad state of affairs when it's worse to hit someone who can defend themselves than your own, defenceless child. Restricting movement is very, very different from assault - hence why I'm against capital punishment but not an anarchist (and that was your straw man before you whine about it being an unfair comparison).

 

There is a difference (a massive difference) between discipline and assaulting your own, defenceless child.

 

We are voting against banning the choice of smacking. As in, a single last resort slap, if the child ever crosses the line.

Wether you agree with it or not is one thing, but the choice shouldn't be taken away.

 

Beating them senseless is still illegal (thankfully), as far as I know.

 

People shouldn't assault other adults in the street when they aren't co-operating - think that should be an option available, eh?

[MoogleViper]

The only reason it's not currently, in England and Wales, an assault is because they're your own defenceless child. It's a sad state of affairs when it's worse to hit someone who can defend themselves than your own, defenceless child. Restricting movement is very, very different from assault - hence why I'm against capital punishment but not an anarchist (and that was your straw man before you whine about it being an unfair comparison).

 

There is a difference (a massive difference) between discipline and assaulting your own, defenceless child.

 

 

 

People shouldn't assault other adults in the street when they aren't co-operating - think that should be an option available, eh?

 

Well I'm all for capital punishment. And no matter how much you say it, a little slap on the bum of your child is not assault.

 

And if some guy in the street started attacking you, you wouldn't fight back? You'd tell him to stand over there and think about what he had done.

[Shino]

Way to be manipulative and demagogic Fish. You label it as you want but it still isn't true.

[Zero]

The only reason it's not currently, in England and Wales, an assault is because they're your own defenceless child.

 

There is a difference (a massive difference) between discipline and assaulting your own, defenceless child.

 

Last time I checked assualting your child was illegal.

[The fish]

Last time I checked assualting your child was illegal.

 

It's perfectly legal, as is battery. GBH and ABH, however, are illegal.

 

Well I'm all for capital punishment. And no matter how much you say it, a little slap on the bum of your child is not assault.

 

And if some guy in the street started attacking you, you wouldn't fight back? You'd tell him to stand over there and think about what he had done.

 

Touching anyone without their prior permission is assault.

 

Oh, and I probably would defend myself. However, a child is unlikely to pose a threat to me. Responding with any amount of force is beyond unacceptable in my eyes.

 

Way to be manipulative and demagogic Fish. You label it as you want but it still isn't true.

 

Thing is, it's the truth - they are your own child, and they are defenceless.

[ipaul]

The only reason it's not currently, in England and Wales, an assault is because they're your own defenceless child. It's a sad state of affairs when it's worse to hit someone who can defend themselves than your own, defenceless child. Restricting movement is very, very different from assault - hence why I'm against capital punishment but not an anarchist (and that was your straw man before you whine about it being an unfair comparison).

 

There is a difference (a massive difference) between discipline and assaulting your own, defenceless child.

 

 

 

People shouldn't assault other adults in the street when they aren't co-operating - think that should be an option available, eh?

 

 

Fish, although I agree with most of what you say on here and can see the point your trying to make, but the way you make your point can be a pain the arse. Through your theory out of the window for one fucking second about what is and what is not assault. Like many people on here have pointed out, a light smacking never does anyone any real harm. It's better the child receives this discipline than if they are ignored completely by their parents, who might let them get away with anything. Although I am quite against smacking and believe if I had children, I would not do it, I think people should still have the right to choose how they discipline their own child.

 

Besides, what exactly are you imagining when we talk about smacking? The child does something wrong - the parent goes kung fu fighting on them and smacks the shit out of them? A light slapping on the backside never did anyone any harm. What about all the people on here who were smacked as a child for discipline purposes? Are you calling all their parents terrible ones because they used some slight physical force to ensure the child knew between right and wrong?

 

Bigger question, not just to Fish, but how do they enforce a thing like this anyway?

[Chuck]

Ill smack you in a minute paul.

 

I dont think that physical punishment is the answer. Take away a priviledge or something but not hitting a kid.

[ipaul]

Ill smack you in a minute paul.

 

I dont think that physical punishment is the answer. Take away a priviledge or something but not hitting a kid.

 

Bit early isn't it :wink:

 

 

I don't think it's the answer either. But I think it is a matter for the individual, not the state. Smacking your child is not neccesarily a mark of bad parenting.

[Zero]

It's perfectly legal, as is battery. GBH and ABH, however, are illegal.

 

If you are going to take the most literal sense of the word then I still say there is nothing wrong it.

 

Getting hit as a kid worked for me and not getting hit as a kid worked for you. The point is, they both worked.

 

So, why should it be banned?

[Kirkatronics]

If you are going to take the most literal sense of the word then I still say there is nothing wrong it.

 

Getting hit as a kid worked for me and not getting hit as a kid worked for you. The point is, they both worked.

 

So, why should it be banned?

Because it can soon turn nasty, parents can go over board. I dont believe it should be banned, but there should be very STRICT guidlines on what is acceptable.

[Zero]

Because it can soon turn nasty, parents can go over board. I dont believe it should be banned, but there should be very STRICT guidlines on what is acceptable.

 

I agree with that. There should be guide lines but, it shouldn't be banned.

 

If it does turn nasty does that not count actual bodily harm and becomes illegal. Even if, it does become banned I doubt it will stop parents from giving the occasional clip.

[MoogleViper]

Because it can soon turn nasty, parents can go over board. I dont believe it should be banned, but there should be very STRICT guidlines on what is acceptable.

 

But that has little to do with banning. Smacking your child and abusing them physically are to different things.

[Jonnas]

People shouldn't assault other adults in the street when they aren't co-operating - think that should be an option available, eh?

 

I'm assuming that you know a child and an adult can't be treated the same way. In that case, I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

 

Look, as Zero said, smacking works in certain cases. Why should we take away one of the methods?

 

Also, occasional smacking doesn't harm children for life. It's very different than whipping them with the belt. And THAT is illegal, because it actually causes serious injury.

[rokhed00]

It's perfectly legal, as is battery. GBH and ABH, however, are illegal.

 

 

 

Touching anyone without their prior permission is assault.

 

Oh, and I probably would defend myself. However, a child is unlikely to pose a threat to me. Responding with any amount of force is beyond unacceptable in my eyes.

 

 

 

Thing is, it's the truth - they are your own child, and they are defenceless.

 

You've obviously never been smacked in the balls by a kid.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

You're right, to a certain extent. But to say they will never misbehave and will always obey the rules then you're living in a dream world.

 

For starters children learn what is wrong by doing what is wrong. They learn that it is wrong by the punishment and consequences. So they will misbehave at some point no matter how well their upbringing.

 

Also you aren't in control of you children 24/7 they go to school. Maybe you lived in a nice area but I lived in quite a rough area, where primary school children smoked, and stole and vandalised. You can't hide your children from this. So you need to teach them that it is wrong. But peer pressure is a powerful thing. And one day that child is going to do something that oversteps the line, and if all they get is the punishment that they receive when they do things that are a lot less worse, then they will think, "If I get the same punishment for both of these things then I may as well do the worse one." Or something along those lines. A smack tells them that there is a punishment worse than the naughty step. And it tells them that what they have done is very wrong.

 

You're assuming things.

 

Like I've said a few times, of course children will misbehave sometimes, as they do it to test boundaries and limits. This is where discipline and consequence come into the picture. But if the right amount of punishment is issued at the right time for the right causes, I don't believe one would ever get to the point where smacking is necessary.

 

Influence from the outer world, now that's an interesting aspect that complicates the matter even more. Of course children will be influences from the outer world, but the upbringing will have to be adjusted accordingly.

 

You seem to think it's inevitable that children will misbehave to the point where smacking is necessary. I won't deny that it can come to that point, but this is where it gets difficult for me. Because even though I see the sense in what you are saying, it's just wrong in my head.

[Kirkatronics]

You've obviously never been smacked in the balls by a kid.

If that happened, say by a random kid, are we alowwed to kick 'em back?

[Jonnas]

You seem to think it's inevitable that children will misbehave to the point where smacking is necessary. I won't deny that it can come to that point, but this is where it gets difficult for me. Because even though I see the sense in what you are saying, it's just wrong in my head.

 

Well, we can agree on that. I hope I never have to resort to violence either. Definately only if the kid does A LOT of crap.

 

If that happened, say by a random kid, are we alowwed to kick 'em back?

 

By the time you can feel your legs again, he's already gone

[Kirkatronics]

Well, we can agree on that. I hope I never have to resort to violence either. Definately only if the kid does A LOT of crap.

 

 

 

By the time you can feel your legs again, he's already gone

Its an automatic reaction to deck whoever did it, but would we get introuble for it?

[Kurtle Squad]

Maybe the Govt. should be dealing with young offenders and all other criminals properly before they start telling the decent people how to bring up their children.

 

They're letting crime get "out of control" due to an individual's rights being seen as more important than those of society. Lock the bastards up and make them pay for policing, courts and the victims, not the innocent.

[MoogleViper]

You're assuming things.

 

Like I've said a few times, of course children will misbehave sometimes, as they do it to test boundaries and limits. This is where discipline and consequence come into the picture. But if the right amount of punishment is issued at the right time for the right causes, I don't believe one would ever get to the point where smacking is necessary.

 

Influence from the outer world, now that's an interesting aspect that complicates the matter even more. Of course children will be influences from the outer world, but the upbringing will have to be adjusted accordingly.

 

You seem to think it's inevitable that children will misbehave to the point where smacking is necessary. I won't deny that it can come to that point, but this is where it gets difficult for me. Because even though I see the sense in what you are saying, it's just wrong in my head.

 

Ok question for you (I'm not sure if you've answered it already), you don't believe in smacking, but would you condemn a parent that does?

[jayseven]

Ok, ok, guys.

 

Theorising and debating over imaginary margins is silly. If my kid kicked someone else in the nuts, the other person wouldn't slap my kid (or he'd be in trouble), and nor would I. I'd pull the kid aside and be very stern, putting on my Angry Voice which the kid'll know means oh shit I did a bad thing. Largely it's the threat of a smack that put the fear in me as a child, and smart-alec kids who know their parents can't hit them wouldn't have that fear. But then, the ban won't actually stop any parents hitting their kids.

 

I think I was only smacked when I thought the angry voice was playful, and where I'd persisted in my bad behaviour. So if my kid then kicks another adult in the nuts I would probably grab him by the arm, pull him away and do angry voice again, with the threat to lay the smack down. If he did it again, he'd get a smack and be crying too much to do it again.

 

As they get older, you just threaten to pull their pants down and smack them in public. Worse than just a smack and not screwing with their mentality as much as dressing the boy up as a girl.

 

Here's a dictionary definition of Assault and battery;

 

"assault and battery noun, law the act of threatening to physically attack someone which is then followed by an actual physical attack, even when any damage sustained is minimal."

 

Assault is regarded as an act that causes someone else to feel physically threatened, and to be honest kids fucking feel like that all the way through school so shh with it being a big deal.

 

Life isn't one padded cell after bubble-wrapped room after cushioned fall. Life is hard. We will feel physically, mentally and emotionally threatened all of the time, and I would gladly argue that it's better a kid experiences physical threats from their parents than some random stranger in the street, because at least the kid knows the parents love them. Because at least the kid will feel guilt for what he did to get it in the first place. Because the kid will seek the love and comfort of the parent after the slap, and wouldn't retaliate like they might do with a random stranger on the street (ok, flawed argument due to lack of specificity, but just roll with it)...

 

Beating up your kids is not ok. But surely if you love your kids and want what's best for them then you're not going to beat them up, are you?

[EEVILMURRAY]

Depends on your definition of "beating up". For me it normally means kicking the shit out of someone.

 

Not a light pimpsmack so they know who's boss.

 

But the webpage is back up!

 

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat

 

Full of useful hints for the confusion among us.

[thunderer]

I wish maddox was my dad

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Ok question for you (I'm not sure if you've answered it already), you don't believe in smacking, but would you condemn a parent that does?

 

It's difficult to answer and depends very much on the circumstances. Do you have a specific situation in mind?

 

I know you probably want a straight yes/no answer from me, but the truth is there's no simple yes/no or black/white when debating a subject as serious as this.

 

Depends on your definition of "beating up". For me it normally means kicking the shit out of someone.

 

Not a light pimpsmack so they know who's boss.

 

But the webpage is back up!

 

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat

 

Full of useful hints for the confusion among us.

 

Sorry, but I can't take that webpage seriously. Call me a paedagocial hippie, but the tone alone on that webpage shows the pattern of thought. Hell, he lists different beating manoeuvres?! Doesn't this just show that an upbringing with beating produces people who have no problems hitting their kids?

 

Violence is a bad way to handle problems, people. I have begun to possibly accept the fact that it may be necessary in some extreme situations, but that page is just ridiculous.

[The fish]

Sorry, but I can't take that webpage seriously. Call me a paedagocial hippie, but the tone alone on that webpage shows the pattern of thought. Hell, he lists different beating manoeuvres?! Doesn't this just show that an upbringing with beating produces people who have no problems hitting their kids?

 

Joke ------->

 

Head

 

Maddox, however, is a completely unfunny dickweed who rants about nothing of the slightest importance, and he thinks everyone loves him for it.