Is smacking a child ever acceptable? (3 Viewers)

[SnowFox]

When you use violence to 'teach' a child, you are telling that child that violence is OK. It is no coincidence that most violent criminals had rough upbringings.

Misbehave, receive a smack. Don't misbehave, don't receive a smack.

How you can link that two future "violent" criminals is way beyond me.

 

[Kwayera]

I don't see the difference. Your mother threatened you with a riding crop, if you'd continually misbehaved in the face of her warnings, she'd been forced to use it and follow through on her threats, would that have been wrong?

Well the point I was making was actually the location of the strike. There's a lot of nerves, not a lot of padding, and a huge potential to do a lot of damage if you hit a kid in the hand/fingers with a stick. There's also the distribution of force - the force of a stick (on hands, bum or otherwise) is always going to be less, and thus more intense, than the use of a hand. Thirdly, smacking with a stick doesn't hurt the smacker, which is how one would judge appropriate force.

EDIT: And the whole POINT behind my mother's threat of the riding crop was that it was a threat that would NEVER have to be followed through with. Rather cunning on her part.

You can hit very hard with a hand, or very softly with a stick, I don't see the problem if the results are the same?

As above.

Alright, say the cane is excessively violent. Would you support teachers right to use reasonable physical force to discipline children, with their hands alone?

No. I think only parents should determine whether physical punishment is required.

 

[ad infinitum]

Misbehave, receive a smack. Don't misbehave, don't receive a smack.

How you can link that two future "violent" criminals is way beyond me.

Because they think its OK to use violence to express themselves. Pretty straight forward mate. Smacking a child is an act of violence; one intended to inflict pain. So mate, go ahead and beat the shit out of your kids, I hope you and your kind get locked up. All those video games where you can pummel children to death with baseball bats is having a sickening affect on freaks like you.

 

[John McCain]

Well the point I was making was actually the location of the strike. There's a lot of nerves, not a lot of padding, and a huge potential to do a lot of damage if you hit a kid in the hand/fingers with a stick. There's also the distribution of force - the force of a stick (on hands, bum or otherwise) is always going to be less, and thus more intense, than the use of a hand. Thirdly, smacking with a stick doesn't hurt the smacker, which is how one would judge appropriate force.



As above.

I wasn't aware of where and how the cane was traditionally applied, obviously it should be applied so as not to cause lasting damage.

No. I think only parents should determine whether physical punishment is required.

If a certain punishment is to the benefit of the child, it shouldn't matter who is applying it. Indeed, if it is good for children under certain circumstances, it's a disservice to these children if we do not allow teachers the ability to properly mold their character by the appropriate application of physical discipline. If occasional and appropriate physical punishment achieves optimal results when raising children, then surely restricting teachers in using this power when necessary will result in children not reaching their full potential?

We assign teachers with the responsibility to manage and discipline children while they are under their care, in the best manner possible. If physical discipline is an effective method, why not grant that right to teachers?

As mentioned, such an application of discipline is actually relatively safer when used by teachers because the act is public and they are fully accountable. There are checks against it escalating or ever being used without just cause.

 

[SnowFox]

Because they think its OK to use violence to express themselves. Pretty straight forward mate. Smacking a child is an act of violence; one intended to inflict pain. So mate, go ahead and beat the shit out of your kids, I hope you and your kind get locked up. All those video games where you can pummel children to death with baseball bats is having a sickening affect on freaks like you.

Dont bring that trivial shit into this thread, you have a perfectly nice thread in IT waiting for you. Its not our fault you can not distinguish the difference between a Snuff Film and MA15+ game that preteens are not even meant to play.

Onto the topic at hand, its not straight forward, you will find most violent criminals are those who had the shit upbringing, beaten without remorse even though they did nothing wrong, or a significant experience had triggered something.

 

[emerald91]

Personally, I believe that a 'smack' is an acceptable form of punishment. However, I do not accept that a child should be used as a parent's punching bag or excessive force be taken. To say that a criminal has taken the path that they have taken because they "delicate little flowers" who got a smack is ridiculous. In most cases, violence related criminal behaviour isn't the result of a petty smack but from excessive abuse. There is a difference.

Punishment is a way of making a child conform to the rules and expectations set. I go to a school that ends up getting many rejects from the region, children who are often expelled or asked to leave by other schools. This does not help in the education process when you have students who do not want to learn, and are extremely disruptive. I believe that due to a few morally righteous people who hold grudges against their parents because 'I got smacked and my friend Johnnie didn't' (the same people who hate their parents for destroying their lives by creating a fictional Santa and causing psychological damage when told he does not exist), children have lost an ability to understand where the boundaries are set. Often these misfit children are the result of parents who do not care, who are at the pub while their kid is running rampant in the streets, causing criminal damage because at the age of 8,9,10,11,12, they KNOW their "rights". They know they can't be punished - because they "do not" have the mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. What is worse? A parent who smacks their kid to get them to abide by the rules set, or a parent who lets their child loose.

And btw, the cane was not the only way to punish kids at school. Here are a few of my favourites.
>The piece of chalk or duster thrown at you
>The massive textbook thrown at you
>(and my personal favourite) The game of footy organised by the teacher when he is particularly annoyed with some students. The teacher puts the kids he doesnt like on one team and himself on the other, ensuring that the 'misfits' never ever want to play footy on the opposite team again
And these stories come from teachers still in the system.

Let's face it, punishment with children exists to stop them from taking the wrong path. Excessively, its bad, but in moderation and with other punishments it should not be a problem. Give them a warning, often the threat is bad enough, if they've felt the sting of a hand across their bum.

 

[*TRUE*]

You're going to need to be more specific.

What about physical punishment is doing this, that doesn't "shame them/make them sad/make them afraid"?

A little off topic, I admit, but is feeling ashamed of bad behaviour, sad for hurting others and afraid (as in respectful and mindful of the likelyhood) of negative consequences SUCH A BAD THING????? I say its a bloody good thing, and getting more and more rare even in adults. (perhaps because of the insane parenting advice coming from some quarters?)
I don't understand some of the posters in this thread...
The key to raising selfish, unkind and foolish children who grow into irresponsible adults is to neglect teaching them the realities of life, and the realities of life are cause and effect - the decisions we make to a large part determine the outcomes in our lives, that we live and deal with one another - therefore learning to care for and get on with others is important, and that authority figures usually there to generally be observed and respected for the betterment of society.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

That depends on if smacking sparingly on the bum counts as violence.

You tell me, if someone spanked you lightly on the bum (against your will), would you count it as violence or at least a criminal invasion of your body?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

And the whole POINT behind my mother's threat of the riding crop was that it was a threat that would NEVER have to be followed through with. Rather cunning on her part.

If the child consistently defies the parent and the riding crop is never used, the child will soon realize that the threat is empty and it will cease to become effective. Its a risky play, because once the child realises this they will loose respect for the parent and will be less scared by future threats.

I would say that your mother was not cunning at all, but rather quite lucky that you were probably a pretty well behaved child anyway.

 

[will-anal]

Generalisation and ad hominem!

But of course it's the other side that doesn't have an argument.



Good troll! You do humour well!
Feel free to make some actual points whenever hey.

I wasn't trolling. It was an entirely valid point. You yap on about ethics, and about distinguishing between hitting an adult who is misbehaving and a child, and yet you've come to the conclusion in the past that it's okay to kill a police officer if they're arresting you for a victimless crime, because it's a threat agains your freedom. Hence why I said, hahaha ethics? Fuck off.

I can't take you clowns seriously.

 

[will-anal]

itt: people who have tried to reason with a 2 year old

 

[57o1i]

Why is it okay for parents to meet out punishment but not teachers though? What makes parents better judges of appropriate punishment? If anything teachers are more accountable.

IMHO it comes down to the fact that parents feed, clothe and just about do everything for their children - including accepting liability for their child's behaviour in some cases. Teachers don't have that level of responsibility. It might take a village to raise a child but parents are the ones who are best positioned to take charge of disciplinary matters.

And if the child deliberately chooses to willfully disobey deductive logic, as they are want to do? Why not punish them as the last resort, to teach them the consequences of not listening and being considerate towards others?

To be honest I'm not sure what your point is here but I'm going to assume you're playing devil's advocate.

AFAIC this isn't a slippery-slope argument. Believing that parents should be able to smack their kids with their hands does not necessarily mean believing that other adults should be able to hit children over the knuckles with rulers, canes and other implements, whether the child is being wilfully disobedient or not.

This seems quite an arbitrary distinction. What is the difference between if I hit my children with my fist or a wooden spoon, the result is the same? What if the teachers didn't use the cane and used their hands and fists instead, would it then be okay?

To answer your last question first, no. Because as I've already said, 1) I don't think teachers should have the authority to physically discipline kids and 2) kids of that age have outgrown spanking anyway.

And with regard to your first question, I agree completely with Kwayera. There are some very clear differences between the two methods. And also, "smacking" does not mean "hit your child with your fist".

 

[John McCain]

IMHO it comes down to the fact that parents feed, clothe and just about do everything for their children - including accepting liability for their child's behaviour in some cases. Teachers don't have that level of responsibility. It might take a village to raise a child but parents are the ones who are best positioned to take charge of disciplinary matters.

But one of a teachers responsibilities is to apply discipline to maintain some sort of order in the classroom. If physical punishment is a good means of this, why not make it available as an option? What is the harm in having teachers use this punishment?

Teachers have a huge amount of responsibility and liability for a childs behaviour. They spend more time with the children under their care than a lot of parents would. If a child is threatening their own, or another students safety while at school, it's not the parents who are going to be considered responsible for any damage done.

AFAIC this isn't a slippery-slope argument. Believing that parents should be able to smack their kids with their hands does not necessarily mean believing that other adults should be able to hit children over the knuckles with rulers, canes and other implements, whether the child is being wilfully disobedient or not.

I'm not saying it's a slippery slope, but from the arguments I've read in this thread, all justification for parents using physical punishment could be equally applied to justifying its use by teachers.

I find this interesting.

To answer your last question first, no. Because as I've already said, 1) I don't think teachers should have the authority to physically discipline kids and 2) kids of that age have outgrown spanking anyway.

Why would a child ever outgrow spanking? Children can and will choose not to listen to reason at any age, their disobedience may increase as they get older. If so, physical punishment should correct this behaviour?

And with regard to your first question, I agree completely with Kwayera. There are some very clear differences between the two methods. And also, "smacking" does not mean "hit your child with your fist".

Okay, so let teachers use methods that are similar in not leaving permanent physical damage, to the methods use by parents.

 

[*TRUE*]

I don't know if you noticed, Richard, but I am ostensibly one of those who believes that children definately grow out of spanking - and that is should be reserved for very young children not capable of understanding natural consequences.
A child develops the ability to understand, and as the child develops, the parent should seek to create 'consequences' of similar style yet of smaller magnitude to suit the misdemenour.(I'm pretty much quoting myself here) As the child becomes an adult they will hopefully have learnt to make decisions by first considering the consequences.
It's a bit like feeding a baby breast milk, then baby food, then roast beef. Stages, if you like.

 

[jaysexy]

I'd say smack them 'till they learn.

 

[57o1i]

But one of a teachers responsibilities is to apply discipline to maintain some sort of order in the classroom. If physical punishment is a good means of this, why not make it available as an option? What is the harm in having teachers use this punishment?

Because school age kids are too old to be smacked. And for the reasons why ...

Why would a child ever outgrow spanking? Children can and will choose not to listen to reason at any age, their disobedience may increase as they get older. If so, physical punishment should correct this behaviour?

It's not a question of whether a child "chooses" not to listen to reason, it's a question of whether they "can" listen to reason. A child who understands the reasons but won't obey is likely to be made more resentful by smacking, as contrasted to a child who is too young to listen to reason but can learn through the direct cause --> effect form of smacking.

Sixteen year olds are children too. And so far I don't think anyone on here has advocated that spanking would be a good disciplinary measure for them. Because there comes a time when it's pretty much a given that it's not going to be effective. I agree with *TRUE* -- there are stages of development. What works for a young child is not necessarily going to be effective for an older one.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I wasn't trolling. It was an entirely valid point. You yap on about ethics, and about distinguishing between hitting an adult who is misbehaving and a child, and yet you've come to the conclusion in the past that it's okay to kill a police officer if they're arresting you for a victimless crime, because it's a threat agains your freedom. Hence why I said, hahaha ethics? Fuck off.

I can't take you clowns seriously.

He is being consistent. He is saying the initiation of violence is always wrong, and if violence is initiated against you, you have a right to defend yourself.

So a parent using violence against a child is wrong, just as a police officer using violence against someone for a victimless crime is also wrong.

Saying its okay to kill a police officer is pretty extreme. Obviously you may only use the minimum force necessary to defend yourself, but it is possible that a scenario could arise where this would be justified.

 

[*TRUE*]

He is being consistent. He is saying the initiation of violence is always wrong, and if violence is initiated against you, you have a right to defend yourself.

So a parent using violence against a child is wrong, just as a police officer using violence against someone for a victimless crime is also wrong.

Saying its okay to kill a police officer is pretty extreme. Obviously you may only use the minimum force necessary to defend yourself, but it is possible that a scenario could arise where this would be justified.

Honey, a smack on the bottom of a two year old is not violence. It's not.
ECOD why can some people not GET IT.
Smacking is to be used sparingly for children too young to understand any sort of natural or simulated natural consequence! DO YOU GET IT NOW?

 

[will-anal]

He is being consistent. He is saying the initiation of violence is always wrong, and if violence is initiated against you, you have a right to defend yourself.

So a parent using violence against a child is wrong, just as a police officer using violence against someone for a victimless crime is also wrong.

Saying its okay to kill a police officer is pretty extreme. Obviously you may only use the minimum force necessary to defend yourself, but it is possible that a scenario could arise where this would be justified.

I wasn't saying he wasn't being consistent, but now that you point it out, it's not consistent. Using "violence" such as a smack to deter a child when they do not understand reasoning or logic is entirely valid, it can't even be compared with adults resorting to violence in the case of self defense.

What is wrong with you people.

 

[dieburndie]

I wasn't saying he wasn't being consistent, but now that you point it out, it's not consistent. Using "violence" such as a smack to deter a child when they do not understand reasoning or logic is entirely valid, it can't even be compared with adults resorting to violence in the case of self defense.

What is wrong with you people.

NOTHING.
Consistent opposition to any form of violence with the exception of self-defense, is an absolutely sound ethical position.

And your explanation for why it isn't consistent makes NO sense.