Is smacking a child ever acceptable? (11 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

A smack, by its nature, is designed to HURT. A child that is misbehaving repeatedly will be smacked repeatedly. Hurt repeatedly. WHY IS THAT HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?

You're conflating smacking with physical abuse.

Let's make a distinction here. Slapping/striking your child on the face with any kind of force? Hitting anywhere hard enough to leave a mark/bruise? That's abuse. Smacking a child open-handedly on their well-padded bottom, preferably with clothing as a barrier, with a motion more to make noise and make a physically but not long-lastingly painful connection between behaviour and consequence? Not abuse.

An anecdote for you. My sister and I were separated in age only by a year and five days. Taking us shopping, for instance, could occasionally be an exercise in frustration when we were very young, but bad behaviour was not usually treated with smacking because we had already been taught the consequence of misbehaviour if we didn't heed warnings. However, a moment's inattention in the car park when mum was packing the car and distracted with my sister had me wandering off; as soon as she noticed, she ran over, snatched me up, gave me a loud - not painful - smack on the arse and then told me why she had done it. Why? Because, as somebody mentioned, a "Catriona, get back here!" in a busy carpark may NOT have stopped me getting run over. The smack instilled in me the importance of the lesson, and it was an important one.

Was my mother abusing me in that instance? Heck no.

As an aside, my mother is an accomplished horsewoman, and her leather riding crop was often brandished at us as a threat. But she never, ever had to use it and I don't think she ever would have.

 

[will-anal]

Well according to you there is no such thing as a genuine justification and given that you're obviously an expert on early childhood development and the long lasting social impact of smacking by parents, (i.e. if a parent smacks a kid that kid will go on to smack their kids IN THE ABSENCE OF A GENUINE JUSTIFICATION OH NO CALL THE COPS), we will never reach common ground.

I'm saying that you have obvious mental health issues if you are honestly going to sit here and perpetuate the idea that parents smack their children for no other reason than power, sadistic pleasure and ineptitude.

Forget the kids that are being hospitalised/dying due to severe child abuse and neglect, what about those sadistic fuckers providing warm, stable homes but who are smacking their kids with what IIIIIIII consider to be an ABSENCE OF GENUINE JUSTIFICATION.

I don't see why your idea of a genuine justification should be applied to the way all parents justify smacking.

 

[will-anal]

You're conflating smacking with physical abuse.

Let's make a distinction here. Slapping/striking your child on the face with any kind of force? Hitting anywhere hard enough to leave a mark/bruise? That's abuse. Smacking a child open-handedly on their well-padded bottom, preferably with clothing as a barrier, with a motion more to make noise and make a physically but not long-lastingly painful connection between behaviour and consequence? Not abuse.

An anecdote for you. My sister and I were separated in age only by a year and five days. Taking us shopping, for instance, could occasionally be an exercise in frustration when we were very young, but bad behaviour was not usually treated with smacking because we had already been taught the consequence of misbehaviour if we didn't heed warnings. However, a moment's inattention in the car park when mum was packing the car and distracted with my sister had me wandering off; as soon as she noticed, she ran over, snatched me up, gave me a loud - not painful - smack on the arse and then told me why she had done it. Why? Because, as somebody mentioned, a "Catriona, get back here!" in a busy carpark may NOT have stopped me getting run over. The smack instilled in me the importance of the lesson, and it was an important one.

Was my mother abusing me in that instance? Heck no.

As an aside, my mother is an accomplished horsewoman, and her leather riding crop was often brandished at us as a threat. But she never, ever had to use it and I don't think she ever would have.

Your mother threatened you and your sister because she's a lazy, sadistic, inept motherfucker with bad parenting skills! You ran off because you were not being properly supervised and your mother took a great deal of sadistic pleasure in threatening you with the horse whip! There was no genuine justification for the victims there!

/retards

 

[Kwayera]

Before this goes any further, I would like everyone who has made any fiat accompli assertions - on either side - to back up those assertions with citations.

You say smacking causes long-term psychological damage? Prove it. You say it doesn't? Prove it.

Etc. Carry on.

 

[ay0_x]

You're conflating smacking with physical abuse.

Let's make a distinction here. Slapping/striking your child on the face with any kind of force? Hitting anywhere hard enough to leave a mark/bruise? That's abuse. Smacking a child open-handedly on their well-padded bottom, preferably with clothing as a barrier, with a motion more to make noise and make a physically but not long-lastingly painful connection between behaviour and consequence? Not abuse.

An anecdote for you. My sister and I were separated in age only by a year and five days. Taking us shopping, for instance, could occasionally be an exercise in frustration when we were very young, but bad behaviour was not usually treated with smacking because we had already been taught the consequence of misbehaviour if we didn't heed warnings. However, a moment's inattention in the car park when mum was packing the car and distracted with my sister had me wandering off; as soon as she noticed, she ran over, snatched me up, gave me a loud - not painful - smack on the arse and then told me why she had done it. Why? Because, as somebody mentioned, a "Catriona, get back here!" in a busy carpark may NOT have stopped me getting run over. The smack instilled in me the importance of the lesson, and it was an important one.

Was my mother abusing me in that instance? Heck no.

As an aside, my mother is an accomplished horsewoman, and her leather riding crop was often brandished at us as a threat. But she never, ever had to use it and I don't think she ever would have.

How many people only smack children on the bottom though? There are plenty of people who will smack arms, face, back etc. Smacking isn't exclusive to bottoms. At all.

 

[will-anal]

I veto the idea that we have to back up our assertions. Given smacking is a widely practiced disciplinarian tool and given that you and I never became traumatized due to being smacked, I can say that imo tbh, the burden of proof lies with the retard brigade perpetuating whatever it is... I don't even know anymore. One minute it's severe mental trauma, then it's the long lasting social impacts of generational smacking, idk.

 

[will-anal]

How many people only smack children on the bottom though? There are plenty of people who will smack arms, face, back etc. Smacking isn't exclusive to bottoms. At all.

Fuck me.

 

[ay0_x]

Or perhaps it's just WRONG to hit a defenseless human being.

Just sayin'.

 

[Kwayera]

How many people only smack children on the bottom though? There are plenty of people who will smack arms, face, back etc. Smacking isn't exclusive to bottoms. At all.

Yeah, and slapping your child on the face is what I would call unnecessary force. Smacking a child's hand if they were, say, reaching for a sharp object is however justified.

 

[kaz1]

[youtube]FLCIrizzFGM&feature[/youtube]

This brat needs to be smacked hard.

 

[Kwayera]

I veto the idea that we have to back up our assertions. Given smacking is a widely practiced disciplinarian tool and given that you and I never became traumatized due to being smacked, I can say that imo tbh, the burden of proof lies with the retard brigade perpetuating whatever it is... I don't even know anymore. One minute it's severe mental trauma, then it's the long lasting social impacts of generational smacking, idk.

You're welcome to say "I don't THINK it does any psychological damage" without backing it up. However, saying "it categorically does not cause any psychological damage" does indeed require a citation to that effect.

 

[untouchablecuz]

1/ kid goes to touch a hot object, they get burned and will NEVER DO IT AGAIN.

2/ watch your fucking kids you fucking lazy piece of shit excuse for a parent.

YOU are clearly the one who has no idea about kids. Kids learn quickly. Best way to keep a kid away from fire is let them experience it first hand. Best way to keep a kid off the road is MIND YOUR FUCKING CHILD.

moral of this post: burn your kids

 

[John McCain]

Well according to you there is no such thing as a genuine justification and given that you're obviously an expert on early childhood development and the long lasting social impact of smacking by parents, (i.e. if a parent smacks a kid that kid will go on to smack their kids IN THE ABSENCE OF A GENUINE JUSTIFICATION OH NO CALL THE COPS), we will never reach common ground.

lol. When did I say there was no such thing as a justification? What justifications have I denied as genuine? You haven't given me even one. All sorts of punishment can be easily justified.

All I'm asking is, why do you hit children instead of using another means of punishment?

Kwayera gives a good example of where there may be no choice, and I accept it could be justified in rare circumstances such as those described.

 

[Omie Jay]

kaz1, thats just shit parenting.

edit: actually, that fatty needs his ass literally beaten off!

 

[will-anal]

Or perhaps it's just WRONG to hit a defenseless human being.

Just sayin'.

Oh for the love of everything that is not spasticated on this earth.

You really are as bad as an anti abortionist. DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION YOU'LL KILL TEH BEBEH.

I don't see why we have to keep reiterating the fact that smacking does not equate to hitting a child with such a degree of force that it results in long lasting physical and mental trauma. Nor is it the same as randomly hitting a woman spacking out in a shopping centre

 

[ay0_x]

Gershoff (2002) collected 88 studies from the past 4 decades, which looked at physical punishment that did not include anything that might be construed as physical abuse. She found that although physical punishment did increase immediate compliance (i.e., kids do what you want when you hit them, though this effect isn’t much stronger than the predictive power of physical punishment for criminality), this came as the cost of significantly less moral internalization, increased aggression as a child and adult, increased delinquent and anti-social behaviour, decreased parent-child relationship quality, worse mental health as a child and adult, and higher rates of child abuse as parents. But of course, Gershoff speculated that cultural acceptability might moderate these effects.

In 2005, Lansford et al. published a game-changing study, a collaboration of over a dozen researchers from all over the world, looking at the correlates of physical punishment in China, India, Kenya, Italy, the Philippines, and Thailand. As Gershoff (2002) speculated, cultural acceptability did indeed moderate the effects of physical punishment, but by no means did it render it innocuous. Even in countries in which the children themselves consider physical punishment to be normative, it increases anxiety and aggression.

Not enough evidence to say it has a negative effect? Maybe.

ANY evidence to say it has a positive effect? No.

When in doubt, don't do it? It's really simple and I don't see why anyone would be insistent upon smacking their kids.

 

[will-anal]

lol. When did I say there was no such thing as a justification? What justifications have I denied as genuine? You haven't given me even one. All sorts of punishment can be easily justified.

All I'm asking is, why do you hit children instead of using another means of punishment?

Kwayera gives a good example of where there may be no choice, and I accept it could be justified in rare circumstances such as those described.

And here we are at a crossroads.

Do you then agree that smacking is a justified response when other methods of discipline have failed or are not suitable; i.e. running out in a car park

The impression I am getting from you and whats her face is that smacking is not a viable solution under any circumstance, and that to smack a child is an obvious sign of lazy, inept parenting, when in fact it's entirely possible that it's a last resort or a split decision form of punishment that is completely acceptable within a set of circumstances.

Make up your mind. Either smacking is a justifiable, viable form of punishment under a set of circumstances, or it's not justifiable under any circumstances.

 

[Kwayera]

lol. When did I say there was no such thing as a justification? What justifications have I denied as genuine? You haven't given me even one. All sorts of punishment can be easily justified.

All I'm asking is, why do you hit children instead of using another means of punishment?

Kwayera gives a good example of where there may be no choice, and I accept it could be justified in rare circumstances such as those described.

I would like to caveat my statement. I don't think that smacking should just be used in DIRE STRAIGHTS LIFE OR DEATH SITUATIONS though it is indeed appropriate there. Smacking should only ever have to be used rarely; as such it was only rarely used on us.

However, I think smacking can be a useful tool to a parent's discipline chest, as long as it is used sparingly, is not the only form of discipline (or indeed forms the culmination/last-resort of punishments for successive behaviour) and is done only in the absence of emotion. Smacking when used repeatedly doesn't teach the child anything; the child generally just grows to resent the punishment and the punishment-bearer, in my admittedly limited experience. Smart parents know this.

 

[ay0_x]

Oh for the love of everything that is not spasticated on this earth.

You really are as bad as an anti abortionist. DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION YOU'LL KILL TEH BEBEH.

I don't see why we have to keep reiterating the fact that smacking does not equate to hitting a child with such a degree of force that it results in long lasting physical and mental trauma. Nor is it the same as randomly hitting a woman spacking out in a shopping centre

So your definition of smacking, is relative to how much trauma is caused. If a kid is traumatized by smacking, due to chemical imbalances in the brain or just BECAUSE, then it's not smacking, it's abuse?

oicwatudidthar.

 

[will-anal]

So your definition of smacking, is relative to how much trauma is caused. If a kid is traumatized by smacking, due to chemical imbalances in the brain or just BECAUSE, then it's not smacking, it's abuse?

oicwatudidthar.

What in the name of fuck are you talking about?