Is smacking a child ever acceptable? (1 Viewer)

[will-anal]

hahaha I can't believe you retards are equating smacking with a predisposition to violence in later life.

Citations please, I would really, really, really like to read the available literature on this topic. If it is in any way credible and reliable, I will take back everything I ever said about smacking. But only if you guys can prove to me the significant link between being smacked periodically as a child and becoming a serial killer.

 

[Omie Jay]

periodically... as in regularly?

lol! maybe change that to "whenever he/she misbehaves, doesnt listen"

i'd use the '3 strikes' rule, if i had to repeat something more than 3 times, then its smack time.

eventually the child will grow up and learn of the errors in their ways, then there wont need to be any smacking.

 

[John McCain]

Trolling aside, the genuine comments in this thread are sickening.

You've provided no justification why smacking is the best method of punishment, what it actually teaches a child that other means can't do so more gently.

I think a lot of people genuinely hate children and like to see them suffer. You want to see the child be punished in this manner, not because it is the best punishment for the child, but because it is the most satisfying for the punisher. The spirited defence of smacking comes from weak, gutless individuals who need to feel a sense of power and dominance over the vulnerable.

 

[will-anal]

periodically... as in regularly?

lol! maybe change that to "whenever he/she misbehaves, doesnt listen"

i'd use the '3 strikes' rule, if i had to repeat something more than 3 times, then its smack time.

eventually the child will grow up and learn of the errors in their ways, then there wont need to be any smacking.

This period could be once a year man, not every fucking day you clown.

 

[will-anal]

Trolling aside, the genuine comments in this thread are sickening.

You've provided no justification why smacking is the best method of punishment, what it actually teaches a child that other means can't do so more gently.

I think a lot of people genuinely hate children and like to see them suffer. You want to see the child be punished in this manner, not because it is the best punishment for the child, but because it is the most satisfying for the punisher. The spirited defence of smacking comes from weak, gutless individuals who need to feel a sense of power and dominance over the vulnerable.

The idea that a parent smacks their child out of love and fear for their child is so foreign to you that you actually believe parents smack their children because they get some sort of sadistic satisifaction out of it.

You're the one who is fucked up. You appear to have some real daddy issues, go and get them attended to.

 

[John McCain]

hahaha I can't believe you retards are equating smacking with a predisposition to violence in later life.

I never said that.

What I said, is that being smacked as children, makes people believe smacking their own children is acceptable.

 

[ay0_x]

First off, during school holidays I nanny full time. During the rest of the year I'm a babysitter. I worked in a youth centre for a year So stop making the inference that I've never reared children, k? Because I've had experiences with kids from 0-5, and kids from 8-13.

I also speak as someone who WAS mentally traumatised as a result of smacking, and who WAS a child at one point. A child who played with fire & got burnt and never did it again. Where parenting fails (because really, it shouldn't be easy for your kids to reach the heater/stove until they're about 7 and by then they should know better or you've royally failed), animal instincts kick in.

If you seriously think, that the majority of adult australians [who yes, were smacked as children] are healthy, we will not agree because I think the majority are very, very fucked.

If you can find NO WAY to discipline children other than hitting them, then I urge you to think about why you wouldn't hit a woman, or a man in a wheelchair, who HAVE defenses, who CAN seek legal advice and help from police, who ARE accountable for their actions, yet you will hit a child that is 0-5 years of age, who has no one to turn to, no mode of communication and cannot be held responsible for anything they do? Smacking in this context MUST cause the child at least some pain otherwise it destroys the purpose: no child will stop a behaviour if you 'tap' them. A smack hurts or it's not a smack.

 

[will-anal]

I never said that.

What I said, is that being smacked as children, makes people believe smacking their own children is acceptable.

Again, where are you getting this from?

I can make up baseless shit too.

Parents don't smack their children. Some of these children go on to smack their own children, some don't go on to smack their children. Cause/effect?
Parents do smack their children. Some of these children go on to smack their own children, some go on to reject the idea of smacking.

I mean really, come on.

And it was more that other spastic re: predisposition to violence, she seems to have this idea that all smacked children are going to grow up resentful and hateful towards their parents. It's a ridiculous idea, unless, as I said, she has confused smacking with beating.

 

[John McCain]

The idea that a parent smacks their child out of love and fear for their child is so foreign to you that you actually believe parents smack their children because they get some sort of sadistic satisifaction out of it.

Parents hit their children out of impatience. I have elaborated on this in the OP. Being time poor is the only substantial justification I have heard for smacking.

I'm saying that your continued defence of the practice, in the absence of a genuine justification, is absolutely sadistic.

Why is it ever good for someone to suffer unnecessary violence?

 

[will-anal]

First off, during school holidays I nanny full time. During the rest of the year I'm a babysitter. I worked in a youth centre for a year So stop making the inference that I've never reared children, k? Because I've had experiences with kids from 0-5, and kids from 8-13.

I also speak as someone who WAS mentally traumatised as a result of smacking, and who WAS a child at one point. A child who played with fire & got burnt and never did it again. Where parenting fails (because really, it shouldn't be easy for your kids to reach the heater/stove until they're about 7 and by then they should know better or you've royally failed), animal instincts kick in.

If you seriously think, that the majority of adult australians [who yes, were smacked as children] are healthy, we will not agree because I think the majority are very, very fucked.

If you can find NO WAY to discipline children other than hitting them, then I urge you to think about why you wouldn't hit a woman, or a man in a wheelchair, who HAVE defenses, who CAN seek legal advice and help from police, who ARE accountable for their actions, yet you will hit a child that is 0-5 years of age, who has no one to turn to, no mode of communication and cannot be held responsible for anything they do? Smacking in this context MUST cause the child at least some pain otherwise it destroys the purpose: no child will stop a behaviour if you 'tap' them. A smack hurts or it's not a smack.

hahahahahaha you know somebody who was mentally traumatised from smacking. Fuck off. Either they're the most pathetic attempt at a human ever, or their parents did more than smack them. Either way, your anecdotal evidence is not enough for me to believe that smacked children will become traumatised and resentful for life. It's a ridiculous notion.

Secondly, oh lardy dar, you nanny. Have you actually ever raised your own child full time? Of course not.

If you can find NO WAY to discipline children other than hitting them, then I urge you to think about why you wouldn't hit a woman, or a man in a wheelchair, who HAVE defenses, who CAN seek legal advice and help from police, who ARE accountable for their actions, yet you will hit a child that is 0-5 years of age, who has no one to turn to, no mode of communication and cannot be held responsible for anything they do? Smacking in this context MUST cause the child at least some pain otherwise it destroys the purpose: no child will stop a behaviour if you 'tap' them. A smack hurts or it's not a smack.

This second part doesn't even require an answer because it's purely hysterical quack. If you can't make the distinction between smacking a misbehaving child and randomly hitting woman or a man in a wheel chair, you're defective beyond repair.

no mode of communication

Children have no mode of communication? I thought you just told me that you have experience with kids. And secondly, if children have no modes of communication, how would other forms of communicative discipline be any more effective than a smack?

 

[will-anal]

Parents hit their children out of impatience. I have elaborated on this in the OP. Being time poor is the only substantial justification I have heard for smacking.

I'm saying that your continued defence of the practice, in the absence of a genuine justification, is absolutely sadistic.

Why is it ever good for someone to suffer unnecessary violence?

Is there a formula for this? Like, x amount of hours not spent on other forms of discipline is proportional to the number of smacks a child receives?

 

[icecubeX]

Well i think smacking children could be good in a way
Just once in a while to teach them wrong from right
If you don't they'll end up being a brat and become spoilt like my cousin =(
She's 10 with an iphone, laptop, ipod, and has a nintendo ds and dsi

 

[ay0_x]

hahahahahaha you know somebody who was mentally traumatised from smacking. Fuck off. Either they're the most pathetic attempt at a human ever, or their parents did more than smack them. Either way, your anecdotal evidence is not enough for me to believe that smacked children will become traumatised and resentful for life. It's a ridiculous notion.

Secondly, oh lardy dar, you nanny. Have you actually ever raised your own child full time? Of course not.



This second part doesn't even require an answer because it's purely hysterical quack. If you can't make the distinction between smacking a misbehaving child and randomly hitting woman or a man in a wheel chair, you're defective beyond repair.


Children have no mode of communication? I thought you just told me that you have experience with kids. And secondly, if children have no modes of communication, how would other forms of communicative discipline be any more effective than a smack?

Why would I need to have raised my own children full time when I stay with these kids overnight for 2weeks+? hah.

So it's okay to hit a woman who's screaming in the middle of a shopping centre? Or a man in a wheelchair who's rude to you? Okay man. Whatevs. I didn't say randomly. Unless you're truly fucked, you wouldn't hit either of those two people. And you shouldn't hit kids either.

Children cannot go to the police and in their earlier ages cannot call somebody to say what you've done. Woman and Wheelchair can. The only place a child will turn is its' parents.

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?

 

[John McCain]

Again, where are you getting this from?

I can make up baseless shit too.

Parents don't smack their children. Some of these children go on to smack their own children, some don't go on to smack their children. Cause/effect?
Parents do smack their children. Some of these children go on to smack their own children, some go on to reject the idea of smacking.

I mean really, come on.

Are you seriously suggesting cultural influences play no role on behavior?

Obviously some non-smackers will go on to use the practice. Our behaviours are influences by many people in our lives. Parents have a disproportionate influence on this development.

Parents dictate the formative culture children grow up in. You may later change aspects of behaviour based other cultural influences.

I'm just saying it's a cultural inheritance from more primitive times.

 

[ay0_x]

Well i think smacking children could be good in a way
Just once in a while to teach them wrong from right
If you don't they'll end up being a brat and become spoilt like my cousin =(
She's 10 with an iphone, laptop, ipod, and has a nintendo ds and dsi

Has nothing to do with absence of smacking.

 

[John McCain]

Is there a formula for this? Like, x amount of hours not spent on other forms of discipline is proportional to the number of smacks a child receives?

What a pathetic failure of a non-sequitur in response to a challenging question.

 

[will-anal]

What a pathetic failure of a non-sequitur in response to a challenging question.

There was nothing challenging about it, you need a cup of harden the fuck up to be honest.

 

[jkdsfsio3458963]

I never said that.

What I said, is that being smacked as children, makes people believe smacking their own children is acceptable.

What's wrong with that, isn't that indicating that they suffered no psychological scarring from their own smacking

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

100% agree with the OP. His best point has still not been unanswered by the violence advocates/trolls:

Why is it okay to hit a child if they do something "wrong", but it is a serious crime to hit another adult?

The only difference I can think of is the child has no way of fighting back, which would explain why hitting children is so common, but if anything, only makes it more morally deplorable.

The whole discussion about psychological damage is irrelevant. If someone touches you, even lightly against your will, they have committed a crime. It is not acceptable even if it causes you no lasting physical or mental harm. Why the exception for children?

 

[John McCain]

There was nothing challenging about it, you need a cup of harden the fuck up to be honest.

I'm saying that your continued defence of the practice, in the absence of a genuine justification, is absolutely sadistic.

a genuine justification

a genuine justification

a genuine justification