Is smacking a child ever acceptable? (2 Viewers)

[Kendall_Gilroy]

Hey could one of you pro-smacking cunts address this argument? Oh that's right. You can't. Go fuck yourselves you child molesting scum.



AND FURTHER:

Just because you learned from smacking doesn't mean everyone else will, for fuck's sake everyone on the planet is different from you. I might *learn* from getting shot in the knee every time I make someone feel uncomfortable, it doesn't mean it's an acceptable outcome

did u get smaked as a child or something

 

[SylviaB]

did u get smaked as a child or something

no, he made a fantastic argument in regular sized text and it got completely ignored by pro-smackers

 

[Planck]

Heck yes, smack the kids and lay down the goddamn law...

IF...

...the child knows they've done something wrong, and it's a fair punishment considering.

Don't negotiate with children, they'll think they're on equal terms with the parents. They aren't. They don't make the rules, they follow the rules until they're mature enough to use their own reasoning to make their own.

Do you rape children, too? You know, to teach them about life?

 

[ay0_x]

I still don't know why children need to be PUNISHED. Obviously, there's nothing to say that it does them any good, so really all it is is punishment. Why do children need to be PUNISHED

 

[murraytaylor123]

Nobody needs to be punished unless they misbehave and break the rules, it's a punishment. That's the point. It shouldn't be done arbitrarily.

"Do you rape children, too? You know, to teach them about life?"
Did you read my post?

"by your reasoning
should i not be allowed to punch you to show you that you are wrong and not on equal terms with me?
dickhead"
-No, that's not my reasoning, I said, 'they follow the rules until they're mature enough to use their own reasoning to make their own'. I'm not a child, and it's not your responsibility to discipline me, my parents have already done that. It's called parental responsibility man. I'm mature enough to be able to be reasoned and negotiated with, and you don't make rules for me anyway.

Why do so many anti-smackers feel they don't need to use proper logic and reasoning? Sure, smacking children isn't nice and should only be done when it really needs to happen, but young kids are not as mature as us, and have simplistic senses of right and wrong.

If people are going to disagree with me, don't let it be from the perspective of "he believes in discipline, what a redneck, I won't associate with his kind". Such idiocy.

 

[murphyad]

The argument I've not heard a reason for is why smacking is better than yelling at a child or putting them on timeout. If they won't understand you yelling at them, why will they associate you smacking them with their action? Won't they just associate smacking them with them being smacked. If they're too 'young' to understand the notions of good and bad, how does smacking enforce anything other than arbitrary violence towards the child?

If I could offer some humble suggestions in response to this point.....

Perhaps its not as clear cut as smacking > yelling, or whatever. I mean, there is some variability involved. Like, if you're screaming and yelling at your child, that is obviously going to be construed by them as more abusive than a slap on the wrist.

Basically, it depends what you're slapping/smacking them for. Consider this: A toddler is reaching for a $10,000 Ming vase in a store. He is going to knock it over. Mum notices just in time. She firmly says, “NO!” as she slaps the child’s hand and prevents the damage. The bank account is saved. And the child got a solid memory impression that knocking things off shelves is a bad idea. Of course, it would be objectionable if that mum went home and flogged the bejeezus out of that kid for their actions, but you get the idea.

Another point is that in some parenting situations, it can be a split second decision. Consider the above example again. In that particular situation, a swift application of reasonable force was the quickest and most optimal solution to the problem. Perhaps the parent could have yelled, but the kid may not hear, understand or be so startled that they drop the vase. Basically, the use of smacking/physcial force in that situation prevented that uncertainty. It's not always all about the welfare of the child, either.

FInally on the topic that children are too young (in some instances) to 'understand the notions of good and bad', I'm not sure that this is the case most of the time. I mean, even dogs understand that they have done some wrong if you whack 'em on the nose enough for it. Afaik it doesn't take long for a human being to exceed the intelligence level of a dog.

I'm not saying that smacking is acceptable in all cases, far from it, in fact. What I do believe is that it is pointless to apply notions of absolute pacifism to an activity that is as multifaceted as child-rearing.

 

[murraytaylor123]

If I could offer some humble suggestions in response to this point.....

Perhaps its not as clear cut as smacking > yelling, or whatever. I mean, there is some variability involved. Like, if you're screaming and yelling at your child, that is obviously going to be construed by them as more abusive than a slap on the wrist.

Basically, it depends what you're slapping/smacking them for. Consider this: A toddler is reaching for a $10,000 Ming vase in a store. He is going to knock it over. Mum notices just in time. She firmly says, “NO!” as she slaps the child’s hand and prevents the damage. The bank account is saved. And the child got a solid memory impression that knocking things off shelves is a bad idea. Of course, it would be objectionable if that mum went home and flogged the bejeezus out of that kid for their actions, but you get the idea.

Another point is that in some parenting situations, it can be a split second decision. Consider the above example again. In that particular situation, a swift application of reasonable force was the quickest and most optimal solution to the problem. Perhaps the parent could have yelled, but the kid may not hear, understand or be so startled that they drop the vase. Basically, the use of smacking/physcial force in that situation prevented that uncertainty. It's not always all about the welfare of the child, either.

FInally on the topic that children are too young (in some instances) to 'understand the notions of good and bad', I'm not sure that this is the case most of the time. I mean, even dogs understand that they have done some wrong if you whack 'em on the nose enough for it. Afaik it doesn't take long for a human being to exceed the intelligence level of a dog.

I'm not saying that smacking is acceptable in all cases, far from it, in fact. What I do believe is that it is pointless to apply notions of absolute pacifism to an activity that is as multifaceted as child-rearing.

I don't think the Ming vase incident should be punished, the child doesn't know that he/she is doing something that could have consequences, so punishment would seem arbitrary and unfair to the child. They should firstly be told that the vase is precious and shouldn't be touched, and if they're too young to understand that, move the vase.

I also agree that children generally do understand right and wrong, but just as a child will learn that something is wrong if they're punished for it, they'll also learn that they can whinge and argue with their parents until they compromise if the parents aren't strict. Otherwise I agree with this post.

Also, the general argument that the child will "live in fear" because of corporal punishment is, imo, erroneous, as long as the child is only punished for things they KNOW are wrong. That's where discretion comes in. The child will learn which things are punishable and which aren't.

 

[mcflystargirl]

The argument I've not heard a reason for is why smacking is better than yelling at a child or putting them on timeout. If they won't understand you yelling at them, why will they associate you smacking them with their action? Won't they just associate smacking them with them being smacked. If they're too 'young' to understand the notions of good and bad, how does smacking enforce anything other than arbitrary violence towards the child?

I Dont think if a child gets smacked for a good reason that they are just going to associate it with been smacked. I think if a parent can not do it responsibly and in an effective way then they should not do it at all. I think it should have a warning or two prior to it so the child knows if they play up they will face the consequence of a smack, then if it continued, one slap on the hand or bottom is appropriate followed by an explanation to the child of why they got the smack. I think that it helps the child learn what is good and bad things to do. If they get a smack for that behaviour or are told if they continue they will get a slap, then that is immediately teaching them that is a negative behaviour.

 

[Iron]

wouldnt it be funny if supernanny just beat those kids instead of resolving what the underlying of the conflict was, whether it was the underlying inability of the parents to cope and send clear signals, or of the child to understand why it was being punished.

lol you actually think that 'supernanny' solves the problems of a family

I refuse to engage the hypocrisy of those like nolan on this. You have no problem with the termination of a pregnancy but liken a "smack" to rape. Fuck off.

 

[Planck]

lol you actually think that 'supernanny' solves the problems of a family

I refuse to engage the hypocrisy of those like nolan on this. You have no problem with the termination of a pregnancy but liken a "smack" to rape. Fuck off.

That's because a foetus isn't a real person.

Would you smack a foetus if it ran out in traffic?

Keep it to yourself, Ratzinger. The 5% of the population that actually cares about abortion is getting smaller with every day that passes.

EDIT: A Foetus is basically a parasite

 

[Planck]

Actually given how inconsistent the Catholic viewpoint is on all of this, you could say the only reason they're so adamantly pro-life is so the priests have more kids to rape.

Sounds fair.

 

[Arsey-Darcy]

My father used to take me out back every night and violently rape me from behind whilst whipping me with a riding crop, never did me any harm.

 

[Iron]

That's because a foetus isn't a real person.

Would you smack a foetus if it ran out in traffic?

Keep it to yourself, Ratzinger. The 5% of the population that actually cares about abortion is getting smaller with every day that passes.

EDIT: A Foetus is basically a parasite

Keep telling yourself that, lucifer

EDIT: Stand up to your demons m8. Theyre the real parasites...

 

[SnowFox]

Aug.

There are specific times when smacking is acceptable and then those when it isn't. Pretty much the same as any form of discipline.

eg. When my sister was little she would hold her breath until she passed out to get what she wanted. Now the only way to stop her from doing so was to smack her to cause her shock so she would then take a quick breath and 9/10 times stop from causing herself severe damage.

Pretty positive a "Honey, go to your room and hold your breath there or holding your breath untill you pass out is very bad for you and won't get you what you want" isn't going to work in this situation.

/

Depends on the situation, like Ebony's example.

 

[mcflystargirl]

That's because a foetus isn't a real person.

Would you smack a foetus if it ran out in traffic?

Keep it to yourself, Ratzinger. The 5% of the population that actually cares about abortion is getting smaller with every day that passes.

EDIT: A Foetus is basically a parasite

take the example of a 5 year old, you would of been fine with killing he/she when he was still a foetus, but you do not accept the occasional smack when he/she misbehaves now. Even though as foetus it still is dependant on the mother, it does not make it any less human

 

[Planck]

take the example of a 5 year old, you would of been fine with killing he/she when he was still a foetus, but you do not accept the occasional smack when he/she misbehaves now. Even though as foetus it still is dependant on the mother, it does not make it any less human

A foetus is absolutely not a human by the very fundamental nature of humanity. It wouldn't require a gestation period if it were human.

I'm sorry but you're incredibly incorrect.

 

[mcflystargirl]

A foetus is absolutely not a human by the very fundamental nature of humanity. It wouldn't require a gestation period if it were human.

I'm sorry but you're incredibly incorrect.

so what as soon as it is born it is human? that is such a flawed idea, it is still the same being born or not it does not magically change into a human the second it can live without the mother

It is quite clear that saying that a foetus is not human is societies way of trying to make abortion an acceptable thing, and trying to take the emotion out of the whole situation. It is a human life dependant on the mother or not. having an abortion is murder.

 

[SylviaB]

Anything without a nervous system isn't a human


And yeah, I only believe in abortions during first trimester

 

[Planck]

It is quite clear that saying that a foetus is not human is societies way of trying to make abortion an acceptable thing, and trying to take the emotion out of the whole situation. It is a human life dependant on the mother or not. And my having an abortion is murder.

The moment a foetus is viable unassisted outside of the womb Abortion becomes murder.

Before that point the thing is basically a bag of cells.

 

[John McCain]

The moment a foetus is viable unassisted outside of the womb Abortion becomes murder.

The point of viability varies according to the state of medical technology, it is odd to hold that a foetus has a right to life if the pregnant woman lives in London, but not if she lives in New Guinea.

I made a thread on this
http://community.boredofstudies.org...rs-politics/226665/what-does-mean-person.html