Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Smacking

1235

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    Surely the best thing to do would be tell the child that you don't wish to hear that language and tell them why it's wrong?

    Mothers who tell off their children without explaining why absolutely appalls me. I've seen parents who just scream: "No, bad!" without explaining what they did wrong. Please tell me how this child in the future will stop doing this if she/he doesn't know what they did wrong in the first place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Also, if an outright ban is the only way to stop the fuckers who really don't use smacking fairly (I'm not talking about beatings, but you know what I mean) then so be it.

    A ban will only paint good parents as criminals for, while those who actually do abuse and assault their kids will continue to do it, ban or no ban.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you smacked an adult across the legs/arms/bum/face then they would and could do you for assault, what would happen if you did it to a police officer?

    TBH if you checked their pants for shit and wiped their bottom without their expressed consent, then you could be done for assault too.

    Thing is that we don't interract with kids and adults in the same way and so comparisions are irrelevant.

    You teach your children right from wrong when they are youngers so that they don't end up beating the crap out of other adults.

    Given that recent polls suggest that 70% of parents smack their children, you have to wonder why there isn't even more violence in the street if we believe that smacking just leads to violent adults.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So who decides what warrants a smack?
    The parents surely?
    What type of behaviour should constitute it?
    Dangerous one for instance, i.e. running onto the road despite many warnings not to do it and having ignored previous, non-physical punishments.

    You are saying as a last resort, but a last resort for what?
    For when the child is acting dangerously and has ignored warnings and threats of other punishment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nobody who smacks or would smack has yet been able to explain what they would do if a smack as a last resort failed to work.

    If you smack and they don't stop, do you smack harder? I'd say you would. When do you stop? When the kid behaves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    When do you stop?

    When the kid behaves. Not smacking them harder but smacking them again. I don't really know any situations when the kid keeps on misbehaving after a smack, they may cry (they cry when they're sent to their rooms too) but they don't misbehave again. I've never seen it.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Yerascrote wrote:
    When the kid behaves. Not smacking them harder but smacking them again. I don't really know any situations when the kid keeps on misbehaving after a smack, they may cry (they cry when they're sent to their rooms too) but they don't misbehave again. I've never seen it.

    I'd say this.

    Children DO need discipline. If a smack fails to work at first, another. Why would you smack harder?

    If this still fails to work - then other mesures might be taken. Sent to room, as you said. Smacking itself shouldn't be the first resort though - you can tell the child to behave nicley. The in a more harsh tone, and use the smack as a threat. The threat was usually enough to make me behave. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Nobody who smacks or would smack has yet been able to explain what they would do if a smack as a last resort failed to work.

    If you smack and they don't stop, do you smack harder? I'd say you would. When do you stop? When the kid behaves.

    You're bending the argument. I would smack and I don't consider smacking a last resort. You're impliying that smacking is something turned to by incapable parents as a last desperate attempt to control their children. I'm sure it is used by some parents like that, but that doesn't mean the act of smacking in itself is inherantly wrong, only that it is misused.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thing is, it's referred to as the "last resort" because in most instances there isn't the need for anything else afterwards...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was never smacked, unless I probably did something dangerous, but even then I don't know.

    And I understand discipline and am a very civilized person, it can be done without smacking, it may be harder and it may take longer but I think it's the morally right thing to do.

    Smacking = violence, no matter what the situation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Smacking = violence, no matter what the situation.
    totally disagree

    there is a HUGE difference between a punch/beating and a slight smack to the hand or the bottom to
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Smacking = violence, no matter what the situation.

    Indeed, question is, is it an acceptable level of violence?

    For example, if a child is reaching for a hot pan full of recently boiled water having been told not to, is it therefore acceptable to slap their hand away before they tip it on themself? Or a slap across the legs to stop them running in front of a car?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What about raising your voice or wagging your finger in their face, are these acceptable levels of violence? What is the marker- is it the amount of 'pain' or the lasting emotional effects, both or other?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote:
    What about raising your voice or wagging your finger in their face, are these acceptable levels of violence? What is the marker- is it the amount of 'pain' or the lasting emotional effects, both or other?
    yup

    i`d rather have got a tap on the bum that for my mother to be screaming in my face
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indeed, question is, is it an acceptable level of violence?

    For example, if a child is reaching for a hot pan full of recently boiled water having been told not to, is it therefore acceptable to slap their hand away before they tip it on themself? Or a slap across the legs to stop them running in front of a car?

    I couldn't say to be honest, I do raise my voice if I see danger, if he really did go for a hot pan then I can understand giving them a light slap to stop them doing it again.

    What I don't agree with is using it for reasons like "stop running around" or "stop making a mess on the carpet" etc

    Obviously that is just my individual opinion, but I would rather spend a year telling my boy not to draw on the wall, throw his food on the floor (as he was doing today) than smack him.

    I mean today for example he kept throwing his pasta on the floor when we are his nans house, and I told him not to so he did it more.

    But, I knew he was in a mood today, he hadn't slept much last night due to teething, and he didn't have a proper nap, and when he's tired, he's naughty, so I told him a few times to stop then I just moved the food away and swept the rest up.... I know a lot of the 'smackers' would of given him one then in the same situation! For disciplinary reasons etc...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I reckon a lot of the people arguing against smacking here were well-behaved and respected verbal discipline as a child - in other words, the minority.

    A few solid slaps usually does the trick if a child steps out of line and ignores warnings to behave - and reasonable people intuitively know the limits.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What I don't agree with is using it for reasons like "stop running around" or "stop making a mess on the carpet" etc

    So how would you enforce something like that, and doesn't that undermine the whole "it's violent so therefore it's bad" arguement?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So how would you enforce something like that, and doesn't that undermine the whole "it's violent so therefore it's bad" arguement?

    Put my boy on his naughty spot for 1 minute!!!! lol.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, I mean how would you enforce a ban on smacking for the reasons you mentioned, but not those you agreed with...?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, I mean how would you enforce a ban on smacking for the reasons you mentioned, but not those you agreed with...?
    In the same way that it is illegal to assault someone, but legal to punch someone in order to defend yourself. Therefore it would be acceptable to push your child to the ground, out of the way of an oncoming bus, but not to then pick them up and smack them afterwards to teach them not to do it again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You teach your children right from wrong when they are youngers so that they don't end up beating the crap out of other adults.

    Maybe they delegate it to (elected) "authority".
    Given that recent polls suggest that 70% of parents smack their children, you have to wonder why there isn't even more violence in the street if we believe that smacking just leads to violent adults.

    Maybe they delegate it to (elected) "authority". "Authority" taking the place of mummy/daddy
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have any of the "smackers" considered this alternative in order to achieve that much sought "good behaviour" ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/health/2006/09/25/nkids23.xml
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Have any of the "smackers" considered this alternative in order to achieve that much sought "good behaviour" ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/health/2006/09/25/nkids23.xml

    If the alternative is filling my children with a mind-numbing drug, then I would not consider it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the alternative is filling my children with a mind-numbing drug, then I would not consider it.

    What if your children were exhibiting behaviour that you considered "detrimental to themselves and/or the greater good of society" ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Maybe they delegate it to (elected) "authority".



    Maybe they delegate it to (elected) "authority". "Authority" taking the place of mummy/daddy

    In neither instance is that the role of the "authority" you speak of, and do you really thin kthat anyone actually makes that informed decision?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In neither instance is that the role of the "authority" you speak of, and do you really thin kthat anyone actually makes that informed decision?

    I am unclear as to what you mean in the first part of that sentence. Especially the use of the word "role".

    As to an "informed decision", I think that it is a strong possibility SUBCONSCIOUSLY.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    What if your children were exhibiting behaviour that you considered "detrimental to themselves and/or the greater good of society" ?

    Wouldn't consider it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    I am unclear as to what you mean in the first part of that sentence. Especially the use of the word "role".

    It's not something which that authority sees as it's job, let alone the electorate. If we did, then we wouldn't be compaining about the possibility of that authority taking away the responsibility from the parents.
    As to an "informed decision", I think that it is a strong possibility SUBCONSCIOUSLY.

    :lol:

    You live in a fantasy world, don't you?

    Not only is "informed decision" not possible subconsciously by it's very nature, but I think that you'll find that the people in question tend not to give a shit what the authorities do either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    What if your children were exhibiting behaviour that you considered "detrimental to themselves and/or the greater good of society" ?

    Well then I would smack them.

    Jeez, do you want to go round in a circle again?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Have any of the "smackers" considered this alternative in order to achieve that much sought "good behaviour" ?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/health/2006/09/25/nkids23.xml

    I would be against it as an alternative option to smacking for my child. What about you seeker? What are your views on smacking and ritalin?
Sign In or Register to comment.