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.

Smacking

1356

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bluewisdom wrote:
    You said it right here:...

    It clearly states that despite the opinion of experts who have studied the subject you have a better solution.

    Yes - better in my eyes. It's called an opinion. I never professed to knowing more about child psychology than and child psychologists (fuck I hate typing that word). I ask you again, please read my posts and inwardly digest them before commenting.
    bluewisdom wrote:
    Which is why I asked you to back it up beacuse honestly, why should we take your word over theirs just becuase you say so?

    This isn't a practical parenting forum. This is about informed and constructive debate. I'm not asking anyone to take my advice nor do I expect anyone to in the same way I wouldn't practice what anyone else preached here. I am merely entering into a debate about which I have things to say.
    bluewisdom wrote:
    Well what is the line then? When does it change from 'mild punishment' to abuse? The amount of pain the child is in? If you smack him with bare hands or an object? How 'bad' he was behaving before he was smacked? If you give us a definition maybe we can debate on better grounds.

    So you've asked me to define the difference between 'mild punishment' and 'abuse' as well as the degrees of 'bad behaviour'. It's called perception and interpretation. What may be mild to you may be abuse to me and vice versa. Don't be a moron.
    bluewisdom wrote:
    Imo hitting someone, smacking or slapping them is violent by definition. Of course it's not as violent as other conducts -there are degrees- but they're still violent. That we think they're acceptable is another story... one that has made us forget it's still violent.

    Well surely, as you've said, 'violence' is all about degrees. If I pat my brother's head, is that violence? Surely anything that causes the nerves to register some form of pain, however mild, is violence? I won't fall into your trap of asking you to define inherently abstract notions, but saying that 'it's still violent' is rather unhelpful as it encompasses a myriad of different levels of pain.
    bluewisdom wrote:
    Yes, of course children need to be punished, I never said any differently. Not physical though, that's something else.

    Well that's merely opinion and I guess that's where you and I differ.
    bluewisdom wrote:
    I'm not implying you plan to be one of those parents but it sounded to me as the same justification - which is why it's dangerous because then what stops you doing something worse?

    Common sense, experience, interpretation; take your pick.
    bluewisdom wrote:
    As for this:


    You serious?

    Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have spent time and effort typing it now would I?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you think that given a certain time, place, and child, that it is acceptable.

    That's the key thing. If you say you agree with smacking, a lot of anti-smack people assume that means you agree with people belting their kids merrily every time they need disciplining. Which is clearly bollocks. I agree with parents being able to have smacking as a last-resort tool in their arsenal of disciplinary methods. Hopefully they won't have to use it, but if they do, I don't think we should be pointing the finger or putting them in the same category as people who abuse their kids, because anyone who can't see the difference has a problem.

    As for smacking teaching violence - does it? Or do we just assume that? I come from a generation where most kids were smacked, now and again. Until I was about 6, we got smacked at school. I don't see that my generation are particularly violent. Sure as hell not compared to kids these days.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    kaffrin wrote:
    I come from a generation where most kids were smacked, now and again. Until I was about 6, we got smacked at school. I don't see that my generation are particularly violent. Sure as hell not compared to kids these days.

    Very interesting thought. Perhaps not being smacked doesn't give you a perspective on 'violence' and thus may be more likely to inflict it? Just an interesting theory.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes - better in my eyes. It's called an opinion. I never professed to knowing more about child psychology than and child psychologists.
    Of course it's your opinion, what else would it be? What I am asking you is to provide back-up information or reasoning for that opinion. Merely saying 'Pavlovian methods are better' just doesn't cut it as a counter-opinion for what child psychologists have said.

    I think it would have been a lot more accurate if you had said "I don't really understand/know why child psychologists have said smacking children is wrong but I think..." which would be fine. But that isn't what you posted. You simply said your method was better, thus I am asking you to prove that. Just as a reminder: you brought them into this, not me.
    So what's it gonna be, are you going to rephrase what you said or provide some evidence so we can start debating?
    So you've asked me to define the difference between 'mild punishment' and 'abuse' as well as the degrees of 'bad behaviour'. It's called perception and interpretation. What may be mild to you may be abuse to me and vice versa.
    Well clearly. Which is why I'm trying to understand your reasons for the perceptions you have and interpretations you make, hence the question 'where do you draw the line'? If everything was left to subjectivity then what would be the point of talking about anything really? People will always have different opinions about things, but we talk to reach certain agreements and parameters which society conforms by, don't we?

    Now with this we're getting somewhere:
    Well surely, as you've said, 'violence' is all about degrees. If I pat my brother's head, is that violence? Surely anything that causes the nerves to register some form of pain, however mild, is violence? I won't fall into your trap of asking you to define inherently abstract notions, but saying that 'it's still violent' is rather unhelpful as it encompasses a myriad of different levels of pain.
    Well of course it does, I think the point of discussion is to what degrees this pain is acceptable or not (and what is considered violence). I offered pain as an alternative of a criteria to define it by, but of course there can be many others which we can discuss.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    kaffrin wrote:
    That's the key thing. If you say you agree with smacking, a lot of anti-smack people assume that means you agree with people belting their kids merrily every time they need disciplining. Which is clearly bollocks. I agree with parents being able to have smacking as a last-resort tool in their arsenal of disciplinary methods. Hopefully they won't have to use it, but if they do, I don't think we should be pointing the finger or putting them in the same category as people who abuse their kids, because anyone who can't see the difference has a problem.
    I agree with you kaffrin, if there wasn't another way of disciplining children (a last resort) then it's justifiable. Thing is, I think that's just a hypothetical situation, since I believe in real life there is always an alternative. Hence why I see smacking as wrong - because it puts a child through an unnecessary humiliating and unfair situation. While alternatives to smacking exist, then it constitutes an abuse of power for a parent to smack a child, since -as I said before- the child is smaller, younger and in a position of dependence in relation to the adult. This has nothing to do with belting kids ferociously (which I expect every reasonable person would agree is wrong)- but even if mild if it needn't be done then why do it? It's simply unfair, that's all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    kaffrin wrote:
    As for smacking teaching violence - does it? Or do we just assume that?

    If it's only a tap, then no. Of course, if a belt or something else is used, then yes, in one way it could 'teach' violence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bluewisdom wrote:
    I agree with you kaffrin, if there wasn't another way of disciplining children (a last resort) then it's justifiable.

    If violence IS the last resort, what happens next ?

    If the violence doesn`t achieve the "desired behaviour" from the child, what next for the "smacker". How much does he/she crank up the violence if that "desired behaviour" isn`t produced ?
    bluewisdom wrote:
    While alternatives to smacking exist, then it constitutes an abuse of power for a parent to smack a child, since -as I said before- the child is smaller, younger and in a position of dependence in relation to the adult.

    It seems that way to me,too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wouldn't rule out smacking my children, to be honest, or at least I won't assert any sanctimonious viewpoint until I can speak from experience.

    I was "smacked" a few times as a child, the only one I remember is knocking all the dishes off the draining board when my dad was about to dry them -- and then laughing my ass off. Big mistake, as that was the first and only appearance of the "ringstinger" with a teatowel (which me and my brothers then used to subject one another to - nice way of leading by example there, dad, haha!) I haven't been traumatised by it, and if I had been in charge of dealing with the horrendous little shit I was at times then I probably would've turned to a wee smack as a last resort, too. It stopped me dead in my mischevious tracks, that's for sure.

    If he'd gone out to rip a branch off the birch tree I might've thought a little differently, I guess. I think we have to be very, very careful about throwing words like "abuse" around, though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bluewisdom wrote:
    I agree with you kaffrin, if there wasn't another way of disciplining children (a last resort) then it's justifiable. Thing is, I think that's just a hypothetical situation, since I believe in real life there is always an alternative. Hence why I see smacking as wrong - because it puts a child through an unnecessary humiliating and unfair situation. While alternatives to smacking exist, then it constitutes an abuse of power for a parent to smack a child, since -as I said before- the child is smaller, younger and in a position of dependence in relation to the adult. This has nothing to do with belting kids ferociously (which I expect every reasonable person would agree is wrong)- but even if mild if it needn't be done then why do it? It's simply unfair, that's all.

    The removal of toys, being frog-marched to a room, being grounded or having friends sent home could all be seen as unnecessary, humiliating and unfair. I don't see how you can blanket all contact discipline as morally reprehensible when it's obvious that every child reacts differently to different methods of discipline, given different situations. I can recall many instances from both my own and my brother’s upbringing where the only way to stop us doing something dangerous to our own health, was a smack. I was a pig-headed little fucker as a kid and you could shout at me all day long with no result, but a smack would always bring me up short.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whilst I do think the odd tap is necessary, I also think its fair to say that a parent who always smacks does not have control of their child and are actually quite incapable at being parents.

    The problem is always of degrees. If you use a weapon, be it a slipper or a leather belt, then it IS morally wrong. And its not usually a good idea to do it when you're angry either.

    Being honest, if you're smacking hard enough to hurt the child then you're smacking them too hard.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bluewisdom wrote:
    While alternatives to smacking exist, then it constitutes an abuse of power for a parent to smack a child

    Such as? And what if you have exhausted those, what if they are not appropriate at that particular moment...?
    It's simply unfair, that's all.

    Of course it is, the whole relationship isn't "fair" and nor should it be - certainly at that young age.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    If violence IS the last resort, what happens next ?
    why does the word violence keep poppin up? a small tap/smack on the hand or bottom is NOT violent IMO
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    If it's only a tap, then no. Of course, if a belt or something else is used, then yes, in one way it could 'teach' violence.


    theres a difference between a disciplined smack, and abuse, much like theres a difference between a 'oi stop perving' slap and assault
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Littleali wrote:
    why does the word violence keep poppin up? a small tap/smack on the hand or bottom is NOT violent IMO

    The point seeker is making is when you smack and it makes no difference, you smack harder until it does make a difference.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    The point seeker is making is when you smack and it makes no difference, you smack harder until it does make a difference.

    Quite so.

    And then I think the question you should ask yourself is how hard are you prepared to go ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Quite so.

    And then I think the question you should ask yourself is how hard are you prepared to go ?

    The opening poster asks, and I quote, "Is smacking a child ever ok?”.

    Not one poster who has responded in the positive has done anything other than express the opinion that given a certain circumstance and child, then a smack can sometimes be the most effective measure.

    The straw man argument constructed by posters attempting to divert the discussion towards beatings or raising a hand in temper is an egregious attempt to curry favour toward their anti-smacking ideals, and are ultimate purporting a fallacy IMO. The title of this thread is “Smacking” not beating, assaulting or abusing. Anyone who can not differentiate needs to go away and rethink their position.

    I’ve asked this before, and I’ll ask again, why is a contact discipline morally reprehensible while non-contact discipline remains among the upper echelons of morally upstanding parenting?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think that it is a straw-man argument.

    If you argue that it is OK to smack a child gently as a "last resort", what happens if that last resort fails to curb the child's bad behaviour? It's important to argue about degrees.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I don't think that it is a straw-man argument.

    If you argue that it is OK to smack a child gently as a "last resort", what happens if that last resort fails to curb the child's bad behaviour? It's important to argue about degrees.

    Firstly, i've never argued that i would use smacking as a "last resort". Secondly, as a parent who knows my child intimately, i know what my child does and doesn't respond to given a specific situation.

    But we digress, to use a overly-coined phrase, smacking will be an implement in my parenting tool-box.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    And then I think the question you should ask yourself is how hard are you prepared to go ?
    Exactly, this is the point I've been trying to get debated since the beginning.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh gosh it's this again.

    Personally I believe smacking is wrong and encourages violence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rachael wrote:
    Oh gosh it's this again.

    Personally I believe smacking is wrong and encourages violence.

    Surely from that view-point it could be argued that the removal of privileges or confinement to a room would promote despotic tendencies in later life?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surely from that view-point it could be argued that the removal of privileges or confinement to a room would promote despotic tendencies in later life?

    Surely the same could be said for smacking?

    How would you personally feel if as an adult, one of your friends smacked you because they thought you had done something wrong? It isn't acceptable for adults to smack eachother so I don't see why it is acceptable for a fully sized adult to smack a child.

    I was smacked as a child and all I remember feeling is confusion. No matter how much you sugarcoat it. It is still violence and intended to cause pain. Oh and for the people who say 'it never did me any harm'. No course it didn't, apart from the learnt pattern of behaviour and you then go on to smack your kid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rachael wrote:
    How would you personally feel if as an adult, one of your friends smacked you because they thought you had done something wrong? It isn't acceptable for adults to smack eachother so I don't see why it is acceptable for a fully sized adult to smack a child.

    have you ever tried to have a rational conversation with an 18 month old intent on picking up every breakable object in your house, sticking fingers in doorframes/pulling cat's tail etc ad nauseum?
    It is still violence and intended to cause pain.

    Indeed it is.
    Oh and for the people who say 'it never did me any harm'. No course it didn't, apart from the learnt pattern of behaviour and you then go on to smack your kid.

    It is also partly responsible for not only my respect and politeness but also that of my children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bluewisdom wrote:
    Now with this we're getting somewhere:
    Well of course it does, I think the point of discussion is to what degrees this pain is acceptable or not (and what is considered violence). I offered pain as an alternative of a criteria to define it by, but of course there can be many others which we can discuss.

    I think we also need to look at the violent intent or agression as well as the pain inflicted. A tone of voice can be recieved and meant aggressivly and can have a negative impact on a child's development; a smack can be delivered softly with less pain than a playground stumble but be a short sharp unexpected shock that stops a child in it's tracks.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rachael wrote:
    Surely the same could be said for smacking?

    Yes, so we could start a reasoned discussion arguing that no one method of discipline is perfect and that a parent has to use their intimate knowledge of their child to parent as best they see fit.
    How would you personally feel if as an adult, one of your friends smacked you because they thought you had done something wrong? It isn't acceptable for adults to smack eachother so I don't see why it is acceptable for a fully sized adult to smack a child.

    The comparison is false and overly simplistic. The relationship I have with my peers and other adults isn’t one of parental responsibility. I wouldn’t attempt to alter my friends’ behaviour by sending them to their room either.

    I was smacked as a child and all I remember feeling is confusion. No matter how much you sugarcoat it. It is still violence and intended to cause pain. Oh and for the people who say 'it never did me any harm'. No course it didn't,
    Disagree. A smack causes shock more than anything else. You equation is pain = violence = bad and refuses to take into account a wider picture, a specific child, situation or the nuance of parenting.

    Maybe smacking wasn’t a correct punishment for you but I don’t believe that should cause you to reject it all together. Smacking was appropriate on the handful if times it was used by my parents, and no, it didn’t do me any harm regardless of what you may believe.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rachael wrote:
    How would you personally feel if as an adult, one of your friends smacked you because they thought you had done something wrong? It isn't acceptable for adults to smack eachother so I don't see why it is acceptable for a fully sized adult to smack a child.

    As I posted aaages ago, the point of smacking is not just to tell the child that it has done something wrong. The point is to teach it lessons that it will need for life. Ie. as Skive pointed out earlier, sticking objects in wall sockets. It is done to condition the child into a certain behaviour pattern; one that will ensure the child's survival and ensure that it does things not to the detriment of itself or society.

    You cannot possibly say that it's the same as one adult smacking another. Adults do (or at least should) know better. So it is not the same thing at all.
    Rachael wrote:
    I was smacked as a child and all I remember feeling is confusion. No matter how much you sugarcoat it. It is still violence and intended to cause pain.

    Yes, because it is that pain that discourages the child from doing whatever he or she is doing in order to get them to learn that it's not right, it does cause damage and that's it's not acceptable behaviour. I don't know why people see words like 'violence' and immediately recoil. If violence is something that induces pain, then surely the cat sat on my lap as I type this is being violent towards me because she's giving me a dead leg. If you use the word 'violence' or 'abuse' to use anything that causes the nerves in your body to register a sensation of pain, however slight it may be, the meaning of the word is completely negated owing to the myriad of sensations it encompasses and thus becomes rather a meaningless word.
    Rachael wrote:
    Oh and for the people who say 'it never did me any harm'. No course it didn't, apart from the learnt pattern of behaviour and you then go on to smack your kid.

    And also the pattern of behaviour that it discouraged me to do the things I was smacked for. I don't think it taught me that smacking is acceptable. Perhaps back then it did when my powers of reasoning weren't as developed as they are now but now that I am a rational, intelligent adult, I can see why my parents did it, weigh up the pros and cons of smacking and use my experience to make a valued judgement. Surely I, having been smacked as a child, am in a better position to make a judgement about it with regards to my future children than people who weren't smacked?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is also partly responsible for not only my respect and politeness but also that of my children.

    Pain and/or beatings ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wouldn’t attempt to alter my friends’ behaviour by sending them to their room either.

    Which tactic do you use then ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As I posted aaages ago, the point of smacking is not just to tell the child that it has done something wrong. The point is to teach it lessons that it will need for life. Ie. as Skive pointed out earlier, sticking objects in wall sockets. It is done to condition the child into a certain behaviour pattern; one that will ensure the child's survival and ensure that it does things not to the detriment of itself or society.

    You cannot possibly say that it's the same as one adult smacking another. Adults do (or at least should) know better. So it is not the same thing at all.



    Yes, because it is that pain that discourages the child from doing whatever he or she is doing in order to get them to learn that it's not right, it does cause damage and that's it's not acceptable behaviour. I don't know why people see words like 'violence' and immediately recoil. If violence is something that induces pain, then surely the cat sat on my lap as I type this is being violent towards me because she's giving me a dead leg. If you use the word 'violence' or 'abuse' to use anything that causes the nerves in your body to register a sensation of pain, however slight it may be, the meaning of the word is completely negated owing to the myriad of sensations it encompasses and thus becomes rather a meaningless word.



    And also the pattern of behaviour that it discouraged me to do the things I was smacked for. I don't think it taught me that smacking is acceptable. Perhaps back then it did when my powers of reasoning weren't as developed as they are now but now that I am a rational, intelligent adult, I can see why my parents did it, weigh up the pros and cons of smacking and use my experience to make a valued judgement. Surely I, having been smacked as a child, am in a better position to make a judgement about it with regards to my future children than people who weren't smacked?

    All the highlights leads me to suspect that you think you know what is the "correct" behaviour for another. :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Pain and/or beatings ?

    none of us are saying we deliver or agree with beatings! As for pain, do you have some objection to it? Do you know how much a smack actually 'hurts'? Do you think it causes more 'pain' than the stiff Clarks shoes that well meaning parents require their children to break in rather than buying cheap loose floppy shoes?
Sign In or Register to comment.