Ban Smacking
Ban Smacking
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-49908849" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Maybe they need to focus their attention on banning smack 1st with the deep rooted heroin issues over the wall.
Maybe they need to focus their attention on banning smack 1st with the deep rooted heroin issues over the wall.
-
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:05 am
- Been Liked: 2625 times
- Has Liked: 1 time
Re: Ban Smacking
Pretty sure heroin use is banned in Scotland also.
This user liked this post: ZizkovClaret
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: Ban Smacking
Good. While most adults around now were smacked at some point in their childhood, there’s a much better way of dealing with discipline with kids.
Hitting shows that addressing things with violence is right. Which clearly it isn’t.
I know generations are getting mard. And don’t dispute that. But hitting a kid should be banned.
Only thing that would worry me about this is false or exaggerated claims.
Hitting shows that addressing things with violence is right. Which clearly it isn’t.
I know generations are getting mard. And don’t dispute that. But hitting a kid should be banned.
Only thing that would worry me about this is false or exaggerated claims.
This user liked this post: morpheus2
-
- Posts: 4293
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:30 pm
- Been Liked: 1029 times
- Has Liked: 1521 times
Re: Ban Smacking
I think they need to concentrate on the ones who beat the **** out of their kids first.
What a ridiculous law. If you "assault" your child, the current laws should deal with it - but that doesn't sound trendy enough these days though.
What a ridiculous law. If you "assault" your child, the current laws should deal with it - but that doesn't sound trendy enough these days though.
-
- Posts: 12371
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5210 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: Ban Smacking
I think the OP may not have read the article properly. He need not worry cos if he wants to dress up as a baby and pay for big fat domineering ladies to smack his behind then that will still be perfectly legal.
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Ban Smacking
Stop hitting children.
I don't know why that sentence is controversial to some people, but whatever.
I don't know why that sentence is controversial to some people, but whatever.
These 4 users liked this post: cricketfieldclarets Cleveleys_claret morpheus2 longsidepies
-
- Posts: 4293
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:30 pm
- Been Liked: 1029 times
- Has Liked: 1521 times
Re: Ban Smacking
Very hard to argue with that.Imploding Turtle wrote:Stop hitting children.
I don't know why that sentence is controversial to some people, but whatever.
But sadly, in the real world, not every libtard issue is quite as black and white as that.
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Ban Smacking
tarkys_ears wrote:Very hard to argue with that.
But sadly, in the real world, not every libtard issue is quite as black and white as that.
Violence against children isn't a binary issue?
-
- Posts: 4293
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:30 pm
- Been Liked: 1029 times
- Has Liked: 1521 times
Re: Ban Smacking
No.Imploding Turtle wrote:Violence against children isn't a binary issue?
Re: Ban Smacking
I used to smack my kids-one of many regrets in my life to date
This user liked this post: Lord Beamish
-
- Posts: 4476
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:55 pm
- Been Liked: 1160 times
- Has Liked: 182 times
Re: Ban Smacking
I don’t think the odd ( and pretty rare ) short sharp smack to the legs of a very unruly child who has persistently ignored requests to behave has ever done anyone any harm in all fairness .
Admittedly walking around Tesco randomly administering discipline to other people’s naughty kids has occasionally led to a wry smile and a wink from grateful mother’s as I implore them “ don’t spare the rod” as the now red hand marked child screams the store down .
Admittedly walking around Tesco randomly administering discipline to other people’s naughty kids has occasionally led to a wry smile and a wink from grateful mother’s as I implore them “ don’t spare the rod” as the now red hand marked child screams the store down .
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: Ban Smacking
I don’t think it’s something to regret. It’s probably what you learnt yourself. And most kids were at some point. Usually across the legs for misbehaving.mdd2 wrote:I used to smack my kids-one of many regrets in my life to date
If it wasn’t abuse or intimidation it’s probably never affected 99%.
There’s a woman nearby where we moved to who verbally abuses her son every day. Horrific to see. And in my eyes far worse than a smack to the legs. Luckily those who need to be aware of it now are and seems to be being addressed.
-
- Posts: 12371
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5210 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: Ban Smacking
I think the law wont be implemented to try and catch and prosecute parents for the odd smack round the legs. What it will do is help remove grey areas in the law in cases of abuse (like your neighbour) so that where there is physical violence involved it is far easier for social services and the police to charge, prosecute and find parents guiltycricketfieldclarets wrote:I don’t think it’s something to regret. It’s probably what you learnt yourself. And most kids were at some point. Usually across the legs for misbehaving.
If it wasn’t abuse or intimidation it’s probably never affected 99%.
There’s a woman nearby where we moved to who verbally abuses her son every day. Horrific to see. And in my eyes far worse than a smack to the legs. Luckily those who need to be aware of it now are and seems to be being addressed.
This user liked this post: cricketfieldclarets
-
- Posts: 13267
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
- Been Liked: 5102 times
- Has Liked: 5174 times
- Location: Montpellier, France
Re: Ban Smacking
Children and dogs benefit enormously from smacking and the concept of physical punishment. Why people cannot distinguish between this and hitting or beating is beyond me.
Show me a single toddler or dog who understands the reasoning behind "You mustn't run into the road because it could kill you" and I'll join the opposition to smacking.
Just as a comforting hug from a mother means everything to a baby, "You mustn't run into the road because you could be killed" means nothing.
Smacking is not about causing physical pain - it is about instructing those who do not have the mental capacity to understand danger that they cannot do certain things.
Ideally it should never go beyond a raised hand and should only become an actual smack if the threat of the punishment is not acknowledged.
Both toddlers and dogs intuitively understand physical punishment (when they lack the capacity for understanding why certain things are not allowed) and -most importantly- they also intuitively understand the threat of physical punishment.
The real punishment comes not from anything physical but from the fact that it is administered from a parent, "pack leader" or other respected or loved authority.
It shouldn't be necessary once a child is old enough to truly reason why certain things are forbidden. It is ineffective when administered from a person for whom the child or dog has no respect - in these instances it only breeds resentment or anger.
Policing smacking is necessary and it is essential to correctly discriminate between smacking and child abuse or physical violence.
Banning smacking is unwise.
Show me a single toddler or dog who understands the reasoning behind "You mustn't run into the road because it could kill you" and I'll join the opposition to smacking.
Just as a comforting hug from a mother means everything to a baby, "You mustn't run into the road because you could be killed" means nothing.
Smacking is not about causing physical pain - it is about instructing those who do not have the mental capacity to understand danger that they cannot do certain things.
Ideally it should never go beyond a raised hand and should only become an actual smack if the threat of the punishment is not acknowledged.
Both toddlers and dogs intuitively understand physical punishment (when they lack the capacity for understanding why certain things are not allowed) and -most importantly- they also intuitively understand the threat of physical punishment.
The real punishment comes not from anything physical but from the fact that it is administered from a parent, "pack leader" or other respected or loved authority.
It shouldn't be necessary once a child is old enough to truly reason why certain things are forbidden. It is ineffective when administered from a person for whom the child or dog has no respect - in these instances it only breeds resentment or anger.
Policing smacking is necessary and it is essential to correctly discriminate between smacking and child abuse or physical violence.
Banning smacking is unwise.
-
- Posts: 13267
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
- Been Liked: 5102 times
- Has Liked: 5174 times
- Location: Montpellier, France
Re: Ban Smacking
I worry it will be the complete opposite.Devils_Advocate wrote:I think the law wont be implemented to try and catch and prosecute parents for the odd smack round the legs. What it will do is help remove grey areas in the law in cases of abuse (like your neighbour) so that where there is physical violence involved it is far easier for social services and the police to charge, prosecute and find parents guilty
It will catch parents smacking legs in public but do nothing to stop the hideous specter of child abuse.
If a child known to social services has been beaten and marked it should not require a new law banning smacking for the state to intervene.
Re: Ban Smacking
The problem being that the alternatives can be very difficult to administer. They involve a certain level of intellect, patience, self discipline, determination, consistency etc. More so for the single parent who needs double the reserves of the energy needed. I suspect it’s easier for the middle class parents in leafy suburbs than it is for the parents in rough areas trying to keep their children on the straight and narrow. I would rather a child be given an odd smack than go unpunished, which might now be the case if parents are worried they will be prosecuted if they do smack their child.
This user liked this post: FactualFrank
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Ban Smacking
Not so regarding dogs, if you believe what scientists think, such as:Rowls wrote:Children and dogs benefit enormously from smacking and the concept of physical punishment. Why people cannot distinguish between this and hitting or beating is beyond me.
Show me a single toddler or dog who understands the reasoning behind "You mustn't run into the road because it could kill you" and I'll join the opposition to smacking.
Just as a comforting hug from a mother means everything to a baby, "You mustn't run into the road because you could be killed" means nothing.
Smacking is not about causing physical pain - it is about instructing those who do not have the mental capacity to understand danger that they cannot do certain things.
Ideally it should never go beyond a raised hand and should only become an actual smack if the threat of the punishment is not acknowledged.
Both toddlers and dogs intuitively understand physical punishment (when they lack the capacity for understanding why certain things are not allowed) and -most importantly- they also intuitively understand the threat of physical punishment.
The real punishment comes not from anything physical but from the fact that it is administered from a parent, "pack leader" or other respected or loved authority.
It shouldn't be necessary once a child is old enough to truly reason why certain things are forbidden. It is ineffective when administered from a person for whom the child or dog has no respect - in these instances it only breeds resentment or anger.
Policing smacking is necessary and it is essential to correctly discriminate between smacking and child abuse or physical violence.
Banning smacking is unwise.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/p ... claim.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If true, there's no point ever smacking a dog, as they won't know why you're slapping them.
-
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm
- Been Liked: 343 times
- Has Liked: 195 times
Re: Ban Smacking
Wow Rowls smacking dogs is commonly thought to cause aggressive behavior in them in later in life. Anyway not the point of this I have never smacked my kids I don’t see the benefit of hurting your child deliberately. Others do which is strange to me but hey everyone to there own.
This user liked this post: tim_noone
-
- Posts: 13267
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
- Been Liked: 5102 times
- Has Liked: 5174 times
- Location: Montpellier, France
Re: Ban Smacking
No, that's not what the article says. The article backs up what I have said - that dogs do not understand even basic reasoning. They are far too simple.FactualFrank wrote:Not so regarding dogs, if you believe what scientists think, such as:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/p ... claim.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If true, there's no point ever smacking a dog, as they won't know why you're slapping them.
The dog doesn't need to consciously understand a thing. It simply needs to associate the undesired behaviour with the negative response.
-
- Posts: 13267
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
- Been Liked: 5102 times
- Has Liked: 5174 times
- Location: Montpellier, France
Re: Ban Smacking
Wow!JarrowClaret wrote:Wow Rowls smacking dogs is commonly thought to cause aggressive behavior in them in later in life. Anyway not the point of this I have never smacked my kids I don’t see the benefit of hurting your child deliberately. Others do which is strange to me but hey everyone to there own.
You haven't understood a word I said.
I had complete control over my dogs when they were in my company.
You are undoubtedly making the mistake of conflating smacking, or rather the threat of smacking, and hitting.
I've explained the difference in my original post, which you clearly did not read or did not understand.
-
- Posts: 16897
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6965 times
- Has Liked: 1484 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Ban Smacking
Classic uptheclarets. Yesterday we had numerous people advocating racism and now we have people who think that it's fine to physically abuse children.
What a strange world we live in.
-
- Posts: 13267
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
- Been Liked: 5102 times
- Has Liked: 5174 times
- Location: Montpellier, France
Re: Ban Smacking
Classic UTC - people imagining others are advocating child abuse.Rileybobs wrote:
Classic uptheclarets. Yesterday we had numerous people advocating racism and now we have people who think that it's fine to physically abuse children.
What a strange world we live in.
-
- Posts: 13267
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
- Been Liked: 5102 times
- Has Liked: 5174 times
- Location: Montpellier, France
Re: Ban Smacking
If I ever have kids I know I won't have to smack them because the idea of it will be enough.Dike Muff wrote:Stay childless, Rowls.
As for yourself, you can stay classless.
Re: Ban Smacking
Spoken like a true childless person.Rowls wrote:If I ever have kids I know I won't have to smack them because the idea of it will be enough.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Ban Smacking
Well said. I also think how the parent themselves were brought up must play a huge part too in how they deem fit. I don't believe there's one size fits all here, at all. With some it could make them more aggressive, with others it could make them earn respect and help them. A lot of variables to take into account.RMutt wrote:The problem being that the alternatives can be very difficult to administer. They involve a certain level of intellect, patience, self discipline, determination, consistency etc. More so for the single parent who needs double the reserves of the energy needed. I suspect it’s easier for the middle class parents in leafy suburbs than it is for the parents in rough areas trying to keep their children on the straight and narrow. I would rather a child be given an odd smack than go unpunished, which might now be the case if parents are worried they will be prosecuted if they do smack their child.
Last edited by FactualFrank on Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 365
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:02 pm
- Been Liked: 168 times
- Has Liked: 110 times
Re: Ban Smacking
Some people are truly archaic it is worrying
-
- Posts: 4294
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:00 am
- Been Liked: 1600 times
- Has Liked: 679 times
Re: Ban Smacking
The trouble with smacking is it starts with a slap on the legs and as the child grows it escalates to harder smacking and then hitting. My father used to punch me in the head when I was a young teenager and he was 18 stones.
I'm proud to say, as an older teenager, I never hit him back but I came very, very close.
The problem is we are not educated in how to bring up children. All we have for reference is childhood memories on how we were brought up.
It's really sad. To many of us, it was the norm.
I'm proud to say, as an older teenager, I never hit him back but I came very, very close.
The problem is we are not educated in how to bring up children. All we have for reference is childhood memories on how we were brought up.
It's really sad. To many of us, it was the norm.
-
- Posts: 8023
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Re: Ban Smacking
Tell someone you've hit your wife to discipline her and you'll get abused.
Tell someone you smack your kids to discipline them and people will applaud you.
Hitting kids is weird. An adult is massive compared to a child, why would you want to instil fear into something so small?
Tell someone you smack your kids to discipline them and people will applaud you.
Hitting kids is weird. An adult is massive compared to a child, why would you want to instil fear into something so small?
These 4 users liked this post: LoveCurryPies Dike Muff tim_noone cricketfieldclarets
-
- Posts: 4294
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:00 am
- Been Liked: 1600 times
- Has Liked: 679 times
Re: Ban Smacking
I was agreeing with the final line.ClaretAndJew wrote:Tell someone you've hit your wife to discipline her and you'll get abused.
Tell someone you smack your kids to discipline them and people will applaud you.
Hitting kids is weird. An adult is massive compared to a child, why would you want to instil fear into something so small?
This user liked this post: tim_noone
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Ban Smacking
I think I speak for the board when I sayRowls wrote:Children and dogs benefit enormously from smacking and the concept of physical punishment. Why people cannot distinguish between this and hitting or beating is beyond me.
Show me a single toddler or dog who understands the reasoning behind "You mustn't run into the road because it could kill you" and I'll join the opposition to smacking.
Just as a comforting hug from a mother means everything to a baby, "You mustn't run into the road because you could be killed" means nothing.
Smacking is not about causing physical pain - it is about instructing those who do not have the mental capacity to understand danger that they cannot do certain things.
Ideally it should never go beyond a raised hand and should only become an actual smack if the threat of the punishment is not acknowledged.
Both toddlers and dogs intuitively understand physical punishment (when they lack the capacity for understanding why certain things are not allowed) and -most importantly- they also intuitively understand the threat of physical punishment.
The real punishment comes not from anything physical but from the fact that it is administered from a parent, "pack leader" or other respected or loved authority.
It shouldn't be necessary once a child is old enough to truly reason why certain things are forbidden. It is ineffective when administered from a person for whom the child or dog has no respect - in these instances it only breeds resentment or anger.
Policing smacking is necessary and it is essential to correctly discriminate between smacking and child abuse or physical violence.
Banning smacking is unwise.
**** off Rowls
These 6 users liked this post: Dike Muff damo_whitehead Lord Beamish tim_noone fatboy47 Greenmile
-
- Posts: 8023
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Re: Ban Smacking
Rowls hits children and dogs.
-
- Posts: 10171
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4188 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: Ban Smacking
There's probably a few adults who may benefit from a smack rather than children
This user liked this post: Dike Muff
-
- Posts: 2105
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:28 pm
- Been Liked: 492 times
- Has Liked: 411 times
Re: Ban Smacking
The problem is those who abuse children will continue to abuse them anyway. All that will happen is those who use fair discipline will get caught in the crossfire.
There’s nothing wrong with using physical punishment such as a smack to discipline a child. They will learn quicker and far less likely to become feral as they get older. As Rowls mentioned earlier the threat of a smack is generally enough to ensure a child learns what is acceptable and what isn’t.
There’s nothing wrong with using physical punishment such as a smack to discipline a child. They will learn quicker and far less likely to become feral as they get older. As Rowls mentioned earlier the threat of a smack is generally enough to ensure a child learns what is acceptable and what isn’t.
-
- Posts: 2105
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:28 pm
- Been Liked: 492 times
- Has Liked: 411 times
Re: Ban Smacking
No you just speak for the snowflakesLancasterclaret wrote:I think I speak for the board when I say
**** off Rowls
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Ban Smacking
Why do you have to use physical violence as a threat?Right_winger wrote:The problem is those who abuse children will continue to abuse them anyway. All that will happen is those who use fair discipline will get caught in the crossfire.
There’s nothing wrong with using physical punishment such as a smack to discipline a child. They will learn quicker and far less likely to become feral as they get older. As Rowls mentioned earlier the threat of a smack is generally enough to ensure a child learns what is acceptable and what isn’t.
Why can't you use other ways of doing it, like saying "No"?
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Ban Smacking
JFWRight_winger wrote:No you just speak for the snowflakes
-
- Posts: 8023
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Re: Ban Smacking
The trouble is, where is the line? One smack? Until they stop? Do you smack them until you've calmed down?
Re: Ban Smacking
I’ve smacked my 3 year old son once when he was hitting his baby sister hard on the hand with a magnifying glass.
I didn’t smack him very hard but it was hard enough to shock him. I smacked him because I was shocked and angry.
I regret it massively. I should have just put him on the step with a timer which is his normal punishment when he is being naughty but I lost control. Il never do it again
I didn’t smack him very hard but it was hard enough to shock him. I smacked him because I was shocked and angry.
I regret it massively. I should have just put him on the step with a timer which is his normal punishment when he is being naughty but I lost control. Il never do it again
-
- Posts: 2105
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:28 pm
- Been Liked: 492 times
- Has Liked: 411 times
Re: Ban Smacking
And where do you go when NO, no longer or doesn’t work?Lancasterclaret wrote:Why do you have to use physical violence as a threat?
Why can't you use other ways of doing it, like saying "No"?
A smack on the legs or the arse cheeks doesn’t cause physical harm but it implants a mental image in the childs head that if they do that again they will get a smack. That’s the deterrent and a good way to enforce behaviour.
Not smacking a child when it’s clearly required could also be construed as abuse as you are then complicit in their destructive behaviour.
-
- Posts: 8023
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Re: Ban Smacking
Does the death penalty deter murderers?Right_winger wrote:And where do you go when NO, no longer or doesn’t work?
A smack on the legs or the arse cheeks doesn’t cause physical harm but it implants a mental image in the childs head that if they do that again they will get a smack. That’s the deterrent and a good way to enforce behaviour.
Not smacking a child when it’s clearly required could also be construed as abuse as you are then complicit in their destructive behaviour.
This user liked this post: cricketfieldclarets
-
- Posts: 2237
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
- Been Liked: 1358 times
- Has Liked: 440 times
Re: Ban Smacking
I knew I should have stopped reading after the first three words.Rowls wrote:Children and dogs benefit enormously from smacking and the concept of physical punishment. Why people cannot distinguish between this and hitting or beating is beyond me.
Show me a single toddler or dog who understands the reasoning behind "You mustn't run into the road because it could kill you" and I'll join the opposition to smacking.
Just as a comforting hug from a mother means everything to a baby, "You mustn't run into the road because you could be killed" means nothing.
Smacking is not about causing physical pain - it is about instructing those who do not have the mental capacity to understand danger that they cannot do certain things.
Ideally it should never go beyond a raised hand and should only become an actual smack if the threat of the punishment is not acknowledged.
Both toddlers and dogs intuitively understand physical punishment (when they lack the capacity for understanding why certain things are not allowed) and -most importantly- they also intuitively understand the threat of physical punishment.
The real punishment comes not from anything physical but from the fact that it is administered from a parent, "pack leader" or other respected or loved authority.
It shouldn't be necessary once a child is old enough to truly reason why certain things are forbidden. It is ineffective when administered from a person for whom the child or dog has no respect - in these instances it only breeds resentment or anger.
Policing smacking is necessary and it is essential to correctly discriminate between smacking and child abuse or physical violence.
Banning smacking is unwise.
These 3 users liked this post: Dike Muff FactualFrank Greenmile
Re: Ban Smacking
I wish I had.JohnMcGreal wrote:I knew I should have stopped reading after the first three words.
This user liked this post: FactualFrank
-
- Posts: 2105
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:28 pm
- Been Liked: 492 times
- Has Liked: 411 times
Re: Ban Smacking
WhooshClaretAndJew wrote:Does the death penalty deter murderers?
Your way off course.
For most people punishment and/or the threat of IS a deterrent.
-
- Posts: 8023
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Re: Ban Smacking
Then there must be lots of evidence that shows smacking improves children's behaviour.Right_winger wrote:Whoosh
Your way off course.
For most people punishment and/or the threat of IS a deterrent.
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Ban Smacking
Naughty stepsRight_winger wrote:And where do you go when NO, no longer or doesn’t work?
A smack on the legs or the arse cheeks doesn’t cause physical harm but it implants a mental image in the childs head that if they do that again they will get a smack. That’s the deterrent and a good way to enforce behaviour.
Not smacking a child when it’s clearly required could also be construed as abuse as you are then complicit in their destructive behaviour.
X-box bans
Grounding
Re: Ban Smacking
Lancasterclaret wrote:Naughty steps
X-box bans
Grounding
Even the threat of the naughty step usually works.
Problem is when kids are being naughty away from
Home. I find distracting my son when he’s being naughty the best way to go.
This user liked this post: Darnhill Claret
-
- Posts: 2105
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:28 pm
- Been Liked: 492 times
- Has Liked: 411 times
Re: Ban Smacking
With the older kids yes these are deterrents yes but they aren’t anywhere near as effective as a smack. The earlier a child learns boundaries the less issues they will have later on in life. Discipline is an important aspect of growing up.Lancasterclaret wrote:Naughty steps
X-box bans
Grounding
-
- Posts: 23343
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
- Been Liked: 8058 times
- Has Liked: 4714 times
- Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing
Re: Ban Smacking
We just said "No" to our kids a lot.Right_winger wrote:With the older kids yes these are deterrents yes but they aren’t anywhere near as effective as a smack. The earlier a child learns boundaries the less issues they will have later on in life. Discipline is an important aspect of growing up.
-
- Posts: 365
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:02 pm
- Been Liked: 168 times
- Has Liked: 110 times
Re: Ban Smacking
If being against violence to children makes me a snowflake, I guess I am a snowflake! Doesn't sound a bad thingRight_winger wrote:No you just speak for the snowflakes