smacking children

Liana .... your ok really ....... self abuse not required .... worried about your head

Liana, do I sense a convert? We believe in turn the other cheek - I can send you some literature. You can pray from home, kids are half price, we won’t insist that you smack your kids... ;o)))

I mean Liana ...... just think abou the example your setting to all those children out there

Not on your life mykle.. thanks for the offer though....

*joins liana in head banging*

I do not understand your point pioden. one minute you seem to be saying that to smack a child because you are at the end of your tether is 'almost' child abuse and the next you appear to be sying that it is quite alright to smack them to stop them running into the road. my daughter was terrible with roads when she was young. but I never smacked her for not understanding the danger of metal at 40 mph. I used voice power to stop her in her tracks on two occasions and grabbed her by her hood on another. reasoned explanations of the dangers and a rigorous enforcement of the green cross code together with extremely close supervision over several months, if not years, eventually did the trick. smacking to prevent running into the road is telling the kid they are wrong. children are not wrong in this instance. they just need to appreciate the danger. I can't see how smacking can be justified at all in this situation.

Are you sure Liana ... I seen what Mykle has to offer ...... (tries not to laugh to much)

I agree that no one can control themselves all the time, Peter, the trick is to try not to clog the kids when you aren't in control ;o) I was a Buddhist at the time I was doing my child rearing - but I admit that I was raised as a Roman Candle and that influenced my viewpoint. I have to say that I am not a great fan of organised religion but I do believe in a "higher power".

O poo. My head has just fallen off. Somewhere along the line, Pioden missed out one: "a) allow your child to run into the road b) stop him from doing it c) push him/her under the wheels of the car" Ah I know... d) slap the living daylights out of the little blighter until he begs for mercy Isn't that really what the smacking achieves? Conquest? An imperial power game with the fasces of might within the family the reward? Surely this merely encourages violence further down the line?

Peter - why did you smack your children? Stormy - lucky you were there to catch your child's hood!

so.. mykle...you were a buddhist when you smacked your kids..... can you run the buddhist stance on violence by me ?

ooooh next time i pop into the buddhist centre for the afternoon i will ask if its ok by them to perpetrate violence on anyone ...

stormy did I say that or have you implied it ...... the action you use depends upon need ..... I hardly expect you to allow your child to walk into the road nor do I expect you to push him or her into the wheels of a car ... you take the action most suitable to ensure the safety and well being of your child whether you smack your child for wrong doing or as a quicking thinking parent who wishes to protect your child from harm is related to the child and the incident smacking my eldest was not an option it would have no effect and the voice of reason could be used therefore I never used it .... but trying to explain to a child who does not have that ability to comprehend the 'vocal' then you use what you feel comfortable with or that will have the desired effect (not control)and only as a last resort .....

Fish, Liana.. how about a direct counter to my argument.. It is unconventional I know.. but that does not make it invalid.. rather open your minds to new ways of thinking.. As adults we believe that sometimes it is right to use controlled violence: As law abiding citizens we give this authority to the state (a higher authority) to act on our behalf rather than to enact our own justice.. (unless you are a complete pacifist and believe in turning the other cheek on all occasions) Is it not inconsistent then, as parents and therefore the figures of authority in our homes, to say that smacking or controlled violence (for that is what it is) is unappropriate under ANY circumstnace where our charges/our children are concerned? Will they grow up to be adults or not? I lay the charge that it is your argument that is irrational..

oh gawd...... now look what youve done stephen... mykle will be on you like a shot here... *pulls up deckchair* *clutches handbag* Jaffa cake anyone?

Leg, it is not unconventional, it has years and years of history behind it. Its an ANCIENT way to behave, and history teaches us that hey, it doesnt work, surprisingly enough. Shame on you who is always so forward thinking to be advocating such a retrograde step in justice application.....

Spare the rod and spoil the fish ;o) I restrained myself just for you Liana ;o) Thanks for the Jaffa cake.

It seems that you girls no very little about Buddhism! Not only are you allowed to smack where necessary but the correct response on being smacked is to be grateful - because you understand it was done for your benefit and with compassion.

Yeah, but they can be forgiven for any violence that they do so it doesnt matter... if your looking at an eternity in heaven for the kid (who is forced to have the parents ideals and so will behave the same way) compared to just one short life time it doesnt matter. /me puts on sarcastic hat

I smacked them Mykle because they wouldn't say their prayers properly... or was it because they were not being perfect but actually human, and making that most important human actions - a mistake... or was it (more honestly) because I was the one who lost control and thus committed an act which could and should have been dealt with more appropriately than I did? A question for you. Why do you consider this country a Christian one, and how do you define that? The mind (what is left of it now my own wall has been head banged to death) boggles.

*pissing self*

Fish- if you think that smaking is so violent why did you smack your kids? Do you need help? I can recommend Buddhism as a good religion to teach you to control yourself - or Yoga.

Peter - see my earlier post to Fish.

I like yoga ... specially that which come in little pots .... oh that's yogart ..... sorry

oooooh i am so silly ... there i was thinking buddhism was partly about not causing harm to any living thing ... gosh ... how dumb i am ...

Have you realised what a bunch of hypocrites you are? I know that Liana said that she didn’t smack her children but both Peter and Fish admit they did when they lost control and are now arguing that smacking is a violent act and people who do it should be ashamed of themselves. Yes, well, people in glass houses...

you are being insulting again mykle... or are you being deliberately obtuse, if i may ask very politely? Fish has said EONS ago that it was wrong..

Fish - that's IS the point I have been trying to get across - that when done for the right reasons smacking is NOT causing harm to any living thing but rather benefiting it in the long run!!!

mykle, it wasn't luck. we did not let the kids out unsupervised until we were happy that they were able to look after themselves. we also made sure we were nearby when roads were coming up on our walks. anyway, what's best? having a kid think ... if I run into the road mum will smack me .... or .... sh1t, i could get killed if I don't look? pioden, I didn't mean to imply anything. It was my interpretation of what you said. correct me if I am wrong.

Sorry, Liana, as you said it was EONS ago and I had forgotten. What made you change your mind as to the need for hitting your children then Fish?

I have read it. It says nothing. You choose to define without defining anything. Let us consider power smacking. At what point do you know your smack is of appropriate and reasonable force? What machinery do you employ to gauge the newtons used when applying a thwack, and how do you assess at each stage of the hand movement that ongoing torsion which will be applied? What measurements have you made of the depth of flesh into which your older, wiser hand will plow? And riddle me this one, old chum: at what pitch of decibels from the child's throat do you consider Holy Justice to have been done? Violence is ugly Mikle. Dressed up in bourgeois pseudo-religiosity it is worse, and tinged with far-right political extremism it is dangerous.

Well STOP hitting your kids then Peter!!!

*wearily* someone point out to mykle (who does not seem able himself to make sense of anyone's posts) ... what happened to change my feelings about perpetrating acts of physical violence on my children ... i am sure he cant help it ...

mykle...... she did not say that she needed to.. she said that she did and it was wrong... i think you ARE being deliberately obtuse here you old rascal. *rolls eyes*

Oh I remember - they grew up - sorry Fish!

Quite right Cmeast, halleloua, by the way in glasgow city centre just now soaking up the football atmosphere, what a different city it is today, be sure and read my match report tomorrow..cheers all..

NO mykle YOU said that, not Fish. here, i'll cut and paste it for you, so you dont forget it again. Fish said, at 16.54 this afternoon.... "what made the difference to me was when someone pointed out that i would never bite my children ... which is a similar thing ... causing them physical pain as punishment for bad behaviour ... and i havent smacked any of them since ..."

Mykle (again) You seem a bit obtuse on this point old bean. I have admitted that I have smacked my kids. I have also admitted it was wrong of me to do that, even on my own terms and values. I have made a mistake. You can't admit that smacking is a mistake, and because I condemn violence against children, you call me a hypocrite for having smacked my children. I, on the other hand feel anguish at having turned my hand against my children and condemn myself for it. Not quite how you put it all the time, is it, old fruit? *slumps against wall, glass of Glen Grant firmly secure in hand*

this reminds me of the racism thread ... I still have the wallbruise on my head from that debate. debate is the wrong term though isn't it? this thread is mainly refutation. every logical and sensible post is thwarted with a contradiction just for the sake of it. I didn't say that. yes you did. no i didn't. what i meant was... twist squirm wriggle

To be honest, Liana, I’m just tired out! I seem to have been fighting for my life against over whelming odds and I’m punch drunk. Considering you girls don’t believe in violence I feel unaccountably battered, if not beaten ;o))) Pax?

mykle you seem to be deliberately choosing to misinterpret everyone ... ignore the points they are making and the questions they ask you ... i dont think you are a stupid person so why this behaviour? ... you are deliberately trying to inflame me and i will not rise to it ... i clearly stated earlier what changed my mind ... you are now choosing to portray me as some out of control child beater when i in fact dont use physical violence on my children and have not done so for many many years ... you are the person who is advocating cold controlled violence on children for their own good ... not me ... i say violence against children is wrong ... now for heavens sake read what people say and try to understand it ...

Stormy ..... right or wrong .... is smacking defensible or not .... if your child safety or behaviour was the most important thing in the world then rapping them up in cotton wool will hardly protect them nor provide them tools nescessary to live in the big bad wide world it is down to intrepretation .... they way you intrepret it .... the way your child does .... and the way child moves onward into adulthood and what they carry with them nothing is ever plain and simple .... and for the record I too detest violence

er...I'm not a girl

Liana.. it is you who make me laugh.. How about the real world as opposed to some idealistic one that has never existed, will never exist.. this Christian idea of heaven that you have unconciously swallowed.. ..and Thanks God (hee hee) will never exist (it sounds incredibly boring this perpetual fannying around with angels and things) Violence is a fact where humans are concerned.. it is a perfectly rational way to achieve your selfish objectives at the expense of others.. was not that the topic of 'Crime and Punishment'.. However where civilised society is concerned, for the common good, for the society we bequeath our children etc.. it is to be minimised wherever possible and the means to achieve that is where we differ.. you suggest pretending it does not exist where our children are concerned and just hoping they get to understand this lesson.. I say sometimes and with some children you have to teach them in the only way that it is possible the likely ramifications of certain actions in the real world that they are going to grow up in.. If you use violence it is more likely that others will be violent to you.. and this is what it feels like.

what are you TALKING about leg??

Fish - it is you that misses my point. I agree that violence against children is wrong and I argue that, unlike you and Paul, I have never practised it. I have smacked children but I argue that it was as punishment and therefore just, and righteous. The law agrees We may agree to differ on whether smacking children for their own good can be considered violence but hitting them in anger certainly is.

I'm pleased to hear it Peter - the operation was a success then ;o)))

ok.. have read this several times, and can pull out a couple of things that, if i dont agree with, at least are made of some semblence of coherent words... i have never said that i pretend violence doesnt exist. ...tell me where i said that. i just dont slap my kids to teach them that there is violence around us... i dont "just hope" that they get this.. what a ludicrous statement.. and totally fabricated as well. oh.. and: If you use violence it is more likely that others will be violent to you.. *shouts through megaphone* EXACTLY!

well we will have to agree to disagree then mykle ... i hold that hitting children is violent not just and righteous ... just plain violent and wrong ... you can justify it if you like as punishment ... as for the law i believe it is wrong ... thank goodness you were not alive a few hundred years ago when no doubt you would have been drowning "witches" ... the law reckoned that was ok too ... the law used to reckon it was ok to cane children at school ... i am very happy that the law changes ...

Ps - im not a christian... have swallowed neither conciously nor unconciously an idea of heaven....another assumption.. quite wrong..