All Answers Have Art In The Answer
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
nspcc
I have just found out that the NSPCC is backing a total ban on smacking, and have therfore cancelled my monthly donation.
Anybody any ideas where my donation can go? I'm after a kids charity that benefits UK kids only.
I understand the need for legislation on abuse, and I'd rather avoid smacking if I can, but nobody is going to tell me that I can't discipline my child with a smack on the back of the hand/back of the legs if I see fit.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Flanker8. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
oneeyedvik
31mph may be illegal, but how do you (as a driver) measure it accurately? - and I also know of no police force who would try to enforce a prosecution on 31mph.
Well how do you measure when a smack becomes abuse? You may hit very softly, others may have a different interpretation of reasonable chastisement. that's why we need a change in the law.
jim
Congratulations bernardo, tracyh, jimmer and the other "do-gooders" for having the perseverance to keep trying to convince the "do-badders" that hitting is wrong and unneccesary. I am happy to be called a "do-gooder" but I'm not sure what tree hugging has got to do with this!
Sadly, the supporters of violence are clearly not going to be swayed by logic and compassion. My children (boys 10 & 6) are considerate towards other people and are as well behaved as is reasonable to expect from small boys and they have never been smacked.
As for hitting an 18th month old baby - absolutely disgraceful and shocking.
All I can add to what has already been said is this: those of you who smack, please just try going for a few months without smacking and see how you get on. I have found that temporarily taking away toys is an excellent way of making the point that some behaviour is unaccceptable.
I baby sat for 3 kids: 8 / 6 /3 years old and got a spoon out of the drawer (we were making gingerbreadmen). The three year old went mad and scream, the other two looked very frightened. Their mother used the spoon when her hand hurt - and say nothing wrong with it.
I know that the vast majority of people recognise this is pure evil, and I am in no way implying that any correspondent is even close to this. However, there are different opinions and views that are held on what is allowable. If it is allowed at all, people will take it to excess and it will be harder to convict as it is subjective. Make it objective.
No-one addressed my earlier question on how to justify smacking to the children that cannot hit their peer group in the same circumstances.
Perhaps a pro-smacker might explain how a 'gentle smack' will be recognised as a punishment. Surely pain is the only way it will be recognised, and to cause a child pain is an admission of failure. No sweets for a week (purely as an example) will have a longer term effect at concentrating the mind and reminding the child of bad behaviour without promoting 'violence is acceptable'
Flanker8, I'm a little confused over a couple of things. I started my monthly donation to the NSPCC a long time ago precisely because of their "Smacking should stop. Full stop." campaign. As a regular donor I'm very surprised you managed to miss their biggest ongoing campaign for years. But more importantly, what on earth do you think the NSPCC exist for if not to protect children?
I'm with all the good-do'ers here. I am always amused (for want of a better word) by people who say "Smacking never did me any harm" and then proceed to proudly tell you how they think it's perfectly OK to hit a small defenceless child...
As the NSPCC ask - if smacking works, how come you have to keep doing it?
I'm with all the good-do'ers here. I am always amused (for want of a better word) by people who say "Smacking never did me any harm" and then proceed to proudly tell you how they think it's perfectly OK to hit a small defenceless child...
As the NSPCC ask - if smacking works, how come you have to keep doing it?
So i'm guessing you think if you can't reason with an 18 month old a smack will work? They won't associate the smack with whatever it is they did you considered to be wrong. Distraction is how you deal with toddlers who can't be reasoned with yet (although even if they don't understand i still explain, it's only polite). I certainly don't think 5 year olds should drive thats not what i'm talking about. I just think children deserve respect and empathy. If you show them that they will return it. By smacking them you are showing them the only way you deal with a problem is with physical punishment. They learn everything from their parents. I don't want mine growing up thinking smacking is a way of resolving things. Treat others as you wished to be treated and that includes children!
Why can't we have a discussion on smacking a child?
Do all the 'do gooders' honestly think there is no differentitation between smacking and hitting/abusing? If so I refer you to my earlier point re speeding?
If you do think there is a difference, why do you constantly refer to it as violence/abuse/physiucal acts etc.
I think it is fairly safe to assume that noone on this site will ever condone abuse against a child (just as noone will ever condone driving in a 30mph limit at 60mph).
So lets have a rational debate without using the words violence/hit/ etc....its really not difficult.
cont.
cont.
But to answer a few questions:
Jim - It is not up to me - it is up to a policeman / cps / judge / jury etc, just as any other legal matter. In law - reasonable is a term used - and should be in this. Just because you cannot quantify something does not mean it should be banned (take drink driving as an example - what does 35mg of alcohol mean? - absolutely nothing 2/3 pints maybe who knows?)
DavidUK - not going to bother responding to you as whatever I said I would be a supporter of violence and know nothing about logic / compassion!
Bangkok - I'm sorry you can't rationalise everything to a child - how do you rationalise having a car and dropping them off at school (do you know what effect it is having on the atmosphere), do you rationalsie why people have disposable naapies, do you rationalsie why you can drink and they can't, do you rationalise how you can have sex and they can't?
So, no sweets for a week (and I wonder how you justify giving them sweets - isn't that just pure sugar - not exactly good for them is it?). A lot of kids I know will just go down and steal them from either another kid or a shop.
Stoo_pid - Yes, i was smacked as a kid (as were the majority of the population over the age of 30) and how many of these people use violence to sort out there problems - certainly not me and from what I know of Bernardo (the only other person who has admitted to have being hit as a child) somehow I doubt he uses violence to sort things out. - Funny that.
f smacking works - how come you keep doing it?
In which case lets just get rid of all the laws in this country - most people speed, despite having been caught. Most criminals will reoofend despite being in prison. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - most people do not smack on a daily basis - it is an OCCASIONAL deterrant - and sometimes just the threat of a smack can work.
Okay rant over - it just irritates me when people can not and will not admit there is a difference between smacking and hitting. I thin kthe next time someone bumpsa into me in town or stands on my foot in a busy pub (and it can hurt), I ought to just smack them one - after all violence breeds violence
In which case lets just get rid of all the laws in this country - most people speed, despite having been caught. Most criminals will reoofend despite being in prison. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - most people do not smack on a daily basis - it is an OCCASIONAL deterrant - and sometimes just the threat of a smack can work.
Okay rant over - it just irritates me when people can not and will not admit there is a difference between smacking and hitting. I thin kthe next time someone bumpsa into me in town or stands on my foot in a busy pub (and it can hurt), I ought to just smack them one - after all violence breeds violence
Why can't we have a discussion on smacking a child?
We are having such a discussion. That's what we've been doing.
Do all the 'do gooders' honestly think there is no differentitation between smacking and hitting/abusing?
As I said earlier, smacking is, by definition, a form of hitting; and hitting is by definition a form of abuse.
If so I refer you to my earlier point re speeding?
As I said earlier, 31mph is much different from 60mph, but they are both still illegal.
If you do think there is a difference, why do you constantly refer to it as violence/abuse/physical acts etc.
Because smacking is a form of violence, but there are other forms of violence which go beyond smacking. The fact that there are other types of violence more serious than smacking does not negate the fact that smacking is an act of violence.
So lets have a rational debate without using the words violence/hit/ etc....its really not difficult.
I have been having a rational debate, and it is entirely logical and rational for me to use the words violence / hit etc. because that is what smacking is.
Okay rant over - it just irritates me when people can not and will not admit there is a difference between smacking and hitting.
Why should I "admit" something which is not true? Smacking is a form of hitting, just as chocolate is a form of food. The fact that chocolate on its own is not a balanced diet does not mean that it's not food. The fact that there is violence worse than smacking does not mean that it's not violence.
Oneeyedvic - you speak an awful lot of sense, but then I would say that I guess: equally, I think the anti-smackers are talking utter utter rubbish, but again, that's probably pretty obvious from my original question, but we both know an impasse has been reached.
I genuinely believe a lack of punishment has resulted in a lack of discipline and respect from today's kids: when I was growing up - which wasn't that long ago in the great scheme of things - I wouldn't have even dared contemplating answering back to an adult or a teacher, but nowadays it is commonplace, and as far as I can tell, it is due to a lack of or the lack of a threat of a proper punishment (being sent to your room is hardly a punishment in these days of playstations and DVD players).
And using the term 'abuse' is a pathetic foil to make the issue emotive: a gentle smack on the back of the hand/legs is not abuse, and people who think it is need to take a serious reality check.
As my parenting skills have been questioned on this thread a number of times, 'tis my turn to return the compliment - those that adopt the 'let's have a chat and discuss what you did wrong - I want to empathise with you o child of mine' approach are breeding the rude, insolent, disrespectful kids of the future: just go to any high street or shopping centre for proof.
Finally, smacking does not breed adulthood violence, certainly not in the many people that I know - this is a ridiculous assertion - I've never had a fight (rugby pitch aside, where you inevitably have 'handbags' in the heat of the game) in my life.
Spare the rod spoil the child.
Oneeyedvic, just to reply to the point you made about rationalising to kids. With smacking, you tell your child that hitting people is not acceptable but you then smack your child. I would not anticipate having to rationalise the sex / drinking / nappies to a kid of any age, the first two are legal issues and the third is not going to be a source of contention.
I don't justify giving kids sweets all the time, it was merely an example of a non-violent punishment. You could equally apply it to missing an activity such as swimming, not being allowed out to play or any of the other sanctions that do not involve physical contact.
I have not stated my opinion, because I am unsure what is the right answer. It is the old dilemma - do you restrict the activities of the majority because a minority cannot apply common sense?
Reading the postings, the anti-smackers have put up more coherent and reasoned arguments. Spare the rod and spoil the child is not true, as a number of kids that are smacked still turn bad, and a lot that are never touched are perfectly well belanced.
For what it is worth, I think that parents investing time with their kids and leading by example, will have a much more positive effect than a smack. I know that when I was going off the rails (only a little) my parents spent extra time with me and I have a lot of happy memories of that. Of almost all the kids I have known that have gone off the rails, the parents were not interested and put their own social lives a long, long way in front of their kids.
So the reason society is going to pot can be put down to parents voluntarily - since there is no ban at present - deciding not to hit their children. Get those parents to smack their kids and they will start showing us some respect. Lets start a campaign to encourage smacking. Those liberal do-gooders are breeding anti-social behaviour through their unwillingness to administer a bit of loving chastisement. Oh well you've converted me, now where did i put my cane.
jim
Oneeyedvic, you are using the speeding analogy wrongly as it is a good argument as to why smacking kids should be banned. 31 in a 30 zone is breaking the legal speed limit but it is not breaking your (or my) moral speed limit. You (or I!) don't feel bad doing it and a cop is unlikely to do you for it, but it is still illegal, black & white, open & shut, done & dusted. There is no ambiguity in the law, just sensible application of the law by those whose job it is to apply it because they have largely the same moral laws as the rest of us.
If/when smacking is banned outright, the same moral code would still apply, a small "that was wrong" open handed slap on the backside which causes more surprise than pain would be illegal, but overlooked as probably being the right thing to do. The guy who hit his kid so hard he went airborne would and should be punished.
The kids that show such a lack of respect on the streets today aren't like that because they weren't on the receiving end of a few smacks, it's because the parents couldn't give a monkeys. They were sent out to play on the road because they were annoying the parents. There they form their own little collectives where they have to develop their own moral codes between themselves and they generally find that using force gets you respect and a lot of illegal stuff is good fun but they've never been taught not to do it. Blame the parents.
Oh, and by the way, I reside firmly in the anti-smacking club but I've never hugged a tree.
Firstly sorry for repeating myself earlier, i have only just discovered the answers are now on further pages and though mine had disappeared! Doh!
Secondly not being smacked isn't why many children behave the way they do these days, it's because their parents don't care and they don't respect them. Smacking children doesn't earn respect, just fear and then when they are older they just hate you!
Also other popular parenting methods are damaging our children. Baby training as it's called. Forcing them into unrealistic strict routines from the day they are born and leaving them to cry it out is resulting in all sorts of mental health problems. People really don't seem to realise the way you treat your baby in the first few years of life will completely affect the rest of it. They might seem ok now but you don't find out until years later what a negative effect this treatment has had on the developing brain until it's too late!
Greedyfly - yes I was smacked as a child, and it never did me any good. The overall effect of it was to make it several more years (than would otherwise have been the case) before I was able to respect or appreciate in any way what my parents were doing. It certainly did not work as a way of "teaching right from wrong" or "teaching me to behave".
As far as I am concerned, the people who say "I was smacked as a child and it never did me any harm" are ipso facto contradicting themselves.
Anyway, this conversation seems to be going round in circles and I have already said most of the points more than once, so I don't think I'll bother continuing with this thread. If the do-badders want to continue the discussion, just re-read my answers again rather than waiting for me to come back again.
Sorry just to echo Libertie's point: Do any of you backing the ban really think that this will prevent child neglect and abuse of the scale which would get social services involved? i have to agree with Libertie that yes a ban would stop all the law abiding parents from smacking their children, but what about those that dole out severe physical violence not just as a punishment? Honestly, is this really going to help their children?
Also as another point, as a 23 year old, when I was young (less than 5) I was sometimes smacked in situations where I was posing a danger to myself or other children. For example, repeatedly misbehaving next to a busy road. I remember my little friends, cousins and siblings having the same punishments. And I'm sure many other children growing up in the 70s and 80s were under the same routine. Surely we aren't a damaged generation as a result of this kind of discipline?
However sayign that I believe that all the studies show that smacking isn't actually effective as a punishment so I guess in that case a ban shouldn't have an effect on all those generally good children that on occasion really play up. If there is a ban then parents surely are owed some education on what ARE good techniques? Because not everyone suddenly is endowed with fab parenting skills as soon as their baby pops out.
Also as another point, as a 23 year old, when I was young (less than 5) I was sometimes smacked in situations where I was posing a danger to myself or other children. For example, repeatedly misbehaving next to a busy road. I remember my little friends, cousins and siblings having the same punishments. And I'm sure many other children growing up in the 70s and 80s were under the same routine. Surely we aren't a damaged generation as a result of this kind of discipline?
However sayign that I believe that all the studies show that smacking isn't actually effective as a punishment so I guess in that case a ban shouldn't have an effect on all those generally good children that on occasion really play up. If there is a ban then parents surely are owed some education on what ARE good techniques? Because not everyone suddenly is endowed with fab parenting skills as soon as their baby pops out.
Sorry just to echo Libertie's point: Do any of you backing the ban really think that this will prevent child neglect and abuse of the scale which would get social services involved? i have to agree with Libertie that yes a ban would stop all the law abiding parents from smacking their children, but what about those that dole out severe physical violence not just as a punishment? Honestly, is this really going to help their children?
Also as another point, as a 23 year old, when I was young (less than 5) I was sometimes smacked in situations where I was posing a danger to myself or other children. For example, repeatedly misbehaving next to a busy road. I remember my little friends, cousins and siblings having the same punishments. And I'm sure many other children growing up in the 70s and 80s were under the same routine. Surely we aren't a damaged generation as a result of this kind of discipline?
However sayign that I believe that all the studies show that smacking isn't actually effective as a punishment so I guess in that case a ban shouldn't have an effect on all those generally good children that on occasion really play up. If there is a ban then parents surely are owed some education on what ARE good techniques? Because not everyone suddenly is endowed with fab parenting skills as soon as their baby pops out.
Also as another point, as a 23 year old, when I was young (less than 5) I was sometimes smacked in situations where I was posing a danger to myself or other children. For example, repeatedly misbehaving next to a busy road. I remember my little friends, cousins and siblings having the same punishments. And I'm sure many other children growing up in the 70s and 80s were under the same routine. Surely we aren't a damaged generation as a result of this kind of discipline?
However sayign that I believe that all the studies show that smacking isn't actually effective as a punishment so I guess in that case a ban shouldn't have an effect on all those generally good children that on occasion really play up. If there is a ban then parents surely are owed some education on what ARE good techniques? Because not everyone suddenly is endowed with fab parenting skills as soon as their baby pops out.
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
Business & Finance11 mins ago
