Is smacking a child ever acceptable? (2 Viewers)

[jkdsfsio3458963]

100% agree with the OP. His best point has still not been unanswered by the violence advocates/trolls:


The whole discussion about psychological damage is irrelevant. If someone touches you, even lightly against your will, they have committed a crime. It is not acceptable even if it causes you no lasting physical or mental harm. Why the exception for children?

Speaking from experience, i have a brother with ADHD and there's no use trying to lecture a kid if he's trying to bite your arm off

 

[will-anal]

I would like to caveat my statement. I don't think that smacking should just be used in DIRE STRAIGHTS LIFE OR DEATH SITUATIONS though it is indeed appropriate there. Smacking should only ever have to be used rarely; as such it was only rarely used on us.

However, I think smacking can be a useful tool to a parent's discipline chest, as long as it is used sparingly, is not the only form of discipline (or indeed forms the culmination/last-resort of punishments for successive behaviour) and is done only in the absence of emotion. Smacking when used repeatedly doesn't teach the child anything; the child generally just grows to resent the punishment and the punishment-bearer, in my admittedly limited experience. Smart parents know this.

I didn't bother going into this much detail because tbh I was perplexed by the rationality these two were showing, but I don't in any way advocate random/regular smacking as a form of punishment.

One can obviously appreciate that a child would become desensitized to regular and consistent smacking over petty issues, but the things I've suggested (running on to a road, reaching for something hot) imo constitute valid reasons for smacking.

Chucking a temper or whatever, probably not. And I never said it was, ignore the cunt of a thing and go about your business, they soon learn it's not worth it.

 

[ay0_x]

What in the name of fuck are you talking about?

You're defining smacking as relative.

smack

2  /smæk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [smak] Show IPA –verb (used with object) 1. to strike sharply, esp. with the open hand or a flat object. 2. to drive or send with a sharp, resounding blow or stroke: to smack a ball over a fence.

 

[will-anal]

You're defining smacking as relative.

smack

2  /smæk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [smak] Show IPA –verb (used with object) 1. to strike sharply, esp. with the open hand or a flat object. 2. to drive or send with a sharp, resounding blow or stroke: to smack a ball over a fence.

I'm still not getting your point.

 

[John McCain]

And here we are at a crossroads.

Do you then agree that smacking is a justified response when other methods of discipline have failed or are not suitable; i.e. running out in a car park

The impression I am getting from you and whats her face is that smacking is not a viable solution under any circumstance, and that to smack a child is an obvious sign of lazy, inept parenting, when in fact it's entirely possible that it's a last resort or a split decision form of punishment that is completely acceptable within a set of circumstances.

It's only acceptable in the scenario kwayera provided because the mother is under resourced to manage her children, and the environment is unsafe for children. These are cultural problems in society, that unfortunately make smacking a practical necessity. If you re-read the OP, you'll see I acknowledged the existence of systemic pressures as a cause of smacking. I was referring to situations exactly like kwayera described

If there is no urgency to the situation, it shouldn't be necessary. Practicing it in other circumstances is unjustified.

I would like to caveat my statement. I don't think that smacking should just be used in DIRE STRAIGHTS LIFE OR DEATH SITUATIONS

Why use it under any other circumstances? When else would you hit someone to correct their behaviour? Would you consider hitting someone of adult age who was bothering you if there were no consequences?

I don't know what the truth is about harm, but why not apply the precautionary principle?

 

[Kwayera]

Why use it under any other circumstances? When else would you hit someone to correct their behaviour? Would you consider hitting someone of adult age who was bothering you if there were no consequences?

I don't know what the truth is about harm, but why not apply the precautionary principle?

My explanation for the use of physical correction in circumstances that are not dangerous etc are that children often aren't physically capable of the reasoning required to associate a verbal punishment as a consequence for a behaviour. "That is bad, don't do it" often is irrelevant to a child who really wants to, say, hit their sibling. That being said, smacking in that circumstance should only be used as an escalated punishment.

 

[John McCain]

My explanation for the use of physical correction in circumstances that are not dangerous etc are that children often aren't physically capable of the reasoning required to associate a verbal punishment as a consequence for a behaviour. "That is bad, don't do it" often is irrelevant to a child who really wants to, say, hit their sibling. That being said, smacking in that circumstance should only be used as an escalated punishment.

Why do people assume verbal punishment is the only other option?

Children want to do lots of things and be lots of places. You can manipulate these things.

 

[will-anal]

It's only acceptable in the scenario kwayera provided because the mother is under resourced to manage her children, and the environment is unsafe for children. These are cultural problems in society, that unfortunately make smacking a practical necessity. If you re-read the OP, you'll see I acknowledged the existence of systemic pressures as a cause of smacking. I was referring to situations exactly like kwayera described

If there is no urgency to the situation, it shouldn't be necessary. Practicing it in other circumstances is unjustified.

Dude I said the same thing originally. I provided immediate scenarios that would justify a smack as a form of punishment where conventional discipline would fail. I was responded with, LOL TAKE BETTER CARE OF UR KIDS. Smacking your child when they are in an immediate threat of danger is not tantamount to child abuse. I was trying to ascertain whether you genuinely consider all forms of smacking to be unacceptable and your rantings about sadistic pleasure and power only reaffirmed what I thought you were saying.

Now to qualify my stance on smacking. A child misbehaving in a home setting; normal child behavior such as temper tantrums do not warrant smacking. These are normal responses from a child when they are testing their limits and can easily be punished by non physical forms of discipline. I find ignoring the little shit to also be quite effective; children are response driven. I.e. you're in the supermarket and your kid is being a cunt. They want attention. Don't give it to them. Ignore them, based on personal experience this is the best way to defeat the situation.

I was just mildly concerned at the whole 'smacking results in prolonged mental trauma' argument put forward by that raving lunatic. Most of my posts were directed at her misinformed opinion on the difference between smacking and continual physical abuse of a child

 

[Kwayera]

Why do people assume verbal punishment is the only other option?

Children want to do lots of things and be lots of places. You can manipulate these things.

I think manipulative punishments (i.e. "if you keep doing this no TV for a week") miss the point and more often than not, tend to fail Time-out punishments less so.

 

[will-anal]

Stfu. you wreak of fail. when you post this funky shit comes out of my speakers.

Quoted for posterity.

I have no idea what wreak of fail means.

 

[Kwayera]

Now to qualify my stance on smacking. A child misbehaving in a home setting; normal child behavior such as temper tantrums do not warrant smacking. These are normal responses from a child when they are testing their limits and can easily be punished by non physical forms of discipline. I find ignoring the little shit to also be quite effective; children are response driven. I.e. you're in the supermarket and your kid is being a cunt. They want attention. Don't give it to them. Ignore them, based on personal experience this is the best way to defeat the situation.

This too is my perspective on disciplinary parenting. I would generally not resort to it in most circumstances, but I do not discount smacking as an effective disciplinary tool.

 

[Iron]

4th offence,
naughty electric chair

srsly, has medicine really given up on the healing/corrective power of electricitttty?

 

[John McCain]

Dude I said the same thing originally. I provided immediate scenarios that would justify a smack as a form of punishment where conventional discipline would fail. I was responded with, LOL TAKE BETTER CARE OF UR KIDS. Smacking your child when they are in an immediate threat of danger is not tantamount to child abuse. I was trying to ascertain whether you genuinely consider all forms of smacking to be unacceptable and your rantings about sadistic pleasure and power only reaffirmed what I thought you were saying.

Well kwayera's mum was burdened with two children, chasing both at once is physically impossible, in the instance of a single child as you described there's no reason you couldn't extract the child from danger.

But I appreciate the common ground we've reached.

re: power relations, I find it troubling if people use it in response to tantrums around the home etc, which is what the thread is about.

 

[Iron]

imo children should have the right to vote and drive automobiles and consume alcohol/tobacco and engage in consensual sex if they so desire. Who are we to morally so NO? Parents? pull the other one postmodernism

 

[Kwayera]

re: power relations, I find it troubling if people use it in response to tantrums around the home etc, which is what the thread is about.

Agreed. Physical punishment should NEVER be used out of anger on a child. Only once was I ever physically disciplined out of anger - my mother slapped me when I badmouthed her to her face when I was 16. I would not call that abuse, however - that's just punishment and I deserved it.

 

[will-anal]

Well kwayera's mum was burdened with two children, chasing both at once is physically impossible, in the instance of a single child as you described there's no reason you couldn't extract the child from danger.

But I appreciate the common ground we've reached.

re: power relations, I find it troubling if people use it in response to tantrums around the home etc, which is what the thread is about.

It's really not that simple. It's just as hard to do the shopping with one child. Obviously the logistics are a bit more simple, but when you've got a hyperactive, inquisitive, independent 3 year old tagging along for the ride, they're not as cooperative or easy to manage as one expects.

Things happen.

 

[57o1i]

100% agree with the OP. His best point has still not been unanswered by the violence advocates/trolls:

Why is it okay to hit a child if they do something "wrong", but it is a serious crime to hit another adult?

The only difference I can think of is the child has no way of fighting back, which would explain why hitting children is so common, but if anything, only makes it more morally deplorable.

The whole discussion about psychological damage is irrelevant. If someone touches you, even lightly against your will, they have committed a crime. It is not acceptable even if it causes you no lasting physical or mental harm. Why the exception for children?

Last time I checked it was also a crime to lock an adult in a room against their will, but I'm not seeing any threads about how it's against the law to send your kid to their bedroom for two hours because they tried to strangle their little brother and/or break the television screen with their shoe.

And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who has the right to make decisions for someone else regarding their medical care, education and religion also has the right to reasonably administer discipline - whether that discipline comes in the form of a time-out, an allowance cut or a swipe on the backside when absolutely necessary. That's the number one difference between a parent smacking their child and one adult hitting another: the parent/child relationship is by necessity unequal.

Society also recognises that parents are in charge of their kids and responsible for them, which is why they can be held liable for their behaviour in certain cases. In my opinion these things create a massive difference between a parent disciplining a child and one adult assaulting another.

Oh and also, adults can generally accept such advice as "stop tearing your sister's hair out" and "stop throwing orange juice on the cat" without much trouble. A four year old may need some assistance with the concept. If that assistance absolutely must come in the form of a smack, so be it.

 

[John McCain]

It's really not that simple. It's just as hard to do the shopping with one child. Obviously the logistics are a bit more simple, but when you've got a hyperactive, inquisitive, independent 3 year old tagging along for the ride, they're not as cooperative or easy to manage as one expects.

Things happen.

Ideally you wouldn't take them shopping in the first place?

This is getting back to systemic problems...

 

[57o1i]

Ideally you wouldn't take them shopping in the first place?

Ideally, yes, but that clearly isn't practical or possible for many many families. I'm sure if my mother had been given the choice she'd have been delighted to leave me at home while she hit the shops.

So yes, it does come back to one systemic "problem" which is: when you have young children you inevitably end up spending the vast majority of your time around them. In public or otherwise.

 

[astroe]

Sometimes there are cases where people may genuinely want to resort to physical punishment, but it's a last resort. I can recall several instances where I have done everything possible to try and get a kid to do something, yet he refused to and was being a smartass. I was so close to snapping and going crazy. Stupid kids.

It's not about a quick, lazy, or easy method of punishment, more about utilising the humane experience of pain; If you act this way, you will get hit, hence experience pain. In order to no longer experience this pain in the future, don't repeat your actions. Simple.