Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 668
I wish I could hit someone every time I thought they were being stupid. 
Researchers say smacking kids lowers their IQ, researchers need a smack.
- Thread starter mrk
- Start date
That's a stupid argument on so many levels.
First up, 30 or 40 years ago a good doctor would treat you entirely differently if you walked in with any number of ailments. As we learn more the good improve what they do.
Second up, while physical punishment featured more in the past, the better teachers and parents used it less.
Third up, despite what you read in the mail in most areas levels of violence in our society have fallen. And areas of violence that used to be accepted (remember not so long ago it was perfectly legal to beat your wife) have become rightly unacceptable.
Fourth up, correlation is not causation. Just because smacking has decreased and problems in society have increased does not suggest that smacking would reverse that change. Might as well argue that it's because we have home computers, or stereos, or airbags in our cars.
Are you for real
Hitting children is wrong ....period..
If you did it to a stranger in the street it would be classed as assault so I'm confused why it's any different!!
If you need to resort to violence to control/punish your child then it says a lot about you as a parent imho.
Well well, don't we all have strict opinions on this matter 
Some people here have rather unique views though that don't make any sense whatsoever.
Let's see, my brother and I got beats for fighting, breaking stuff in the house, stealing sweets from the cupboard, stealing other stuff as kids, saying bad stuff or disrespecting people in general. We got beats with spoons, slippers
D) and of course the god old rod.
Sometimes made to sit facing the wall and we'd sure as hell do it because the spoon was waving at us!
Looking back it's a hell of a good thing, we could have turned out like many of our peers at the time who would not get as disciplined when we wronged and most of those kids ended up being nuisances in the neighbourhood or delinquents.
Tough love is the way it always has been and has always worked so why try to change a system that works just because kids these days cry for Waaaaamulances?
Some people here have rather unique views though that don't make any sense whatsoever.
Let's see, my brother and I got beats for fighting, breaking stuff in the house, stealing sweets from the cupboard, stealing other stuff as kids, saying bad stuff or disrespecting people in general. We got beats with spoons, slippers
D) and of course the god old rod.Sometimes made to sit facing the wall and we'd sure as hell do it because the spoon was waving at us!
Looking back it's a hell of a good thing, we could have turned out like many of our peers at the time who would not get as disciplined when we wronged and most of those kids ended up being nuisances in the neighbourhood or delinquents.
Tough love is the way it always has been and has always worked so why try to change a system that works just because kids these days cry for Waaaaamulances?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 3,462
- Location
- Sheffield
To hell with smacking. A good lump of 2 by 4 will sort any kid out.
Well well, don't we all have strict opinions on this matter
Some people here have rather unique views though that don't make any sense whatsoever.
Well an expert in the field who has studied it for no less than 40 years says your wrong!! I'm much more inclined to take his informed decision based on long research over yours tbh!!
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 668
I still fail to see how hitting someone randomly in the street is considered socially wrong but using violence as a form of primary socialisation makes it perfectly ok. :/
Well well, don't we all have strict opinions on this matter
Some people here have rather unique views though that don't make any sense whatsoever.
Let's see, my brother and I got beats for fighting, breaking stuff in the house, stealing sweets from the cupboard, stealing other stuff as kids, saying bad stuff or disrespecting people in general. We got beats with spoons, slippers
Sometimes made to sit facing the wall and we'd sure as hell do it because the spoon was waving at us!
Looking back it's a hell of a good thing, we could have turned out like many of our peers at the time who would not get as disciplined when we wronged and most of those kids ended up being nuisances in the neighbourhood or delinquents.
Tough love is the way it always has been and has always worked so why try to change a system that works just because kids these days cry for Waaaaamulances?
Indeed. You cannot reason with most kids, and most know when they're doing wrong. Smacking them is a language they understand and can relate to because it works on a basic level. We have become so mollycoddled as a society to think that smacking children is wrong. It is not abuse, it is simple discipline. I bet if that kid in Somerfield had been smacked whenever he messed around in public or on railings he wouldn't have done it of his own accord behind his parents' backs and smashed his brains out on the lino.
Utter nonsense!!
Your teaching children that violence is acceptable!!
I work as a youth worker and have to deal with loads of violent street kids and guess what most of them have in common ??
They have fathers/step-fathers and even mothers in some case's that physically abuse them at home!!
Violence begets violence!
Just because it had no seriously damaging effect on you as a child doesn't mean that it has the same effect on everyone!!
Your teaching children that violence is acceptable!!
I work as a youth worker and have to deal with loads of violent street kids and guess what most of them have in common ??
They have fathers/step-fathers and even mothers in some case's that physically abuse them at home!!
Violence begets violence!
Just because it had no seriously damaging effect on you as a child doesn't mean that it has the same effect on everyone!!
No you're not. A lot of kids of warned before they're hit. If they persist out of petulant belligerence they get hit, if they don't, they're not.
You see, there's the difference. Abuse is beating someone up for the hell of it or to feel superior [that's why it's called 'abuse']. A sharp smack for misbehavior is very different.
Well isn't that excessive anyway? I was smacked as a child, on very few occasions and when I had done something very bad or dangerous (I could count the amouint of times I was smacked on my fingers, it was rare). Smacking can have it's place is disciplining children, though often it is not needed, on rare occasions it can be used without harming a child and actually be beneficial in the long run (all just my opinion of course).
Because smacking is more specific than hitting? To me if I hear that someone was hit it could mean slapped/punched/hit with something. Smacking to me is done with an open hand and without any real force behind it at all and results in no injury.
So regardless of the fact that the actual difference it made to the childs IQ was ~3% you are saying that what they have said is a scientific fact? You mention that they have tried to make it as accurate as possible by taking into account any factors that may distort the results. Well thats the issue isnt it; you cannot have a tiny difference between the two groups which could be due to any number of factors ( expecially when considering humans) and claim that you have proved anything.
To use smoking as an example seems odd as I dont think that we would be so bothered by smoking if it increases our chance of health relatated problems by a few percent.
You can attribute a small percentage of results to chance and variation, you cannot write off 30%.
In the absence of unbiased scientific testing you are left with biased testing. Although this is not perfect, it is better than nothing and sometimes biased testing can reveal results that cannot be disputed in spite of the bias. What we have here is a study that proves diddly squat.
Yes, because all those countries that have banned smacking have seen a massive upswing in problem children, far exceeding our own situation... oh, wait, that's not true is it?
And all the masses of research into how effective various form of discipline are has come down firmly on the side of physical punishment while categorically demonstrating the failure of non-physical means... oh, wait, that's not true either.
Actually, as a point of fact, smacking is less effective at imposing behavioural standards on children when absent from those who will punish them than other forms of punishment. It's effective at getting kids to do what you want when you're around, but it sucks as a means of getting kids to do what you want when you're not.
There's no question that kids need effective discipline and clearly defined boundaries. That notion that this means you need to hit them when they go out of line is pure nonsense.
No, that's precisely what I haven't said. As I said right at the start of the post you quoted I haven't read this study, I don't know it's methodology. What I have pointed out is the simpleheaded wrongness of the notion that you can't do a study like this unless you intervene to either use, or not use, smacking on a particular group or introduce smaking to a previously unsmacked group.
This is simply, and purely, wrong.
This is also simple, and purely, wrong. Please learn a little, tiny bit about statistical analysis of data before you embarass yourself further.
A small effect can be more statistically convincing than a large one because it depends on other factors, such as how well the study is controlled, the observed varience, the sample size, etc.
Have you read the study? Have you considered his methodology?
No, you haven't. Don't make stupid judgements about it then.