Slapping Your Children

[LateX'Dog]

A child is by it's very definition, not an adult. There is no removing of 'humanity' by recognising this fact. Children are like clay; they need to be shaped and moulded.

You claimed because she was an adult, meaning she has more human rights then a child. If a child isn't a human, what is it?

 

[Theophany]

Did you know up until 1987 open heart surgery was performed on infants without pain relief under the impression they didn't feel pain.

It was proved that they did.

Abusing your child by slapping them, does hurt them.

There's a bit of a difference between performing open heart surgery without anesthesia and giving an unruly child a clip round the ear, don't you think? No need to deliberately misinterpret a post to refute it.

 

[balky12]

I have 2 kids.

And you would say that if a parent, smacked their child, not hard enough to leave a mark, as a last resort, to discipline them, they are abusing them? They are child abusers?

 

[LateX'Dog]

And you would say that if a parent, smacked their child, not hard enough to leave a mark, as a last resort, to discipline them, they are abusing them? They are child abusers?

Yes. You are using violence in a way to try and teach your child a lesson.

You can dress it up as light taps, controlled smacking, heavy petting..... what ever. If you fill the criteria of child abuse, you are abusing your child.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

You claimed because she was an adult, meaning she has more human rights then a child. If a child isn't a human, what is it?

'Human rights' are a nonsense. But even so, children do not enjoy all the same rights as an adult.

Yes. You are using violence in a way to try and teach your child a lesson.

You can dress it up as light taps, controlled smacking, heavy petting..... what ever. If you fill the criteria of child abuse, you are abusing your child.

Heavy petting?!

And yes, they are using controlled violence to discipline their children. What is wrong with that?v

 

[balky12]

Is there? I haven't seen any research yet to say that smacking a child has a positive impact. Which studies show this?

There have been numerous posts in this thread. There is always google too. You might just have to search for something other than 'smacking children is evil'

To give you a start though; Marjorie Gunnoe, I believe that is the professors name.

 

[LateX'Dog]

There's a bit of a difference between performing open heart surgery without anesthesia and giving an unruly child a clip round the ear, don't you think? No need to deliberately misinterpret a post to refute it.

I'm trying to get across that a child is more then just the label you people put on them. They are a human beings and should be treated as such.

If you where to hit a adult, elderly or animal, you would be done for abuse. But because you hit a child, it becomes ok.

 

[balky12]

Yes. You are using violence in a way to try and teach your child a lesson.

You can dress it up as light taps, controlled smacking, heavy petting..... what ever. If you fill the criteria of child abuse, you are abusing your child.

So if you witnessed this or heard of someone doing this, you would report it to the police?

 

[LateX'Dog]

'Human rights' are a nonsense. But even so, children do not enjoy all the same rights as an adult.

Again i ask, are they a different sub species of a human that they do not warrant the same respects and rights as we as "adults" have?

Heavy petting?!

And yes, they are using controlled violence to discipline their children. What is wrong with that?v

Violence by definition isn't controlled.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

I'm trying to get across that a child is more then just the label you people put on them. They are a human beings and should be treated as such.

If you where to hit a adult, elderly or animal, you would be done for abuse. But because you hit a child, it becomes ok.

No one understands that better than their parents - usually.

 

[LateX'Dog]

So if you witnessed this or heard of someone doing this, you would report it to the police?

No, because the way society is at the moment, children are seen as some kind of other entity not privy to the respect we try and bestow upon others.

I would intervene, but ultimately it depends on the situation.

 

[elmarko]

I don't understand what you are disagreeing with in his post?

He didn't deny that severe abuse is much worse? He just commented on his stance on the subject probably came from the fact he was abused as a child. Someone who was actually abused would take a strong stand against any kind of physical discipline to a child, it would be natural. He then went on to explain that because of this unfortunate past, and that he has this strong view against it, it makes it difficult for him to see that a 'smack to shock' does not tantamount to abuse. Where as people who were not abused and were smacked, do not see a 'smack to shock' as abuse. As they were not abused.

As stated earlier.

Abuse is a broad term, just because people commonly use it to describe severe abuse (beating, serious neglect) it doesn't mean that the it's application is incorrect in this context. Nobody is saying that minor slaps are identical in impact to serious physical punishment. (simply that there isn't a strong enough body of evidence to support the premise that punitive physical punishment is a method we should use to control children).

On a side note - could somebody please explain to me exactly why a perfect standard of evidence is required to justify not hitting a child, where as no evidence at all is required to support the hitting of a child?.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Again i ask, are they a different sub species of a human that they do not warrant the same respects and rights as we as "adults" have?

Violence by definition isn't controlled.

They are not a subspecies and I don't agree with the notion of human rights. Nonetheless, they are children and thus not adults. They therefore enjoy different rights and protections.

And violence is not uncontrolled by definition; where did you get that idea?

 

[balky12]

Violence by definition isn't controlled.

Wrong. It's intentional.

 

[wesimmo]

I'm trying to get across that a child is more then just the label you people put on them. They are a human beings and should be treated as such.

If you where to hit a adult, elderly or animal, you would be done for abuse. But because you hit a child, it becomes ok.

No, just that there is a difference between an adult and a child, such as the law recognises in the fact there is an age of criminal responsibility.

This means that children under 10 can’t be arrested or charged with a crime. There are other punishments that can be given to children under 10 who break the law.

Children over 10
Children between 10 and 17 can be arrested and taken to court if they commit a crime.

They are treated differently from adults and are:

dealt with by youth courts
given different sentences
sent to special secure centres for young people, not adult prisons

 

[balky12]

No, because the way society is at the moment, children are seen as some kind of other entity not privy to the respect we try and bestow upon others.

I would intervene, but ultimately it depends on the situation.

It's abuse though? How could you not report it? You just said by definition they are abusing their child. So the police / courts would see it this way. Surely?

 

[LateX'Dog]

They are not a subspecies and I don't agree with the notion of human rights. Nonetheless, they are children and thus not adults. They therefore enjoy different rights and protections.

This is my point, your labelling them as less then a human for the right to abuse them at will.

 

[LateX'Dog]

It's abuse though? How could you not report it? You just said by definition they are abusing their child. So the police / courts would see it this way. Surely?

What's the point in urinating in the wind if it only gets your legs wet?

As such, what's the point in reporting someone doing child abuse since it is so wildly accepted in our current society?

 

[RDM]

There have been numerous posts in this thread. There is always google too. You might just have to search for something other than 'smacking children is evil'

To give you a start though; Marjorie Gunnoe, I believe that is the professors name.

Have you done much research into that paper? It comes pretty much from the Creation school of science, using poor science to prove the word of God, in this case "Spare the rod, spoil the child".

 

[Schlong&Stable]

This is my point, your labelling them as less then a human for the right to abuse them at will.

I am not labelling as less than human. So let me state unequivocally: they are human.

Your move.