Smacking Children as a form of discipline

[Niamh.]

It was self defence, self defence against my tantrums :idc:

:laugh:

[Samuel.]

Lul. Was gonna do a Google search to see what the rest of the interwebs thought on the subject. Typed in "why is hitting" only for "why is hitting your child bad" to be the top suggestion :/

[Niamh.]

Lul. Was gonna do a Google search to see what the rest of the interwebs thought on the subject. Typed in "why is hitting" only for "why is hitting your child bad" to be the top suggestion :/

lol pretty emotive subject I think

[Samuel.]

Yeah, but the fact people are having to ask the interwebs why hitting your child is wrong... should be pretty self evident.

[Kizzy]

It's a shame that many people have to ask really....

[Niamh.]

Yeah, but the fact people are having to ask the interwebs why hitting your child is wrong... should be pretty self evident.

you would think so anyway

[thesheriff443]

if you can bring your children up without smacking them then thats fine by me but if you have to smack your children that does not make you a monster

[Pyramid*]

Right or wrong?

Inspired by chinese woman beating the baby thread. I don't mean beating the kid but smacking.

Personally, I think there are better more effective ways of disciplining kids and hitting children is always wrong. Thoughts?

My opinion is right on this, I used the example of disabled and elderly people because I don't see the difference in hitting them or children.

Pyramid, I'm quite sure if you check back along, you'll find that I have addressed other people besides you. Infact, I've replied to : Samuel, Ninastar,08Marsh, lostalex, Arista, Thesheriff, Mr. Luvaluva, Vicky, Bollo, The Mockinator and Kizzy.

I'd also like to point out that it was infact you that originally quoted me, I was simply replying to you so I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to paint such an untrue picture of events.


Let's start at the beginning Niamh, and I'll reply to you stating I am painting such an untrue picture of events.

You created this thread - it would therefore be reasonable that I should reply to you at some point, given that you started the thread - which was indeed an interesting one.

What is more interesting is that you started your opening post and you asked : Right or Wrong? and then asked for peoples thoughts.

People then gave you their thoughts. When anyone gave their own different stance - you didn't want to know their thoughts, other than to tell them they were wrong. In my own case I made it clear the distinction I made in a gentle smack, and specifically, where I felt it was acceptable, and did so as well as did other posters, several times over and over again.

You vehemently refused to accept anyone elses opinion as being 'right' - preferring instead to tell those who didn't share your view,, that they were wrong, and repeatedly (quote above as one of several examples) .

To ask what people think of a subject: to specifically ask Right or Wrong; then not respect their opinion or view when it is given : If you felt there was no other answer other than your own, then why ask the question in the first place if all you were going to do was dismiss anything anyone else had to say on the subject?

I'm not entirely sure why you wanted to discuss what other people thought of the subject of smacking children, when you aren't prepared to accept someone elses point of view without deriding it or them (by saying they needed help etc) - regardless of how much you disagree with it.?

What was the point in you asking ''Right or Wrong'' if then all you intended doing was telling others they were wrong? That's not leaving much room for discussion and imo, defeats the purpose of healthy serious debating. :conf:

[Niamh.]

As long as you clean up after yourself - I really don't care what you think.


Utter nonsense the last part. I don't have kids... I was a child and I was given sometimes more than a light smack - oddly enough: I didn't grow up to be an abuser to children regardless, nor did I grow up thinking hitting babies or toddlers is right, nor did I grow up to believe that a good thumping of a child was correct either.

A person does not have to be a parent to have an opinion you know.

So, you are allowed to dismiss other peoples opinions, but I'm not...........interesting.

So..you don't agree with me, is there any particular reason for you labouring your point Niamh?

I'm labouring my point because this is a debate thread..........that's what you do in debate threads.

This is not about old people, nor is it about diabled children. It is about young children who some people may chose to smack as a form of discipline and discussing that.

Again, this is a debate thread........sometimes people draw comparisons in debate threads when they're trying to make a point, please don't tell me what I can and can't draw comparisons with. Thank You.

Your opinion isn't right or wrong - neither is mine. But you appear to be coming across as though you think your way is the only correct way. It's not - it is what you believe, and what some others believe. It's not an opinion I agree on, and I don't happen to be alone in my opinion.

Again........this is a debate......of course I think I'm right as do you.......but you're not.

There really is no point in going round in circles - we disagree for the reasons we both have stated. That's the way it works sometimes.

Stop replying to me then.

No your opinion is only your opinion. And it is highly disrespectful to dismiss the opinion of others.

Really? as disrespectful as saying someones opinion is "Utter Nonsense"?

This thread is not discussing hitting elderly people or disabled people though.

I'm not likely to wind up in any prison since I have said repeatedly on here that anything other than a gentle smack today - is unacceptable: an important point which you seem very deliberately to be ignoring.

MTVN has already clearly stated why he feels there is nothing wrong with it either, as have other. . It seems you have some bone to pick with me - given that you are soley addressing only what I have to say on the matter as far as believing there is nothing wrong with a gentle smack. I see you are not addressing any other poster who has commented with the same views as me - why would that be I wonder?


I did actually answer that in a previous post, infact I answered that in two previous posts (one directly to you) but I will repost them :

Well I would assume it's not going to be anyway effective if it doesn't actually hurt the child, and I would never want to physically hurt my children.

A "gentle" smack? Again........for it to have any kind of effective on the child it has to hurt them
I don't agree with hitting old people or disabled people either, am I right about that? I see no difference with hitting kids, they're all the most vulnerable members of our society.

I only referred to being hit by a strap after you brought it up.

If you don't like the way I am arguing my points in this thread, then don't reply to me Pyramid, please don't try to make out I have some sort of vendetta against you. I have disagreed with many people in this thread yet you're the only one who accused me of this.

[lostalex]

just because i believe that hitting children is wrong does not mean that i think all parents (including my own) who have hit their children are MONSTERS. i don't even think it means they are bad parents.

I think it's the wrong thing to do, but everyone has done the wrong thing, and i'm not saying i think all parents that have hit their children are horrible parents, or monsters. Giving your children junk food is also the wrong thing to do, but it doesn't make the parents monsters. I just want to make that clear.


It is the wrong thing to do though.

[Niamh.]

just because i believe that hitting children is wrong does not mean that i think all parents (including my own) who have hit their children are MONSTERS. i don't even think it means they are bad parents.

I think it's the wrong thing to do, but everyone has done the wrong thing, and i'm not saying i think all parents that have hit their children are horrible parents, or monsters. Giving your children junk food is also the wrong thing to do, but it doesn't make the parents monsters. I just want to make that clear.


It is the wrong thing to do though.

I agree.

[Niamh.]

Oh and one last thing Pyramid, do I disagree with everyone as you state here :

People then gave you their thoughts. When anyone gave their own different stance - you didn't want to know their thoughts, other than to tell them they were wrong. In my own case I made it clear the distinction I made in a gentle smack, and specifically, where I felt it was acceptable, and did so as well as did other posters, several times over and over again.

Or is it just you as you've accused me of here :

It seems you have some bone to pick with me - given that you are soley addressing only what I have to say on the matter as far as believing there is nothing wrong with a gentle smack. I see you are not addressing any other poster who has commented with the same views as me - why would that be I wonder?

[Niall]

There's no need to smack a little kid. Discipline out of fear is only detrimental to the child's relationship with the parent. My cousins used to get smacked by one of my aunts and they absolutely hated her for it and used to get real upset - we went to Disney World with them nice (my Dad and I that is), and my aunt slapped my cousin (who was 16 at the time) in the middle of the theme park. My cousin started crying and she was really embarrassed. There's no need.

My parents have never smacked or used physical force to make me do things and I always abided by and respected their rules (for the most part anyway). They always used to explain to me where I went wrong after I was punished for it and I understood not to do the wrong thing in future and all that. Smacking the kid isnt liable to help them understand what they did wrong and why they shouldn't do it, but that they shouldn't do something for fear that they'll be hurt. It's wrong. A child should never be fearful of their parent.

[lostalex]

Oh and one last thing Pyramid, do I disagree with everyone as you state here :

People then gave you their thoughts. When anyone gave their own different stance - you didn't want to know their thoughts, other than to tell them they were wrong. In my own case I made it clear the distinction I made in a gentle smack, and specifically, where I felt it was acceptable, and did so as well as did other posters, several times over and over again.

Or is it just you as you've accused me of here :

It seems you have some bone to pick with me - given that you are soley addressing only what I have to say on the matter as far as believing there is nothing wrong with a gentle smack. I see you are not addressing any other poster who has commented with the same views as me - why would that be I wonder?

You've made your points well and you were not being offensive. IMO. You've said your peace eloquently Niamh. :)

[Niamh.]

You've made your points well and you were not being offensive. IMO. You've said your peace eloquently Niamh. :)

Thank You Alex :)

[Jack_]

and my aunt slapped my cousin (who was 16 at the time) in the middle of the theme park. My cousin started crying and she was really embarrassed. There's no need.

I'd have slapped the bitch back into oblivion.

[Pyramid*]

So, you are allowed to dismiss other peoples opinions, but I'm not...........interesting.


Really? as disrespectful as saying someones opinion is "Utter Nonsense"?




I did actually answer that in a previous post, infact I answered that in two previous posts (one directly to you) but I will repost them :





I only referred to being hit by a strap after you brought it up.

If you don't like the way I am arguing my points in this thread, then don't reply to me Pyramid, please don't try to make out I have some sort of vendetta against you. I have disagreed with many people in this thread yet you're the only one who accused me of this.

Oh and one last thing Pyramid, do I disagree with everyone as you state here :

People then gave you their thoughts. When anyone gave their own different stance - you didn't want to know their thoughts, other than to tell them they were wrong. In my own case I made it clear the distinction I made in a gentle smack, and specifically, where I felt it was acceptable, and did so as well as did other posters, several times over and over again.

Or is it just you as you've accused me of here :

It seems you have some bone to pick with me - given that you are soley addressing only what I have to say on the matter as far as believing there is nothing wrong with a gentle smack. I see you are not addressing any other poster who has commented with the same views as me - why would that be I wonder?





Let's try and not misquote things.

So, you are allowed to dismiss other peoples opinions, but I'm not...........interesting.


Really? as disrespectful as saying someones opinion is "Utter Nonsense"?



My 'utter nonsense' was in reply to the part of 'thesheriffs' post below: it is utter nonsense to state that a person is not in a position to really know how you would bring up a child - you don't have to be a parent to have an opinion on smacking (or in how you view bringing up a child) and I replied why - because one doesn't have to have experience, having already been a child and grown to maturity. No that is not disrespectful: it is factual - it is utter nonsense to state that a person has to be a parent to be in a position to comment on such a subject as smacking.


to those that have not got children until you become a parent your not in a position to really know how you would bring up a child.



I note that you completely dismissed (ignored) my post/question in respect of if the child does not respond to being grounded, spoken to etc: and grows up to rebel, to disrespect others etc: how then would you tackle that if words and your normal way of discipline had failed?

I do feel you have been very dismissive of anyone who doesn't share your view: that is my opinion - to the point that you have in fact been insulting when referring to those who smack children as 'needing help'. That is a highly derogatory statement to make and others on the thread have also made replied to that particular comment that you made.

I do feel that you are being very aggressive in your posts on this thread - that is my opinion. You may not view it as that because of the very medium that this is: I may be viewing it differently also: but I can only state what I am reading: and when comments such as 'anyone who smacks their child needs help'' - that is not a passive comment, that is in it's own right, an aggressive statement and is insulting to others.

[Marc]

:laugh:

[Pyramid*]

:laugh:

That's not really much of a contribution to a serious debates thread Marc.

[Marc]

Could probably argue the same thing about you tbh :laugh:

[Marsh.]

:laugh:

Could probably argue the same thing about you tbh :laugh:

:eek: Baiting from a mod? :nono:

[Marc]

Oh I'm not baiting, that would be against the rules.

[Pyramid*]

:eek: Baiting from a mod? :nono:

Thank you 08Marsh.

[Niamh.]

My 'utter nonsense' was in reply to the part of 'thesheriffs' post below: it is utter nonsense to state that a person is not in a position to really know how you would bring up a child - you don't have to be a parent to have an opinion on smacking (or in how you view bringing up a child) and I replied why - because one doesn't have to have experience, having already been a child and grown to maturity. No that is not disrespectful: it is factual - it is utter nonsense to state that a person has to be a parent to be in a position to comment on such a subject as smacking.

In your opinion, not in his. Regardless of what you think about his opinion you still disregarded..........in a much more insulting way then I did yours might I add.

I note that you completely dismissed (ignored) my post/question in respect of if the child does not respond to being grounded, spoken to etc: and grows up to rebel, to disrespect others etc: how then would you tackle that if words and your normal way of discipline had failed?

Not by hitting it anyway that's for sure :conf:

I do feel you have been very dismissive of anyone who doesn't share your view: that is my opinion - to the point that you have in fact been insulting when referring to those who smack children as 'needing help'. That is a highly derogatory statement to make and others on the thread have also made replied to that particular comment that you made.

I do feel that you are being very aggressive in your posts on this thread - that is my opinion. You may not view it as that because of the very medium that this is: I may be viewing it differently also: but I can only state what I am reading: and when comments such as 'anyone who smacks their child needs help'' - that is not a passive comment, that is in it's own right, an aggressive statement and is insulting to others.

You're the only one who seems to think I've been aggressive in this thread Pyramid. I can assure you I'm not an aggressive person. I do feel like you've given me no choice but to defend myself though after firstly accusing me of only responding to your posts and having "a bone to pick with you" ...........and then saying that I've been telling everyone they're wrong "several times over and over again." Which is it, I'm confused?:conf:

[Pyramid*]

In your opinion, not in his. Regardless of what you think about his opinion you still disregarded..........in a much more insulting way then I did yours might I add.



Not by hitting it anyway that's for sure :conf:



You're the only one who seems to think I've been aggressive in this thread Pyramid. I can assure you I'm not an aggressive person. I do feel like you've given me no choice but to defend myself though after firstly accusing me of only responding to your posts and having "a bone to pick with you" ...........and then saying that I've been telling everyone they're wrong "several times over and over again." Which is it, I'm confused?:conf:


You HAVE quite categorically stated several times that some people on here are wrong, and I quote you: "I am right". Your subjective opinion is not a fact, it is a subjective opinion only.

Do you think that telling people on here - forum members and forum members who have stated that their parent smacked them - that 'they need help' is not hostile, aggressive and an insulting comment?

You still have not answered my question as to how you would deal with an unruly child that does not respond to your method of discipline - other than say: "Not by hitting it anyway". how would you deal with such a child?

[Niamh.]

You HAVE quite categorically stated several times that some people on here are wrong, and I quote you: "I am right". Your subjective opinion is not a fact, it is a subjective opinion only.

Do you think that telling people on here - forum members and forum members who have stated that their parent smacked them - that 'they need help' is not hostile, aggressive and an insulting comment?

I am right, is stating my opinion, I neither think it's hostile, aggressive or insulting.

Now would you like to tell me why you felt the need to accuse me of basically harassing you and only replying to your posts in one post.........then a couple of posts later said I replied to numerous people? I don't like being accused of harassing people, it's not my style.

[Pyramid*]

I am right, is stating my opinion, I neither think it's hostile, aggressive or insulting.

Now would you like to tell me why you felt the need to accuse me of basically harassing you and only replying to your posts in one post.........then a couple of posts later said I replied to numerous people? I don't like being accused of harassing people, it's not my style.


Did I say you were harassing me? No, I did not say that. The manner of your posts to me has (imo) been unecessarily aggressive. That's my opinion and I am right about how I feel your replies have been to me.

I am quite stunned that you feel it is acceptable for you to state that fms on here and their parents (who do not disagree with smacking) need help. I'm surprised it's been allowed tbh, but there you have it. I will of course know in future that to state such a thing, is not viewed as insulting, that it is allowed, and I will be content in the knowledge that I can say the same in future without being concerned that I am insulting anyone.

If anything, there's a bit of good that's come from this thread.

[Niamh.]

Did I say you were harassing me? No, I did not say that. The manner of your posts to me has (imo) been unecessarily aggressive. That's my opinion and I am right about how I feel your replies have been to me.

I am quite stunned that you feel it is acceptable for you to state that fms on here and their parents (who do not disagree with smacking) need help. I'm surprised it's been allowed tbh, but there you have it. I will of course know in future that to state such a thing, is not viewed as insulting, that it is allowed, and I will be contentin the knowledge that I can say the same in future without being concerned that I am insulting anyone.

If anything, there's a bit of good that's come from this thread.

If anything Pyramid, I feel like you are hounding me, considering you were the one who first replied to one of my posts and then accused me of and I quote : "It seems you have some bone to pick with me - given that you are soley addressing only what I have to say on the matter as far as believing there is nothing wrong with a gentle smack. I see you are not addressing any other poster who has commented with the same views as me - why would that be I wonder? "

This of course turned out to be untrue, you put me in a position where I felt like I had to go through the thread and list every other person I'd replied to, to prove that I was not infact only replying to your posts, I had infact replied to numerous other people.

You also, told me to stop replying to you because we were going round in circles, can I ask why you didn't just stop quoting me if you felt this way? Why the need to carry on quoting me?

[Pyramid*]

If anything Pyramid, I feel like you are hounding me, considering you were the one who first replied to one of my posts and then accused me of and I quote : "It seems you have some bone to pick with me - given that you are soley addressing only what I have to say on the matter as far as believing there is nothing wrong with a gentle smack. I see you are not addressing any other poster who has commented with the same views as me - why would that be I wonder? "

This of course turned out to be untrue, you put me in a position where I felt like I had to go through the thread and list every other person I'd replied to, to prove that I was not infact only replying to your posts, I had infact replied to numerous other people.

You also, told me to stop replying to you because we were going round in circles, can I ask why you didn't just stop quoting me if you felt this way? Why the need to carry on quoting me?


I have as much right to quote anyone who posts on a thread - just as you have Niamh.

I stated several times over the extent to which I felt smacking was acceptable, and where it was not - yet still you maintained YOU were right and I was not. It is not a matter of who is right or who is wrong; it is a difference of opinion and each others opinions should be respected, regardless: which you appear not to be accepting - other than continuing to reiterate "I am right".

As I mentioned earlier: if the point is not to discuss and accept other opinions - and that means accepting them - you dont' have to agree with them, but to continually state one person is right and the other is wrong, is not a debate: it is a one sided arguement. That is and has been my point all along.

If you continue to reply to my posts Niamh, then I will say to you the same - I reserve the right to respond to them. It takes two to tango.

You still seem unable to answer how else you would discipline a child if your own disciplinary measures failed: that is not me hounding you: it is me trying to establish what other disciplinary measures you would use if your preferred methods don't or won't work. If the child does not respond to them.

I ask, not because I am hounding you, but because this is meant to be a discussion and I am interested in your reply.

And I did not tell you to stop replying to me, if you can find where I said that: I'll be the first to apologise - but I believe I said no such thing.

[Niamh.]

I have as much right to quote anyone who posts on a thread - just as you have Niamh.

No one said you didn't Pyramid but don't then accuse me of having a bone to pick with you because I replied to you.


I stated several times over the extent to which I felt smacking was acceptable, and where it was not - yet still you maintained YOU were right and I was not. It is not a matter of who is right or who is wrong; it is a difference of opinion and each others opinions should be respected, regardless: which you appear not to be accepting - other than continuing to reiterate "I am right".

I did not agree with your examples because I always think hitting children is wrong.



As I mentioned earlier: if the point is not to discuss and accept other opinions - and that means accepting them - you dont' have to agree with them, but to continually state one person is right and the other is wrong, is not a debate: it is a one sided arguement. That is and has been my point all along.

If you continue to reply to my posts Niamh, then I will say to you the same - I reserve the right to respond to them. It takes two to tango.

Respond away Pyramid but don't try to make out I have some issue with you and you're the only one I'm responding to, because I am doing the same.



You still seem unable to answer how else you would discipline a child if your own disciplinary measures failed: that is not me hounding you: it is me trying to establish what other disciplinary measures you would use if your preferred methods don't or won't work. If the child does not respond to them.

Well, I have two children and they have always responded well to the ways I discipline them, if they didn't I would cross that bridge but I would never ever hit them because I believe hitting little children is wrong.........that would not change ever.


I ask, not because I am hounding you, but because this is meant to be a discussion and I am interested in your reply.

I didn't say you were hounding me because of points you made about the topic, I said it for continually accusing me of being aggressive and saying that you thought I had some bone to pick with you.

[Pyramid*]

No one said you didn't Pyramid but don't then accuse me of having a bone to pick with you because I replied to you.



I did not agree with your examples because I always think hitting children is wrong.




Respond away Pyramid but don't try to make out I have some issue with you and you're the only one I'm responding to, because I am doing the same.




Well, I have two children and they have always responded well to the ways I discipline them, if they didn't I would cross that bridge but I would never ever hit them because I believe hitting little children is wrong.........that would not change ever.



I didn't say you were hounding me because of points you made about the topic, I said it for continually accusing me of being aggressive and saying that you thought I had some bone to pick with you.

I'm not going to waste time repeating what I've said plenty of times re people needing help. My point on that has been made over and over but it does appear that you find that more than acceptable to think that is not an insult.

Thanks for at least addressing in some way the matter I had asked about in respect of how you would discipline a child if your normal methods didn't work out.

One question: you say that you believe that hitting little children is wrong - I understand why you have that view. Does that mean there is a stage that you find it acceptable to hit children that are not little, that when they are older, that you would find some leaway in that - on the premise that they are not so little?

[Niamh.]

I'm not going to waste time repeating what I've said plenty of times re people needing help. My point on that has been made over and over but it does appear that you find that more than acceptable to think that is not an insult.

Thanks for at least addressing in some way the matter I had asked about in respect of how you would discipline a child if your normal methods didn't work out.

One question: you say that you believe that hitting little children is wrong - I understand why you have that view. Does that mean there is a stage that you find it acceptable to hit children that are not little, that when they are older, that you would find some leaway in that - on the premise that they are not so little?

No, absolutely not. Hitting anyone is wrong unless it's self defence. I said "little" because I just presumed that parents wouldn't use smacking as a discipline on teenagers........although Niall story contradicts that theory, I got the impression that smacking was generally used on younger kids.

[Pyramid*]

No, absolutely not. Hitting anyone is wrong unless it's self defence. I said "little" because I just presumed that parents wouldn't use smacking as a discipline on teenagers........although Niall story contradicts that theory, I got the impression that smacking was generally used on younger kids.


The reason I asked was because of your strong views on smacking (or any physical violence as you feel it is) - but noticed that you made mention a few times about 'vulnerable members' such as young children, the disable and old frail folk - I wasn't sure if you meant only those particular folk.

During childhood, If someone hit me for no good reason (another child for example) I was told (rightly or wrongly), that if someone hit me - ie: that I should hit them back. :joker:

How do you feel about that?

I'm interested in you saying above that hitting anyone is wrong unless it is in self defence. What if it was a child hitting another child: someone hitting one of your own children for example. Would you / do you teach your children to hit back at the person that hit them, if this other unruly child continued to hit your own child - would you expect your child to hit them back?

[Niamh.]

The reason I asked was because of your strong views on smacking (or any physical violence as you feel it is) - but noticed that you made mention a few times about 'vulnerable members' such as young children, the disable and old frail folk - I wasn't sure if you meant only those particular folk.

During childhood, If someone hit me for no good reason (another child for example) I was told (rightly or wrongly), that if someone hit me - ie: that I should hit them back. :joker:

How do you feel about that?

I'm interested in you saying above that hitting anyone is wrong unless it is in self defence. What if it was a child hitting another child: someone hitting one of your own children for example. Would you / do you teach your children to hit back at the person that hit them, if this other unruly child continued to hit your own child - would you expect your child to hit them back?

Well that would be self defence wouldn't it

[Smithy]

smack her niamh!

[Vanessa]

I don't agree with smacking children either. I could never do it. :(

[thesheriff443]

I don't agree with smacking children either. I could never do it. :(

dont you start vanessa:joker:

[Pyramid*]

Well that would be self defence wouldn't it


That's what I am asking you. If you are saying that is self defence - one child hitting another, then you would teach your children to hit back. Therefore you would advocate 'physical violence' under certain circumstances.

Do you see where I am coming from? You find it acceptable under certain circumstances within your own reasoning, where you find circumstances dictate violence / hitting is permissible.

I see that as as similar response to my own 'under certain circumstances' - albeit different circumstances.

I'm trying to establish the point that you feel ' physical violence' as you yourself refer to any hitting as being: is acceptable.

In essence: you agree with it as long as it meets a certain criteria or a certain set of circumstances?

[Niamh.]

That's what I am asking you. If you are saying that is self defence - one child hitting another, then you would teach your children to hit back. Therefore you would advocate 'physical violence' under certain circumstances.

Do you see where I am coming from? You find it acceptable under certain circumstances within your own reasoning, where you find circumstances dictate violence / hitting is permissible.

I see that as as similar response to my own 'under certain circumstances' - albeit different circumstances.

I'm trying to establish the point that you feel ' physical violence' as you yourself refer to any hitting as being: is acceptable.

In essence: you agree with it as long as it meets a certain criteria or a certain set of circumstances?

Eh...........no, if someone is attacking you, you defend yourself.........big difference to hitting someone to teach them a lesson

[Pyramid*]

smack her niamh!

LOL Smithy: I'd very much appreciate & realise your comment has been made tongue in cheek - it really isn't in the spirit of the thread. :blush:

[Pyramid*]

Eh...........no, if someone is attacking you, you defend yourself.........big difference to hitting someone to teach them a lesson

So you do have certain criteria whereby you would teach your children to respond to 'violence' ... with 'violence'.

[Niamh.]

So you do have certain criteria whereby you would teach your children to respond to 'violence' ... with 'violence'.

I have said the whole way through the thread that the only reason for hitting someone is in self defence.........but no I have never taught my children to respond to violence with violence as they have never been in that situation. If they were hit by another child I would go to the school.

[Marsh.]

So you do have certain criteria whereby you would teach your children to respond to 'violence' ... with 'violence'.

I took it that Niamh's issue with smacking children is it being done by an adult, someone much bigger and stronger than them. Which is different to hitting a peer in self defence if they were to be "attacked".

[Pyramid*]

Eh...........no, if someone is attacking you, you defend yourself.........big difference to hitting someone to teach them a lesson

I have said the whole way through the thread that the only reason for hitting someone is in self defence.........but no I have never taught my children to respond to violence with violence as they have never been in that situation. If they were hit by another child I would go to the school.

I'm slighty confused here.

You say if someone is attacking you, you defend yourself. How do you suggest they defend themselves then if you would not teach your child to respond to violence with violence - because that sounded very much like that is exactly what you meant by ''if someone was attacking you, you would defend yourself''. It is still condoning violence. :conf:

Then you say you have not taught your children to respond to violence with violence - as they have not been in that situation - but if they were hit by another, you would go to the school.

That's on the premise that it happened during school hours and on school premises surely?

What if it happened outwith the school? That you did not know the child, who their parents were, were they lived? How would you tackle that?
:conf:

[Pyramid*]

I took it that Niamh's issue with smacking children is it being done by an adult, someone much bigger and stronger than them. Which is different to hitting a peer in self defence if they were to be "attacked".

I am quite sure that is what Niamh was meaning. I am clear of that as she has stated - however am interested to know at which point Niamh may or may not accept 'violence' (as she views smacking, and had referred to it as, often througout the thread) as being acceptable - simply because there appears (and I say 'appears') to be a point whereby she might feel that one 'violent' act on another, begets a similar violent action in return - which is what I may be 'misinterpreting' as acceptable under the 'self defence' criteria.

I'm trying to establish where Niamh's boundaries lie. It's merely expanding and making comparison on the subject.

[Niamh.]

I'm slighty confused here.

You say if someone is attacking you, you defend yourself. How do you suggest they defend themselves then if you would not teach your child to respond to violence with violence - because that sounded very much like that is exactly what you meant by ''if someone was attacking you, you would defend yourself''. It is still condoning violence. :conf:

Then you say you have not taught your children to respond to violence with violence - as they have not been in that situation - but if they were hit by another, you would go to the school.

That's on the premise that it happened during school hours and on school premises surely?

What if it happened outwith the school? That you did not know the child, who their parents were, were they lived? How would you tackle that?
:conf:

I'm telling you I have never taught my children to respond to violence with violence, what's hard to understand about that? :conf: I have never sat down and had a conversation with them about an event that has never happened :conf: If they came home from school and said someone had hit them I would go to the school about it, if they came home from somewhere else other than school and told me someone had hit them I would go to that childs parents.........what's difficult about that to understand?

And yes 08Marsh, that is what I meant :hugesmile:

[Pyramid*]

I'm telling you I have never taught my children to respond to violence with violence, what's hard to understand about that? :conf: I have never sat down and had a conversation with them about an event that has never happened :conf: If they came home from school and said someone had hit them I would go to the school about it, if they came home from somewhere else other than school and told me someone had hit them I would go to that childs parents.........what's difficult about that to understand?

And yes 08Marsh, that is what I meant :hugesmile:


Nothing at all - all of that is perfectly understandable. That however is not what I've asked.


You speak of school and you would tackle the school - I've drawn comparisons - to which you stated 'attack = defence' - that you said hitting was acceptable under those conditions: yet you say violence is never the answer.

Not all such things happen in the school yard or within the school area.

I don't think it is a difficult question to answer - in one post you say acting in defence by hitting back (violence as you have termed it throughout the thread) - is acceptable: but then you say physical violence is not acceptable.

:conf:

[Niamh.]

Nothing at all - all of that is perfectly understandable. That however is not what I've asked.


You speak of school and you would tackle the school - I've drawn comparisons - to which you stated 'attack = defence' - that you said hitting was acceptable under those conditions: yet you say violence is never the answer.

Not all such things happen in the school yard or within the school area.

I don't think it is a difficult question to answer - in one post you say acting in defence by hitting back (violence as you have termed it throughout the thread) - is acceptable: but then you say physical violence is not acceptable.

:conf:

Are you serious? I have said all the way through this thread that I didn't think violence was acceptable unless in self defence..........what exactly are you asking me?

[thesheriff443]

a firm smack on your childs hand is not violence

[Pyramid*]

Are you serious? I have said all the way through this thread that I didn't think violence was acceptable unless in self defence..........what exactly are you asking me?

Yes. I am being very serious.

You do condone violence then. That is my point.

You have a certain barometer when you find violence is acceptable. It's a simple yes or no answer: which if I understand correctly: your answer is Yes, you do find it acceptable under certain circumstances.

Am I correct in saying that, if in your eyes, it is 'deemed' as self defence: then violence is acceptable. Yes?

[Niamh.]

Yes. I am being very serious.

You do condone violence then. That is my point.

You have a certain barometer when you find violence is acceptable. It's a simple yes or no answer: which if I understand correctly: your answer is Yes, you do find it acceptable under certain circumstances.

Am I correct in saying that, if in your eyes, it is 'deemed' as self defence: then violence is acceptbale. Yes?

Have I not already said MULTIPLE times throughout this thread that I think self defence is acceptable? Did you miss all those posts?

[Pyramid*]

Have I not already said MULTIPLE times throughout this thread that I think self defence is acceptable? Did you miss all those posts?

I am asking you to clarify what I have asked.

You find violence is acceptable when it meets your own criteria?

I'm only looking for a simple yes or no.

What is so difficult about my asking for nothing more than a one word answer? :conf:

[thesheriff443]

on this issue its not black or white its a grey area

[Niamh.]

I am asking you to clarify what I have asked.

You find violence is acceptable when it meets your own criteria?

I'm only looking for a simple yes or no.

What is so difficult about my asking for nothing more than a one word answer? :conf:

Self preservation is a completely different scenario than hitting someone smaller than you to teach them a lesson. Hitting someone in self defence is an instinct to protect yourself from harm. So no you're not getting a yes or no answer, you can take this paragraph instead :)

[Niamh.]

on this issue its not black or white its a grey area

It's pretty black and white to me.

[thesheriff443]

It's pretty black and white to me.

that was to pyramid trying to push you into a corner

[Niamh.]

that was to pyramid trying to push you into a corner

Ah apologies then Sir :hugesmile:

[thesheriff443]

Ah apologies then Sir :hugesmile:

no problem:spin:

[Pyramid*]

Self preservation is a completely different scenario than hitting someone smaller than you to teach them a lesson. Hitting someone in self defence is an instinct to protect yourself from harm. So no you're not getting a yes or no answer, you can take this paragraph instead :)


One child hitting another child is self preservation?

In fairness to you, you have indeed have stated time and time again that violence is never the answer - and as you stated so adamantly in your prevous post - 'how many times you you regard violence being responded to by violence, albeit, if it is in self defence' , therefore you are prepared to build in your own barometers on when you deem violence on someone to be acceptable.

It's exactly the same premise as those who build in their own parameters in respect of gentle smacks on children.

Smacking - or violence as you refer to it as, is violence. Regardless of migitgating circumstances..... you have throughout this thread, stated you will condone it where it meets your moral compass: but you have criticised others on this thread: when it meets 'their' moral compass.

It is a grey area - I agree with thesheriff on that point - and in fairness to you - I do think this proves there is no 'right' and 'no wrong'. It is how we each view it personally - and even your goodself admits that there are circumstances that you feel hitting is the correct course of action.

It's been a really interesting discussion when all is said and done Niam and one that I've enjoyed. :)

[Pyramid*]

that was to pyramid trying to push you into a corner

It was Pyramid* showing that things are not quite as black and white as they initally appear to be.

[Niamh.]

One child hitting another child is self preservation?

In fairness to you, you have indeed have stated time and time again that violence is never the answer - and as you stated so adamantly in your prevous post - 'how many times you you regard violence being responded to by violence, albeit, if it is in self defence' , therefore you are prepared to build in your own barometers on when you deem violence on someone to be acceptable.

It's exactly the same premise as those who build in their own parameters in respect of gentle smacks on children.

Smacking - or violence as you refer to it as, is violence. Regardless of migitgating circumstances..... you have throughout this thread, stated you will condone it where it meets your morale compass: but you have criticised others on this thread: when it meets 'their' morale compass.

It is a grey area - I agree with thesheriff on that point - and in fairness to you - I do think this proves there is no 'right' and 'no wrong'. It is how we each view it personally - and even your goodself admits that there are circumstances that you feel hitting is the correct course of action.

It's been a really interesting discussion when all is said and done Niam and one that I've enjoyed. :)

No it doesn't.........there is a world of difference between someone hitting someone else to protect themselves from harm and hitting someone smaller than you to teach them a lesson. You are still wrong on that front and you have proved nothing............nice try though ;)

[Pyramid*]

No it doesn't.........there is a world of difference between someone hitting someone else to protect themselves from harm and hitting someone smaller than you to teach them a lesson. You are still wrong on that front and you have proved nothing............nice try though ;)


I know what I have proven and I know I am right (as you feel you are).

It's been a good discussion either way Niamh and I thank you for making the thread, it's been a stimulating & invigorating one. :thumbs:

[Niamh.]

I know what I have proven and I know I am right (as you feel you are).

It's been a good discussion either way Niamh and I thank you for making the thread, it's been a stimulating & invigorating one. :thumbs:

Except you've proven nothing and you're wrong, but I'll take my victory gracefully :xyxwave:

[Marsh.]

There is no correlation between the two Pyramid. One is premeditated, an adult making the decision to carry out the action for whatever purpose and the other is instinctive. If someone started getting in your face, shoving you around and not letting up, you automatically without thought will fight back. Try as you can to get them off you.

You laugh off the thought of a two children fighting being "self-preservation" but it doesn't just apply to life and death situations. It's an inbuilt reflex to protect yourself we as humans possess.

The subject of this thread is about whether the act of choosing to smack a child to keep them in line is right or wrong. Niamh's stance quite clearly lies in the "no violence" line when it comes to pre-meditation but where it's an automatic reflex to protect yourself then it is understandable as a defence mechanism. Not choosing violence to solve a disagreement. Two very different things imo.

[Niamh.]

Glad someone understands what I mean, thanks 08Marsh. I'm pretty sure Pyramid does too though, it just doesn't suit her case to admit it ;)

[Marsh.]

Glad someone understands what I mean, thanks 08Marsh. I'm pretty sure Pyramid does too though, it just doesn't suit her case to admit it ;)

:hugesmile: No problem.

[thesheriff443]

Glad someone understands what I mean, thanks 08Marsh. I'm pretty sure Pyramid does too though, it just doesn't suit her case to admit it ;)

i also understand where your coming from but you dont have to smack a child to leave a mark on them.

[Niamh.]

i also understand where your coming from but you dont have to smack a child to leave a mark on them.

I know that, I just think there are better ways to discipline a child

[thesheriff443]

I know that, I just think there are better ways to discipline a child

smacking is only one of many ways to bring them up to know right from wrong

[Niamh.]

smacking is only one of many ways to bring them up to know right from wrong

mmm I just don't think it's a good way to teach though, lead by example and all that

[thesheriff443]

a loving parent wants the best for there kids the problem is there are so many stories of people hurting their kids and abuseing them
you cant call these people parents

[Niamh.]

a loving parent wants the best for there kids the problem is there are so many stories of people hurting their kids and abuseing them
you cant call these people parents

Indeed

[Pyramid*]

Except you've proven nothing and you're wrong, but I'll take my victory gracefully :xyxwave:


Now... that is , imo, a very childish response Tee hee.!!! :D


Glad someone understands what I mean, thanks 08Marsh. I'm pretty sure Pyramid does too though, it just doesn't suit her case to admit it ;)


:D Old saying about people in glass houses not throwing stones .. that comes to mind. ;)

i also understand where your coming from but you dont have to smack a child to leave a mark on them.

I know that, I just think there are better ways to discipline a child

it appears that I am at least willing to accept other people's own perspective rather than treat their opinions as being wrong - as you have time and time again on this thread.

You admit to condoning violence when it suits. You simply would not accede to stating that as a simple yes. ;) I do totally agree with you on that - as I mentioned earlier (me being brought up to 'hit back').

I do wholly agree with you very last post that I've quoted above Niamh - you THINK there are better ways: and indeed you COULD be correct.... just as others THINK there are other ways too...and they also COULD be correct.

As I say, it's been a highly interesting and entertaining thread all things considered. Better than that... No blood shed over the thread either! Result eh!

Differences of opinion and never the twain shall meet and all that. ;)

[Pyramid*]

a loving parent wants the best for there kids the problem is there are so many stories of people hurting their kids and abuseing them
you cant call these people parents

Indeed


Take a seat both of you, and have a stiff drink at the ready.

I could not agree more - when I think of some of the horrific cases - it is sickening, totally sickening. :(

[Niamh.]

Now... that is , imo, a very childish response Tee hee.!!! :D





:D Old saying about people in glass houses not throwing stones .. that comes to mind. ;)





it appears that I am at least willing to accept other people's own perspective rather than treat their opinions as being wrong - as you have time and time again on this thread.

You admit to condoning violence when it suits. You simply would not accede to stating that as a simple yes. ;) I do totally agree with you on that - as I mentioned earlier (me being brought up to 'hit back').

I do wholly agree with you very last post that I've quoted above Niamh - you THINK there are better ways: and indeed you COULD be correct.... just as others THINK there are other ways too...and they also COULD be correct.

As I say, it's been a highly interesting and entertaining thread all things considered. Better than that... No blood shed over the thread either! Result eh!

Differences of opinion and never the twain shall meet and all that. ;)

Just returning the favour ;)

[Pyramid*]

Just returning the favour ;)

No favour return required. the pleasure has been all mine. :)

[Niamh.]

No favour return required. the pleasure has been all mine. :)

No doubt

[Pyramid*]

No doubt
:blush:

[Niamh.]

:blush:

:)

[Marc]

:)

[Niamh.]

:amazed:

[Marc]

:amazed:

[Livia]

It's time I threw my hat into the ring on this one. You should never hit a child. Spanking is exclusively for fun between consenting adults only.

[Vanessa]

It's time I threw my hat into the ring on this one. You should never hit a child. Spanking is exclusively for fun between consenting adults only.

I agree. I have three nephews and i could never hit them.

[arista]

It's time I threw my hat into the ring on this one. You should never hit a child. Spanking is exclusively for fun between consenting adults only.

Spunky

[Marc]

It's time I threw my hat into the ring on this one. You should never hit a child. Spanking is exclusively for fun between consenting adults only.

:evilgrin: True.

[Niamh.]

It's time I threw my hat into the ring on this one. You should never hit a child. Spanking is exclusively for fun between consenting adults only.

:laugh2:

[Kizzy]

I wondered when this thread would be reduced to sexual references.....:rolleyes:

[Marc]

Livia :bored: :tongue:

[MTVN]

The high tone we had has now been lowered :bored:

[Marc]

High tone :laugh3:

[Pyramid*]

It's time I threw my hat into the ring on this one. You should never hit a child. Spanking is exclusively for fun between consenting adults only.

So funny. Perhaps all those old school canes that some were referring to could come in handy after all then.

[Vanessa]

So funny. Perhaps all those old school canes that some were referring to could come in handy after all then.

:evilgrin:

[Pyramid*]

:evilgrin:
:evilgrin:

Indeed. Perhaps that's how that all came about ..... enjoying getting the cane at school. :shocked:

[Vanessa]

:evilgrin:

Indeed. Perhaps that's how that all came about ..... enjoying getting the cane at school. :shocked:

Sounds kinky! I love it! :amazed:

[thesheriff443]

It's time I threw my hat into the ring on this one. You should never hit a child. Spanking is exclusively for fun between consenting adults only.

dont stop with your hat
its time you got out of that tight leather gear:devil: