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:

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

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 :)

It's pretty black and white to me.

that was to pyramid trying to push you into a corner

Ah apologies then Sir :hugesmile:

no problem:spin:

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. :)

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

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:

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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. ;)

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. :(

Just returning the favour ;)