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.

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

smack her niamh!

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

dont you start vanessa:joker:

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

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:

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.

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'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 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.

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:

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?

a firm smack on your childs hand is not violence

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?

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