[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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.

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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.

Originally Posted by Pyramid

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.

Originally Posted by Pyramid

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.

Originally Posted by Pyramid

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*]

Originally Posted by 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 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.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

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.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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.

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

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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