[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.]

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

[Smithy]

smack her niamh!

[Vanessa]

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

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Vanessa

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

dont you start vanessa

[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

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Smithy

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.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

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?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

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.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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.

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?

I'm telling you I have never taught my children to respond to violence with violence, what's hard to understand about that? I have never sat down and had a conversation with them about an event that has never happened 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

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I'm telling you I have never taught my children to respond to violence with violence, what's hard to understand about that? I have never sat down and had a conversation with them about an event that has never happened 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

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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.

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*]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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?