[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Jords

That is not violence. What we are talking about is low physical aggression.

if it was just "low" and "harmless" then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

if it was just "low" and "harmless" then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Low and harmless is the topic of the discussion.

If you're talking about battering your child then I refer you to the thread about the Chinese woman.

[Jords]

Originally Posted by lostalex

if it was just "low" and "harmless" then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Its harmless if you use it appropriately as a last resort.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by lostalex

if it was just "low" and "harmless" then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That's the whole point, most of the time it is. Not every parent who give their kid a tap every now and again for being out of line are child abusers. It's just a method some parents use and as long as it doesn't get nasty then there's nothing wrong with it.

[Marsh.]

A slap on the hand is not violence. The way you're going on about it is as if the children are being beaten.

[King Gizzard]

Think I would prefer to take the ''take away their favourite things until they start to behave'' approach

[InOne]

All you seem to be doing is using these extreme buzz words and not actually coming to any sort of point.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by InOne

All you seem to be doing is using these extreme buzz words and not actually coming to any sort of point.

i made my point in my first post.

violence against children is wrong.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by InOne

All you seem to be doing is using these extreme buzz words and not actually coming to any sort of point.

This. You're contradicting yourself lostalex.

[Mrluvaluva]

You can cause intimidation with words...

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

You can cause intimidation with words...

and that is wrong too.

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by lostalex

and that is wrong too.

But you say "People who use force instead of words, that is violence." And then "intimidation is violence", which can come from words. But then you say that is wrong too.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

But you say "People who use force instead of words, that is violence." And then "intimidation is violence". But then you say that is wrong too. So words are wrong too.

there are violent words just as there are violent actions. and there are kind words, aswell as kind actions. I don't understand this paradigm you've created that says you have to use violence in any way. Why is any violence ever acceptable????

It's not imo. words or acts it's never acceptable.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

there are violent words just as there are violent actions. and there are kind words, aswell as kind actions. I don't understand this paradigm you've created that says you have to use violence in any way. Why is any violence ever acceptable????

It's not imo. words or acts it's never acceptable.

That's where wires are crossing.

A slap on the hand is not "violent" IMO.

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by lostalex

there are violent words just as there are violent actions. and there are kind words, aswell as kind actions. I don't understand this paradigm you've created that says you have to use violence in any way. Why is any violence ever acceptable????

It's not imo. words or acts it's never acceptable.

Let me rephrase. You stated "People who use force instead of words, that is violence.", but by your own definition, words can be deemed as violence. Just struck me as a contradiction in terms.

Where did I say you have to use violence? I think we have different terms of the meaning anyhow.

[lostalex]

when did i ever discount the trauma of emotional and verbal abuse? i never did. So i don't understand all the people saying "words can be violent too" i totally agree that they can!

[lostalex]

slaping a child's hand away from an open fire, i agree is not violent. but i don't think that's what we are talking about.

Like i sad before, violence is intimidation.

[Jords]

tbh as a kid when my mum told me she was disappointed and that she didnt want to talk to me it hurt a lot more than a quick smack across the arse but you have to change methods so they dont lose effect. A smack has quick impact but several warnings and meanings of punishment (removing toys, silence) should be used first because discipline is all to do with teaching and learning morals and putting yourself in other's shoes etc. etc. and making you a decent human being in adult life.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Jords

tbh as a kid when my mum told me she was disappointed and that she didnt want to talk to me it hurt a lot more than a quick smack across the arse but you have to change methods so they dont lose effect. A smack has quick impact but several warnings and meanings of punishment (removing toys, silence) should be used first because discipline is all to do with teaching and learning morals and putting yourself in other's shoes etc. etc. and making you a decent human being in adult life.

..I agree..to be told you've 'disappointed'..or 'this made me sad/upset.....'
or 'it scared me when you did that because......' imo is what always worked with my children..of course that was when they were old enough to understand...I think even as adults we don't like to hear those things...
..the main thing though is always to explain properly why they have made you feel like that

[Pyramid*]

Smacking within reason (I mean smacking, not thrashing a child) should be allowed.

Doogle summed it up for me - I'll add to that and say that often, many such kid end up not to respect their parents - or indeed - anyone else.

Originally Posted by Doogle
I personally see no issue with being hit if the child is really being a pain. You never hit them hard (unless you're actually abusive) and it's just a sting that lasts about a minute for them anyway. I was smacked from time to time when I showed off and I know full well I deserved to be.

Too many parents aren't strict enough with their children and they're so against kids being hit, yet they end up scared of their own children when they become teenagers and never obey them.

[Kizzy]

It kind of goes like this alex, recontruction of a recalled conversation.
Please dont do that (explanation)
mum said dont...
come on now, stop that please
(attempt distraction...fails)
away now please
away
now
right im getting cross
do as you are told please
right I'm going to count...
1
2
3
TAP!
If that seems extreme to you fine.

[Mrluvaluva]

I think we all have our differing opinions on the subject, but common ground will never be achieved, and it's one that will be debated until the ends of time, probably. Nobody has the answers, otherwise everyone would be perfect parents. As I said earlier, I do not believe that what necessarily works for one child, does so for another. We are all different. And I certainly would not be too judgmental of a parent giving a light tap to the hand of a disobedient child. I think we have differing meanings of the term of violence. If somebody had a solution to such questions, which worked for one and all, we would not even be having this conversation.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

I think we all have our differing opinions on the subject, but common ground will never be achieved, and it's one that will be debated until the ends of time, probably. Nobody has the answers, otherwise everyone would be perfect parents. As I said earlier, I do not believe that what necessarily works for one child, does so for another. We are all different. And I certainly would not be too judgmental of a parent giving a light tap to the hand of a disobedient child. I think we have differing meanings of the term of violence. If somebody had a solution to such questions, which worked for one and all, we would not even be having this conversation.

The most sensible answer in all of the thread - one size doesn't fit all - you are so correct.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

The most sensible answer in all of the thread - one size doesn't fit all - you are so correct.

so only SOME kids should be beaten? yea, that's so sensible...

not all kids should be smacked around, just CERTAIN ones...

i'm gonna be sick.

These posts are being made in the year 2012... seriously.

[arista]

Originally Posted by lostalex

so only SOME kids should be beaten? yea, that's so sensible...

not all kids should be smacked around, just CERTAIN ones...

i'm gonna be sick.

These posts are being made in the year 2012... seriously.

Spiffing