I am no fan of violence but some kids only learn and understand from a slap. Nothing else will stop them'
Then you are a fan of violence. And not a good parent. I think only a slap will stop you, it's the only thing you understand. Can I come over?'
You honestly did not realise that this was sarcastic, @larrygrylls? And you read Donald Trump, with his history of intelligent commentary (THAT WAS SARCASM AWOOGA AWOOGA KLAXON) quoting something about bleach killing the virus and going on to ask if we could somehow use this in injections as being on the same level? That's your comparison point?
I just can't, as the kids would say these days. You are going to have to trust me that 99.99% of people of average, and slightly below average, intelligence would have clearly seen that my comment was entirely ironic and intended to make the point that hitting isn't ok. Even if they didn't agree, they would have understood what I was saying. If you didn't, well...that was the point. I have explained it for you. You're welcome.
You're really not the Factor 500000 poster? You should look them up. I think the two of you would get on very well.
The whole name for [naughty step] is humiliating and some children absolutely detest it (including mine).
They aren't supposed to like it, ffs. What, you think it's meant to be a reward? (AWOOGA AWOOGA SARCASM SARCASM.) But it is a calm reaction that removes them from the situation to another calm one, gives you a chance to explain what went wrong on their level, and allows them to rejoin when they have demonstrated that they understand what they did and why it was wrong. It
Personally I just call it "time out" as I prefer not to use the term "naughty" if I can avoid it. It's a very natural consequence; you behave badly, you sit outside the action until you can learn to behave better. What more do you need?
The problem with all these threads is that they believe any smack is the worst punishment possible (i.e that a child would not prefer a smack to another punishment, ever). If you speak to children (and I think there may be a difference between boys and girls here) many would rather have a smack than a day's IPad ban (for instance).And, many who were smacked believe that it did them no harm, if the punishment was applied consistently and not cruelly (i.e not a beating).
The fact that you have to explicitly state that you don't mean a hearing because you know so many smackers can't tell the difference and that their nasty philosophy justifies one as much as the other... Nobody has suggested that a smack is worse than, say, a full beating with an implement. But we are saying that it is violent, that it is counterproductive, that it is hypocritical, that many people justify it by saying they "just snapped" which is profoundly NOT how parental discipline is supposed to work, that it is extremely open to being interpreted as more intense physical punishment, that there are sadists who like it (and have commented here), that it is lazy and that it is harmful and stupid. Because it is.
If kids do prefer a smack to losing the iPad for a day then clearly the latter is the better deterrent. With the added benefit that they might use the time instead to read a book or do a craft, which is probably better. And, of course, that you didn't teach them violence is ok, but to learn self control. Because apparently that doesn't count with some people.
For someone who's not in favour of smacking, you aren't half invested in defending it.