Smacking children can affect schooling Smacking children can affect schooling Smacking children can affect schooling Smacking children can affect schooling

[papillon]

this

Message withdrawn

I had a friend who got his foot run over!

Very nasty!

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

night night bloss. I realise it's rare for you to be on at this time of the day, so thanks for taking the time.

I think that's a totally reasonable and gentle (as usual) post ks, and am glad you've overcome your own embargo on yourself to post it

Sorry bloss went out to Harry Potter and you are now sleeping but I will answer because whilst I have already I just obviously have not got my point across.

In these circumstances of course I would protect my kids there isnt really any other choice and I would do what I would had to. I have said that all along but you are a) using extreme examples and b) not really in context. I said that this is any mothers reaction to her kids being in danger she will protect at all costs. I am also a rational human being who may see that there were alternatives and other ways to do things.

Hmb of course the concentration camps were liberated by guns what seems to me to be apparent though is that what followed was not appropriate. People were not taken before a legal system which said this was wrong and nazis got away with horrible crimes in droves. This was not the first occassion and wont be the last. If society had not thought that by liberating the camps they had done enough and no more was needed then maybe a message would have got through that this sort of crime was wrong. This is precisly why the guns solve all approach is full of flaws because only by discussion and legislation can this be prevented again and again.

I agree fully that after the war greater effort should have been made to bring those responsible to justice.

As you have said there are time when there is no choice but to fight and to my mind WW2 was just that time. How could you rationalise with someone as evil as Hitler? There simply was no good side to reason with. Appeasement had been tried and that got no-where. Simply taking those jews who managed to escape would never have been enough. Hitler made it very clear when he published Mein Kamp that he intended to hang jews from every lamp post in Berlin. How should we have debated that wish away? And easing off on the war reparations would simply have put more money into the re-armarment program. There are times, sadly, when evil has to be removed by force.

Harry Potter 3 is good isn't it?

Hmb yes it is my fave book as well and sat by my ds8 who was going yes and laughing.

Appeasment was just that hmb and evil should never be tolerated. There should have been more done much much earlier but it is like selling arms to Iraq and then fighting them another huge mistake.

Again as I have said I would find the need to take up arms strong in many circumstances but just think it is wrong for me personally. Again as I have said I hopefully will never make that choice but respect some people who choose to fight for what is right and defeat dictators only it is often difficult to know where to draw the line so I say lets not fight lets try adn use discussion and sanctions. Unfortunately it is never easy and there are always exceptions. Life is complicated.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

bloss you are brilliant.

The reason other "pro smackers" don't post here is probably because you express things better than anyone so there is little point in adding anything.

Message withdrawn

I have scanned through the weekend postings - why has ww2 been brought into it to bring in the politics much caused by the stance of the stance of teh royal family the confussion after www1 and an inability to see what was really happenning in Germany (who would have thought beliefs like that would have continued after 1936
Olympics)This is not the same as whether or not smacking is righty wrong or the degree of the smack is a tap or a whack. My grandad was landed into Normandy on D day and I really do not think it was justified to bring it up this weekend. If you want to continue the comparision it what happens after the punishment that counts My grandad believed that the aftermath of the war the separation of Europe into East and West the creation of the State of Israel were all done with due consideration and have many of the conflicts we have had since can be linked to these events; would not it have been better to have had a global hug rather than using the spoils of war to help Russian expansionism and US policy

Bloss you're probably as brillant as me but perhaps more coherent

bloss, excellent post. I think there are many valid reasons not to smack, but the bald statement 'because all violence is wrong' is not the best of them.

gothicmama, the reson that I brought up the d-day landings was that another poster had said that war (like smacking) was never justified. I brought up d-day as it was so topical and to my mind was the greatest example of war being justified. I am sorry if you thought I was trading on your grandfathers experiences to make cheap points in a debate, that was never my intention, and I have nothing but the greatest respect for the Normandy Veterans (and all the others who founght againts facism) who bought our freedom with their bravery and sacrifice.

hmb I am sorry I just saw it and got upset like you said it was topical (tbh I did not even know eho had posted about so thankyou and I hope I have not upset you

Not at all! I hope that your grandfather was OK yesterday, it must have been a very emotional day for him. I know that I shed a few tears and I have no one in my family who was involved during d-day itself.

tigermoth: how about 'because violence used against children is wrong'???? seems obvious to me i have to say!

I am a pacifist I like to think, I've never raised a casual hand out of anger.
But in defence of my son once when my mother slapped him on the face when he was 3 I decked her
And when I was assualted I went tooth and nail mad trying to claw the bast**d off me, I did him some pretty good visible injuries
And yes in both instances I felt better and know I did the right thing.
Physicality leading to violence is subjective but also relative, due to situation, provocation or desperation.
But this cannot apply to children surely, whenever my son has made me that angry that I think I could leather him, something in my head clicks and tells me, find another way honey, it's wrong.
I am not overly informed on this worldly debate, which has so many intellectual overtones.
All I know in my heart is what lays there is mine and that is how I live my life. Some things are beyond change now!
Fantastic debate though, am in awe of the passion ans conviction in many of the posts.

I think the discussion about instinct is interesting! Bloss is right of course - in some situations violence is warrented. I would like to believe that I would never be violent towards another human being (as would Glitterfairy) however I do concede that were my family to be threatened then I would be more than capable!

The linkage between this and my position about smacking is that I do not believe that hitting my children is acceptable. And because I hold this deeply held belief, my instinct does not make me lash out at them any more than it would make me lash out at my DH or my DM or my work collegues. There just isn;t the brain connection that says 'hit the kids' no matter what the circumstances!

This of course makes no odds to Bloss's argument because her belief is that it is ok to smack. I think this is why this debate is going round in circles - because at the core of it our beliefs as to whether it is right or wrong are different. It is hard therefore to shift anyone from their position.