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

[papillon]

this

Ok here goes again. Once again Bloss I am not sure that we understand each other. Soapbox is right this is going in circles and I dont think any more movement is possible.

Ks I could kiss you and piffle. There was a lack of any militancy against Hitler because the west thought he was overcoming communism in Germany which had grown strong. We could have done something earlier and we didnt. This is however another argument for another thread.

I do not believe that because my instinct serves in certain circumstances that undermines all rational thought bloss. Yes my rational self does not think it right to hit or use violence even though there are times when I would. The distinction is clear to me at least.

As far as being a coward is concerned or leaving others to fight. I could not kill another human in cold blood even for a cause I believed in. there is a lot of evidence that many soldiers feel the same and that they have to be trained to kill. More is known about this now due to techniques used in vietnam. If I believed in something there are many ways in which I would help but no not killing and I do not think that this is leaving it to someone else Bloss.

You seem to want everything to be black and white and no shades of grey life is not like that. Some of my convictions are dear to me and I would like to think that in most cases I would stick to them BUT there are times when we need ot be flexible and creative to survive. It is not a question of being out of line with things it is adaptation.

Were we to follow your line of argument then smacking would be right because you have said so. You have said a) only parents can smack in the context of a loving relationship and b)it shoudl be in prescribed circumstances when it is done in a cold and calculated way. Smacking is only right for you when it is administered according to your rules. What happens when it isnt? How are you going to ensure everyone lives like you?

I feel that the answer to this has been reiterated time and again a ban because everyone does not live according to your rules.

Bloss "if everyone refused to take up arms" there would be no need to fight. I do not believe that violence is right and whilst you have tried to stop me making what you call blanket statements I still believe that it is wrong to fight. That is not the same as sometimes having to and that is my distinction. Sometimes we have to do what is wrong in our eyes due to many reasons, instinct is one of them.

There are many roles to play in any conflict and as I have already said killing would not be one of mine. Whether or not ww2 could be called a just war and whether it could have been avoided is a matter for another debate imo.

Smacking a child is a different thing and is about someone who is less strong being hit by someone with a) more power b) more sense of right or wrong and therefore the ability to think of another solution and c) the strength to really hurt if it goes to far. I cannot conceive of an instance where it is ever morally or ethically right to hit someone who is smaller, weaker and less capable of defending themselves than you are.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

We have a war baby now, not just a smacked baby!

With so many ways of life, so many alternatives to the examples we have been pondering here, smacking and war, I feel like Glitterfairy that a rainbow rather than black and white perspective reflects humanity in a whole and realistic manner. I mean what is black and white about humanity? We can view political ideologies, historical incidents etc in a cut and dried manner, but underneath there is always diversity, always a splinter group or idea emerging.

Wars thoughout history IMO have always been about greed and power. Violence used either for domination or for protection of personal wealth or status.
That is very black and white of me to say so!
But when a person opposes the concept of war it goes beyond black and white. I feel that is because it is full of complexity and difficulty, because humanity has never lived peacefully and is still struggling with how to truely be diplomatic and overcome prejudice against another individual or a entire cultures philosophy. Using as an example the current war on terrorism, on one level there is the fight against terrorism, protection, but underneath we see another story of human nature capitalising once again, by using violence to gain what another has, through domination. If the war was just simply about terrorism then perhaps it may well be a black and white case. What with strategic oil monopoly in Iraq and gas pipe lines in Afganistan this war is not just about terrorism; and as many many people oppose this war for a variety of reasons this small synopsis regarding this particular war is colourful indeed IMO.

Regarding Instinct.. instince to me, is not just occur on impulse, but is often a gut feeling. My personal instinct prefers not to dominate others, not to kill others. Granted I can do this on an individual basis, not being a politican, and try and live as peacefully as I possibly can. I would like to teach my dd to live peacefully also, while often still not being able to not understand anothers beliefs or opinions, but to try and respect that human nature is like that.

With that in mind I do not want to dominate her in a situation of smacking her, because for me this could be contrary to resolving a situation in a non violdent manner, because it may well teach her that arguments can be sorted out by violence.

With that in mind I do not want to dominate her in a situation of smacking her, because for me this could be contrary to resolving a situation in a non violent manner, because it may well teach her that arguments can be sorted out by violence.

dd just woke up so could not finish up as I wanted... IT MAY WELL teach her... maybe it would not... but I prefer to take follow my instincts and walk a non physical path. Each to their own on this. But I support the idea of a ban on smacking.

You don't have to be a fantasy pacifist to think that smacking small, vulnerable and basically defenceless people is morally unjustified though.
This thread has gone rather magnficently baroque!
To say that if you agree with just wars then that means you are a hypocrite for opposing smacking seem a bit like saying that if you think acupuncture is Ok, then it's OK to stick pins in your kids!

Bloss me again. I wont go away! Although am at work. Have to say I am enjoying this and not patient at all just like arguing.

You are very persuausive and I will concede certain elements to you.You are right I say sometimes it is right to use violence but I wont do it. There are other ways I could help Bloss, but no I couldnt kill someone. X may be the moral thing to do but I couldnt do it myself. I could however tens the sick and organise plan strategy and stuff but no I couldnt kill.

We all confuse those worlds Bloss the ideal adn the real and sometimes our real selves are not as good or as great as our ideal but hey we can try. It is like being the best mum I can only I can judge this. Others may describe me as supermum juggling my own company, Phd, three kids and going away a lot but I set high standards and I may be only just good enough.

Some people would not be able to do all this but I dont judge them as failures they are just different. They may think I was a bad mum to go away and not stay at home but that is their option.

Real life is a confusing and changing place adn I do not set rules as you can see I can let go of an argument not because I am tired but I concede that you are right some of the time. You are still not right about smacking though

Confused posting as not tens machine but tend to the sick.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Morning Bloss. You are right if I thought it was the right thing to do I would do it that is what I conceded to you earlier. But It would have to be an extreme example and in the case of war I would still not be able to participate in terms of killing.

I the case of the SS guards they ahd all left by the time the camps were liberated and many are still alive today. Not only that but there were people who helped them in those camps who were not SS, Jews themselves and I would hope that my stance on killling would mean that I gave my life instead of helping others do evil. It is interesting that in accounts of life in the camps which, I mainly try to steer clear of, it is those with strong beliefs such as Jehovahs who led by example, always shared and tried to be the most humane in theri actions.

This has also been seen in some of the psychological tests of the 70s where it was those with strong beliefs about the sacredness of life who refused to administer electric shocks in experiments and to go along with commands to do bad things to others.

I think that whilst I might be forced to kill in extreme cases it would still be at the expense of what I thought it was right for me to do in rational terms. I do not believe it is right to take anothers life although you have convinced me sometimes it is inevitable.

The guards may well have left, but they did so because they were being appoached by people who would kill them. And that is the only reason that they left. As you know they continued to kill and burn up to the bitter end. Without those who were prepared to fight the killing would have contined. You can argue that the would would be better if we were all pacifist, and I would agree. But the reality of the situation was that there were people in Germany who were capable of great evil and did that evil. If the rest of the world had been incapable of fight that evil it would have continued.

How could Hitler have been stopped other wise? This was happening, so you can't argue it away by wishing we were all better people. Giving up your life might be a 'good' thing to do but it wouldn't have stopped the killing would it?

Hmb I have already said that fighting Hitler was not a bad thing! I think you are being a pedant in insisting I keep reiterating this point. I have also said that we did not do enough to stop him in the first place and in fact colluded in his rise to power in order to stop communism in Germany.

There were many good reasons to support Hitler from our point of view, full employment in germany was one. We think we are blameless in this and that we did everything to stop Hitler we didnt.

May be if we had in time it would not have come to war at all. he did not believe anyone would stop him we had never been clear enough that his behaviour was not acceptable. this could have been done through discussion.

In the event it came to the use of force simply because people had not believed he was as evil as he was and because they had not used the means at their disopsal of negiation and sanctions. We should also have intervened earlier and this would have prevented more loss of life.

All in all Hmb these are merely lessons of history and if we constantly think we did the right thing without argument or debate and we do not see that there were other options we do not learn.

Wow, what a lot of new postings over the weekend!

Like Jasper, there isn't much to add to my support of Bloss' position - she argues it so well (but then, I WOULD think so, since I happen to agree with her and use similar techniques!)

The only comment I would make (in response to a posting that seems ages ago) is that yes, it IS rare to see "our" type of pro-smackers smacking when out and about, precisely because (as I think Bloss says), you ARE out and therefore have the "threat" of going home - or the bribe of chocolate buttons (but I don't like using the bribe option - as I think that that can casue its own problems if over-used).

I did think about this thread when I was in Homebase on Saturday, having to hold ds firmly by the wrist, as he kept running away, and him complaining, "ouch Mum... you're hurting me..." - and me telling him that he could hold hands nicely and not run away but if he did, I had to hold him like this.... the choice was his... He "chose" the hurting option - but hopefully soon trips like that will become less fraught as he learns "the rules"!

A quick smack might have hurt him less (none of my smacks actually hurt him) - but was not appropriate in the circumstances.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Bloss for the hundredth time I am not condeming others just saying that for me personally it is wrong. If others choose to kill and they can justify that choice to themselves and others that is their choice. There are circumstances where even I see the need to kill but I could not do it. That is not the same as saying that if someone else could I would always disagree with their choice.

You keep trying to make me use statements which you say are "broad condemnations". You are choosing to see them in that light. I am saying that for me - and I stress for me alone - it is not right to kill. I am not condeming some people who make a different choice, nor am I saying that there are not times when it is the right thing to do just that I could not do it myself "in cold blood" - and again I stress the in cold blood. If I did I would not be comfortable with what I had done.

I would like to make it clear that other people can and do make different choices from me and I have said that already. Their choice is up to them.

In light of this debate I would also stress that you have made some very broad statements but sometimes we need to in order to underline what we are saying. You have strong opinions and beliefs and that is fine let me have mine without being bullied.

I only have one thing to add because I do not understand the 'tangent' this thread appears to have travelled! I am a bit thick!

If you smack a child how can you tell it that hitting is wrong?

I really can not believe that this has become a debate on the merits of teh second world war. There is reallt no comparision between smacking and war for what ever reasosn are we ever sure the ideals we hold on to and fight for are those that the governments after teh war up hold therefore rendering sacrifices made as irrelevent. People choose what ever means of disclipline they feel capable of using in a constistent fashion ( ir they are good parents) if not then as per examples it is all to easy to lash out. I have considered this thread alot altho I have been upset by the use of war references to illustrate points. This like many other debates s simply one were we can only hope to understand other peoples viewpoints and use it as an example of differeing views and values used and held by people to achieve the same end.

Bunglie I dont think any of us know how we have arrived here!

You cant thats my answer! Unless of course you take the line that some of the pro smackers take which is that unless it is in the context of a loveing relationship and in a cold way ie not in anger. That would mean you could smack oooooh your wife perhaps when dinner was late?

Bunglie - I have not got a clue altho I am sure it is in there somewhere I think it is something like it is ok for Mummy and Daddy but not for anyone else

Thank you Glitterfairy, I think that is one of the first things that I understand on this thread, but then I am a bear of very little brain!

Glitterfairy - I think that that is an extremely unfair presentation of the argument: NO-ONE has even SUGGESTED that "smacking your wife perhaps when dinner was late" would EVER be acceptable.

The "not in anger" statement is because so many "anti" smackers have said that smacking is usually done as a vent for the parent's own anger. What those of us, who do on occasion use smacking as part of a raft of "behavioural" tools. have said is that it is ONLY acceptable when a parent uses it in the appropriate, CONTROLLED circumstances. We are NOT cold hearted monsters. In my case, I have used it as an alternative to "time outs" on the stairs, which distress ds greatly (but which are in fact used the most often) and hich on that occasion would have served to stop ds (following warnings) doing whatever it was he was doing quckly, without spoiling the moment. In fact, I can't remember the last time ds was "smacked" (by which I mean a light tap on the hand, which hurts him less than some of the rough and tumble he loves to get from his dad) - it must be well over 3 months, which probably equates to when he started talking intelligibly.

In Bloss' case, she uses an example where rather than spoil the momet for both her ds AND her dd, the character of her son was such that a qick smack resolved the situtation.

I am NEVER cold towards my ds (... I might sometimes be towards my dh, but that's another story) - and I have never got the impression that Bloss has anything other than an extremely loving relationship towrds her children.

My ds does seem to understand the distinction between me "hitting" him and the fact that it is wrong for him to hit other children (or adults for that matter). There are many things that adults do that it is not right for children to do.