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

[papillon]

this

Janz have you ever explained to your ds why or is it something he has just understood. This is one of the bits around smacking I cannot understand also I know you have said you use other methods but what do you do if you child is really naughty /you are wound up to discipline them - I think this is where the apparent misconception of smacking in anger comes from as I would have thought it hard to restrain from smacking if angry once you had gone down this route - well done if you can let the anger go an dthen punish but I have never seen a child smacked except in what I would term as anger

And to repeat the reason I have asked Glitterfairy about her attitued to ww2 was that she raised the point that she and her children felt that it was always wrong to kill. She seems to have changed this viewpoint somewhat. (I am happy to be corrected if this is not the case)

Just a small question, What heck has WW2 got to do with smacking?
Confused?

Gothicmama - no, I've not ever sat down and explained it to him, as he DOES seem to understand the difference. I suppose, in the same way that he accepts that HE has to hold hands with mummy or daddy in the car park, but that Mummy and Daddy don't need to hold hands in the car park (or not for THAT reason! ) He has also been smacked so rarely (may be 5 times in his whole life - between the ages of about 2 and probably just over 3), that it would have made more of thing of it than necessary if we had sat him down to try to explain to him the ethics of it, whne he already seemed to cope with the apparent contradiction.

I have never struck him in anger - that would definitely get across the wrong message. And I have also never smacked him when we are out and about - as I mentioned in my earlier posting, you normally have other "threats" at your disposal.

BTW - I am not an angel - I have and do get angry with ds, but the most I am likely to do in such cirumstances is send him to the stairs - and even then I try to refrain from that if the crime doesn't warrant the punishment. In fact, come to think of it, those times are the closest I would say that I come to Glitterfairy's "cold" approach - my punishment of choise would be "ignoring" - a (pretend) withdrawal of affection/attention until he had come and apologised.

We are going through an interesting stage of discipline at the moment. When ds does naughty things that warrant a telling-off/punishment, we are trying to get him not just to say sorry, but WHY he is sorry.

janZ-my (non-smacked!) DD is around the same age as your DS. TBH she's very well-behaved (our good fortune0 but we have noticed that when she reports other kids' misbehaviour (from school) she no adds quite lengthy explanations as to why it was wrong to shout/hit/whatever.

her games with her dolls are a wonder to listen to. We've produced the strictest mummy going.

Janz - sounds reasonable to me. You seem to have things in hand.
I was a great fan of 'time out' and it only took a few minutes before I heard the cry, "I'm sorry mummy" at which point we had a cuddle, and a talk about why mummy had sent him/her to their room and if they knew that was fine, if not I would explain and then after a kiss and cuddle it was NOT mentioned again. I found it worked wonders but then I only had a limited time with my ds and dd. I do not know what I would have done had they stopped responding to it when they were older.
I just personally can not find an excuse or reason for hitting a child. But that's me personally and I know and believe that all are entitle to their own opinions.
But please, don't bring the war into it, that's just going too far

janz we are trying that route as well at the moment I find it really amazing what they can pick up and respond to I have not smacked dd but find this whoe debate really interesting as it has made me more aware of the issues we all face until this thread I had not really thought about discipline (lucky not to have I suppose) I think using a mixture of different things is probable the best approach adn to make them appropriate - did you see the thread on the lady who sold sons playstation or similar on ebay

I repeat. Gliterfairy raised the issue that she was talking to her non smacked children and she said tat they were saying that it was always wrong to smack or hit anyone and that it was always wrong to kill anyone. I posted as to whether she felt that it was always wrong to kill and asked her what her views were on WW2, the point being raised in my mind since it was D-day weekend. She has subsequntly posied that fightinh Hitler wasn't wrong, but that we also have guilt in the matter of WW2 (paraphrasing her a little, back track for her original postings).

She raised the 'killing is alawys wrong' issue, and I questioned it.

No I didn't see that the playstation thread - now THAT'S cruel! (but then... if he was warned.... !!!)

The funniest thing we've got at the moment is that ds now has an imaginary friend (Stuart Little!!!) who he is starting to blame for things.

He also tells us, when we tell him off that "I'm not a bad boy", to which we respond, "No, you're normally a very good boy [which he is], but sometimes you do bad things".

hmb I sorry if this has got to you - Idid not mention it this time andI don ot think anyone is blaming you ( have I expressed this ok not sure blame is right word)

I think I follow that hmb. I am sorry if you think I am being a bit 'stupid' but I really could not see the link. I think that if the pro's and cons of capital punishment, killing and wars is to be discussed a new thread is needed, for people like me. I just could not see how this thread had gone off at such an odd tangent and meant no disrespect to anyone.
We all have our own beliefs and ways of discipline, and all children respond in different ways. I just personally think that there is never an excuse to hit a child.
I hope I did not offend.

janz we have a tribe of mysterious children who do all the naughty things in our house - hard not to laugh sometimes or dd says I want to be good

Janz just wait until they start to blame the cat/dog

He's already tried that one!... plus blaming Lewis or Frankie, 2 of his wee friends from the child minder.

But Stuart Little is definitely developing a life and a character of his own!

hey just goes to show they are all similar

My position is anti smacking but not anti war.
I believe it is wrong to use violence against little children who you love.
However I think some things are worth dying for and killing for!

Just to be clear on this - and then lets give it up - and you are quite right start another thread if people feel the need to discuss war.

In the car with my kids I had a discussion about what is wrong, in my opinion and I stress, in my opinion, which is what I said to my kids. The discussion centred around hitting and violence and I said that it was wrong imo to kill another, to hit and to use violence. Since then I seem to have been involved in a disucssion around ww2. I am sorry gothicmama if this has offended you.

As far as the smacking incident goes Janz I simply said where does it stop? Something no-one so far has been able to answer. You are quite right no-one has suggested smacking their wife. Smacking rules appear to be however, in the context of a loving relationship and also in a cold, pre meditated way.

Going back to my kids they said today when they saw someone hitting their kid in the park " You wouldnt do that would you mummy because you think it is wrong to hit". I picked them up from school today and we had the discussion again as other children had been kicking in school and I said I dont hit/kick you and I dont expect you to hit/kick others. I could not be clearer and I lead by example, which seems the easiest way to me.

glitterfairy like I have posted previously - d day and it's meaning to my family is very important and I think I was over sensitive had a traumatic but nice weekend with my mum so probably over reacted- peace everyone

Hello everyone

I don´t have the words to solve all the issues that this thread contains. No-one has because there are many different opinions and some inbetween. But I started this thread and I was also the one to first bring up the concept of fighting which moved unto the subject of war. So I feel a responsiblity to be writing this right now.
The thread is taking awhile to load now.. and I also think that it would be a good idea to move the thread if anyone so wishes to continue upon any of the discussions held herein. I am not starting in though!

Message withdrawn

....or in fact whether our children 'feel good' about what we do........

To go back a few steps to the debate about whether it is OK to smack adults with learning difficulties: I think the culture which sanctions smacking children creates an environment where adults with learning difficulties are smacked, actually. Abuse by 'carers' or family members is very common. It's easy to hit a person with learning difficulties because even if they complain no-one will believe them. Or they won't be able to communicate well enough to explain who hit them and in what circumstances. It's frightening but there are plenty of people working with vulnerable adults who feel the need to control them with physical force, from smacking to assault to life-threatening restraint techniques (you stop breathing when you are held face-down on the floor with several adults sitting on your back).
If smacking was outlawed, people who work with vulnerable adults would get the message that smacking is never OK and could land them in court. They'd have to use alternative strategies, which do exist (my sister works in this field). But at the moment there are some people out there who are in the wrong job, who take it out on their clients and who see that as OK because it's OK to hit children so it's equally OK to hit adults who are regarded (wrongly) as children.

Bloss - no not sure I am always but here goes.

In general morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do - and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves.

In this case yes moral relativism. However as I have said there are things which I believe are wrong too. You have accused me of making blanket statements but you do too. Adultery is wrong. Yet you say " Just because I think it's wrong doesn't mean you need to change your behaviour." A moral relativist would agree here Bloss.

Again when I said when does smacking stop and beating begin I did not mean when does it stop in reality. I was using a form of argument which was asking where do you draw the line? You have misunderstood again.

I am interested in what sort of people we should be rather than on what we should do on a specified occasion. My freedom cannot be enjoyed at the expense of your freedom or dignity: my autonomy is limited by considerations of the equality of all in the community to which I belong. It is difference which matters and the relations between individuals should be about free choice and interpersonal affection.

It is this which stops me from smacking. I show this repsect to my children as well as to individuals in society. I have read and love Nietzsche and have to say that he calls himself an immoralist but I see his ideas as classic. he says that traditional morality negates life and calls it herd morality this is some of what you seem to advocate and I cannot agree with.

I also agree with Mill that man is a being, "capable of pursuing perfection as an end; of desiring, for its own sake, the conformity of his character to his standard of excellence, without hope of good, or fear of evil, from other source than his own inward consciousness."

If this means Bloss that we cannot agree so be it.

Message withdrawn

Of course you would Bloss I never thought for one moment that he would apeal to you in any way.

You seem very confused about moral relativism and I am not sure that you reallly mean that is what I am. A moral relativist would try to influence the other person and woudl not say that their moral choice was right if they chose something different. Imo a moral relativist takes my stance in saying that it is society and culture which makes morality rather than individuals.

"In my view, if it's right, then we must do it, or at the very least want to do it." I dont want to kill Bloss I have made that clear on many occasions now. My view isnt that if its morally right I cant do something and will leave it to others as you suggest. I also think that you are worng in suggesting that moral relativists leave everything to personal emotions and dont care about society. They do and that is not what moral relativism is about.

"I'm given total freedom for my own actions, and can have society's approval for it as long as I'm comfortable with it myself." No Bloss that is sloppy and not like you. I have never said that all the way through this thread I have said that society should ensure the rights of individuals and should protect. that is why I am pro a ban on smacking. I do not think it right to leave things up to individuals and that is why I felt you had taken an individualistic and morally indefensible stance on smacking. Your rules for smacking are not everyones and as you have said before you cannot make everyone live by your rules. In this case, as you have said, a ban on smacking might be worth considering to protect others.

I believe in some general rules but within these I leave the detail up to individuals themselves to decide how they should go about fulfilling them - that is what liberty is about in my mind. Individual freedom should be used to form relationships, gain adn apply knowledge and to cultivate and enjoy the pleasures of life. Yet this has to be conducted consistently with the freedom and well-being of others in mind. I cannot take my freedoms at the expense of yours is what I am saying.

If that is how we conduct ourselves there would be no need to kill or act in a violent manner. However as you have pointed out we all do not hold this view and sometimes it may be necessary to enforce it. My view is that this should be done via the courts so that freedom is enshrined in laws about human rights for example.

There may be extreme examples where this is not the case but they are just that Bloss. If laws were acted upon and we learnt the lessons of
history instead of clouding them in emotive language.

The holcuast to me is a classic example of where the survival of a moral life amidst the horrors of extreme depravation show that morality is natural to humans and a firm property of human existence. Even in the face of terror, humiliation, starvation, imprisonment and misery, loss of hope and identity the moral basis and value for human life stands firm you cannot root it out completely. I am an optimist and believe in humanity to do good not evil.