Smacking Ban

[invergowrie arab]

Fascinating to see so many portraying hitting children as a calculated, balanced decision where all factors have been weighed up and the task gravely and sincerely carried out rather than just arseholes losing their temper.

[Pull My Strings]

Just now, whiskychimp said:

That's exactly what smacking is to a large number of people and the definition doesn't indicate the strength of said smack. How's about you stop making up your own definitions to suit your skewed debate.

There's the fundamental disconnect. Folk who hit their kids want it to be considered a little tap on the arse, completely ignoring the fact that a little tap on the arse will do absolutely nothing to change behaviour. 

It's utterly dishonest. Smacking is about causing pain, fear or humiliation. If not, perhaps you can explain how you change behaviour by negative reinforcement without causing some significant negative emotions. Classic double think.

 

[heedthebaa]

It was the slipper in primary school , belt at middle school, cane at high school and smacked at home. Did it stop me getting into mischief nahhhhh, but it certainly slowed you down a bit

[chomp my root]

1 minute ago, invergowrie arab said:

Fascinating to see so many portraying hitting children as a calculated, balanced decision where all factors have been weighed up and the task gravely and sincerely carried out rather than just arseholes losing their temper.

Going over old ground but its not always a loss of temper, sometimes it can  complete exasperation or a warning of danger. If a measured skelp is what it takes to make the kid realise how much the parent is concerned/affected then it can have the desired response. There can also be the lose of temper/parent at end of tether but as long as the response is measured then if it gets the job done then it works. I've never been a fan of that myself because a new boundary has been set but as we're basically debating (snigger) the physical response then as long as that is measured then that's probably the main issue here.

[chomp my root]

5 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

There's the fundamental disconnect. Folk who hit their kids want it to be considered a little tap on the arse, completely ignoring the fact that a little tap on the arse will do absolutely nothing to change behaviour. 

It's utterly dishonest. Smacking is about causing pain, fear or humiliation. If not, perhaps you can explain how you change behaviour by negative reinforcement without causing some significant negative emotions. Classic double think.

 

Fear and humiliation are part of life and very much part of what keeps adults on the straight and narrow. Greed also plays a part and none of these emotions are pleasant.  Just saying.

[whiskychimp]

1 minute ago, Pull My Strings said:

There's the fundamental disconnect. Folk who hit their kids want it to be considered a little tap on the arse, completely ignoring the fact that a little tap on the arse will do absolutely nothing to change behaviour. 

It's utterly dishonest. Smacking is about causing pain, fear or humiliation. If not, perhaps you can explain how you change behaviour by negative reinforcement without causing some significant negative emotions. Classic double think.

 

A tap on the arse changes my daughters behavior. It's reinforcement by shock value not pain, humiliation or fear. 

She understands her behaviour has gone beyond a telling off. She has never been tapped on the arse by anyone losing their temper..... ever.

If we lose our temper we walk away. Always.

As for negative reinforcement, should I positively reinforce every second she isn't sticking her fingers in sockets etc. That seems a weird concept.

[PB 4.2]

1 minute ago, Unleash The Nade said:

Scared, probably not

Scarred, definitely 

Bless it's my wee rattled cyclist pauper on speed dial as per.   

Hopefully storm Brian knocks you off your bicycle and down a very steep embankment and into some very very jaggy nettles. 

[Unleash The Nade]

Just now, PB 4.2 said:

Bless it's my wee rattled cyclist pauper on speed dial as per.   

Hopefully storm Brian knocks you off your bicycle and down a very steep embankment and into some very very jaggy nettles. 

^^^

Scarred 

Reactions about as slow as your Ceed

 

 

[Bobby Skidmarks]

8 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Agreed. 

There is some utterly high and mighty shite being spouted in this thread. The proof of the pudding is a lack of people willing to call their own parents abusers on the basis of a smack. 

I have purposefully not said whether I agree or disagree with the new law so far on here, purely because the sensationalism thats being used in the arguements so far makes it utterly pointless.

Tbf, not everyone was smacked by their parents on here, so they cannot answer the question posed. 

Edited October 20, 2017 by Bobby Skidmarks

[Pull My Strings]

10 minutes ago, whiskychimp said:

A tap on the arse changes my daughters behavior. It's reinforcement by shock value not pain, humiliation or fear. 

She understands her behaviour has gone beyond a telling off. She has never been tapped on the arse by anyone losing their temper..... ever.

If we lose our temper we walk away. Always.

As for negative reinforcement, should I positively reinforce every second she isn't sticking her fingers in sockets etc. That seems a weird concept.

What's shocking about a tap on the arse? 

Reading this again, you appear to be utterly perfect, or delusional. I suspect delusional. If not then you're really in the wrong thread. This thread is about hitting kids.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Pull My Strings

[Bully Wee Villa]

Why are so many people so desperate to get their hands on children's bottoms?

[chomp my root]

2 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Why are so many people so desperate to get their hands on children's bottoms?

[ayrmad]

I wish they'd introduce a law for those parents that think wee Jimmy can do no wrong and gets free reign to do whatever the f**k he likes.

[1320Lichtie]

Agree with every single word of Bairnardo here.

[heedthebaa]

This reminds me of a couple who had an unruly child, who was quite clearly a wee shite. They used to show him an imaginary yellow card for his first offence, then a red one for his second, then take him away to his room for some quiet time. When he just needed a good skelping across the arse 

[Kennboy1978]

There's the fundamental disconnect. Folk who hit their kids want it to be considered a little tap on the arse, completely ignoring the fact that a little tap on the arse will do absolutely nothing to change behaviour. 
It's utterly dishonest. Smacking is about causing pain, fear or humiliation. If not, perhaps you can explain how you change behaviour by negative reinforcement without causing some significant negative emotions. Classic double think.
 

I'm sorry but in my experience that is bollocks. My mum smacked/tapped/slapped (call it what you will) my arse a couple of times. If ever I was in a situation when I could get in trouble, I would remember that and think - No chance. There was a couple of occasions when she held up her hand as if to smack/tap/slap (call it what you wish) and that was enough.

There was no leathering, beating or prolonged use.

My dad used to poke me in the chest on every syllable when telling me off. To be totally honest that was the one that I definitely didn't want.

Has it scarred me for life ? No

In my opinion were they correct in the way they chastised me ? Absolutely.

As I've said I honestly haven't had the need to smack. I have no idea how, but my son (who is 10) is bordering on perfect when it comes to respect and knowing right from wrong. Does that mean that not smacking my kid and only using verbal warnings means that I've been the perfect dad or I have been extremely lucky ? I'd personally go for the latter.

To tar all people who smack their kids as some kind of unhinged maniac that takes pleasure in beating their child senseless is way out of order.

[DA Baracus]

So a 'tap' or whatever is required to stop a child doing a dangerous thing? Or is there any other way of deterring them?

[ayrmad]

Just now, DA Baracus said:

So a 'tap' or whatever is required to stop a child doing a dangerous thing? Or is there any other way of deterring them?

There are loads of ways, sometimes none of them work.

[Romeo]

So a 'tap' or whatever is required to stop a child doing a dangerous thing? Or is there any other way of deterring them?

No, pile in with violence.

It's the only way.

[Gordon EF]

23 hours ago, Scary Bear said:

 

I saw it was banned in 52 countries. I see it's not banned in the likes of USA or Australia, but is banned in the likes of South Sudan, DR Congo and also Spain (although Catalans are obvs fair game).

As with most radical plans, best not to rail against it and wait and see if any positives come from the ban. Obviously it'll take some time, possibly a generation, to see those results.

 

Can we ban smacking of kids and introduce mandatory smacking for idiots?