Thread: Are these five school punishments unacceptable?

Originally Posted by akelly

So basically, when you run out of ideas to control your kid's behaviour, you resort to violence.

What an excellent approach.

Adam you seem to use very emotive language to make your point, a curiously common occurrence for people arguing these points ?

I personally do not consider smacking my child on the bum, because they have crossed the line violent or abusive. I did not consider being hit with a cane or strap at school violent abuse either.

You set some boundaries, if they are crossed there are consequences. Sometime talk and negative reinforcement or negative punishment simply do not work.

Now there are plenty of examples where violence is used. Unfortunately most common in domestic situations and that is totally unacceptable, but to condemn everything as abuse or violence is excessive.

Now I do not expect you to change your views, but I do take offence at the veiled inference that if you do physically discipline your children you are some sort of violent abuser helping to perpetuate abuse in future generations.

If there is no middle ground for you that is fine, but it does not make you right.

George

Originally Posted by PeterM

Adam, it is patently obvious that you are steadfast in your beliefs (they are just that as opposed to facts) and have no problem introducing straw man arguments whenever it gets a little hard for you. What you fail to grasp is something that you brought up yourself, that is that all people are different. There is no 'one size fits all' approach but a handful of options that are brought to bear as appropriate.

Know that you cannot reason with everyone, be they a child, teen or adult. There are those who do not possess the ability to reason for any number of reasons.

Some people can be reasoned with and a solution found with little trouble.

Everyone falls somewhere in between this.

Are you suggesting that when you are unable to reason with a child you should resort to violence?

You may be interested to know that animals can be taught very sophisticated behaviour (like finding explosives for example) solely through reinforcement. The animals don't need to be struck in this process. Humans have the advantage of language (most of us), so we can take advantage of something called 'rule governed behaviour' - basically we can tell someone what we want them to do, rather than waiting for them to do a close approximation of the target behaviour (like we have to do with animals).

Please point out my straw man arguments, because I'm always keen to learn from my mistakes.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by DiscoWeb

Adam you seem to use very emotive language to make your point, a curiously common occurrence for people arguing these points ?

I personally do not consider smacking my child on the bum, because they have crossed the line violent or abusive. I did not consider being hit with a cane or strap at school violent abuse either.

You set some boundaries, if they are crossed there are consequences. Sometime talk and negative reinforcement or negative punishment simply do not work.

Now there are plenty of examples where violence is used. Unfortunately most common in domestic situations and that is totally unacceptable, but to condemn everything as abuse or violence is excessive.

Now I do not expect you to change your views, but I do take offence at the veiled inference that if you do physically discipline your children you are some sort of violent abuser helping to perpetuate abuse in future generations.

If there is no middle ground for you that is fine, but it does not make you right.

George

Would you spank an adult the way you might have spanked your kids (or been spanked yourself)? What would you expect the result to be?

Take whatever offence you feel is appropriate to your situation. The inference is not veiled, I've made it quite clear I think. An adult hiting a child is abuse - that might make you feel uncomfortable, doesn't change the facts.

Not sure why it's so hard to understand for some people - hitting someone is an admission you have run out of other ideas. It's a failure.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by akelly

Would you spank an adult the way you might have spanked your kids (or been spanked yourself)? What would you expect the result to be?

Take whatever offence you feel is appropriate to your situation. The inference is not veiled, I've made it quite clear I think. An adult hiting a child is abuse - that might make you feel uncomfortable, doesn't change the facts.

Not sure why it's so hard to understand for some people - hitting someone is an admission you have run out of other ideas. It's a failure.

Cheers,

Adam

Adam,

Thanks. It must be great to live in a world of such black and white, I see shades, you do not ?

Additionally, and to my earlier point about use of emotive language I believe I said smacked, not spanked.

By using spank you are suggesting I am hitting my kids multiple times, not singular like a smack.

Again a seemingly small change in words actually has quite a large change in context and intent.

You are obviously passionate about this and as I noted I have no desire to change your opinion and frankly what you think of me is not relevant either so we will continue to disagree on this.

George

Originally Posted by DiscoWeb

Adam,

Thanks. It must be great to live in a world of such black and white, I see shades, you do not ?

Additionally, and to my earlier point about use of emotive language I believe I said smacked, not spanked.

By using spank you are suggesting I am hitting my kids multiple times, not singular like a smack.

Again a seemingly small change in words actually has quite a large change in context and intent.

You are obviously passionate about this and as I noted I have no desire to change your opinion and frankly what you think of me is not relevant either so we will continue to disagree on this.

George

Ok, smack it is. So would you smack an adult to change their behaviour?

I know lots of people hit (smack, spank, whatever) their kids, it's a 'tradition' of sorts I suppose, and I know that most do it with the best of intentions. All I'm suggesting is that people consider what it really means for a child to be struck by an adult, and consider what other alternatives there may be.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect adults to have a wide range of skills and techniques to control and shape their kids behaviour, do you?

As for shades - what you and I perceive is irrelevant, it's what the child being struck perceives that is important. If you deploy physical violence (even one 'smack') to control their behaviour, you send the clear message: 'when I can no longer control the situation, resorting to my superior physical strength over you is how I will regain control'. Simple message, but is it a good one?

Cheers,

Adam

lol at your reason for editing

I don't have a dictionary handy, but I'm sure there is a huge difference between violence and disapline.
I think most of us would agree, disapline, ie something like a smack, is very different to violence, which is usually related to "beatings/floggings with End results being bruisings and blood etc.
Disapline by most parents is not something that is resorted to when all else fails as, "I'm big and I'm gunna teach you a lesson".
There will always be people who will take something too far, and I would suggest this could be construed as due to a lack of disapline in their own early years maybe, but I'm no Doctor. How you "re-teach" these people so they understand is well beyond me. But I don't believe that there are very many people who would willingly be "violent" with their children.

Originally Posted by Chops

I don't have a dictionary handy, but I'm sure there is a huge difference between violence and disapline.
I think most of us would agree, disapline, ie something like a smack, is very different to violence, which is usually related to "beatings/floggings with End results being bruisings and blood etc.
Disapline by most parents is not something that is resorted to when all else fails as, "I'm big and I'm gunna teach you a lesson".
There will always be people who will take something too far, and I would suggest this could be construed as due to a lack of disapline in their own early years maybe, but I'm no Doctor. How you "re-teach" these people so they understand is well beyond me. But I don't believe that there are very many people who would willingly be "violent" with their children.

You either hit someone or you don't. You can church it up with sugary sounding names like 'smack', but it doesn't change the fact: if you are striking someone with your hand (or an object), it's physical and it's violent.

Do any of the proponents of 'smacking' want to answer my repeated question: Would you 'smack' an adult to change their behaviour?