Why either? You speak as if it's an option when both should be unthinkable.reasonvemotion wrote:I think the healthiest option is a smack on the hand or the butt, rather than a constant barrage of destructive verbal abuse.
reasonvemotion wrote:On the other hand what is more destructive.
Constant verbal abuse.
it is not always considered as serious as other forms of violence but the effects can be devastating,
and
Verbal abuse can leave scars
"Ultimately, it is the victim's self image and self-esteem that suffers, which can lead to physical and mental illness, and behavioural problems such as drug and alcohol abuse."
I tend to agree with this.
I think the healthiest option is a smack on the hand or the butt, rather than a constant barrage of destructive verbal abuse.
Well V, all of us have written many points of view on this subject and I am against violence/abusive treatment of children/anyone. In context of this argument, most responding in favour of smacking, have expressed that any physical punishment given, was a light smack on the hand or bottom. Most toddlers are heavily padded in the butt area and a smack on a little one's hand is usually a "light smack" and intense eye to eye contact with verbal accompaniment as to why this smack occurred, but most importantly, the adult never losing his or her temper. I think to be fair to the people advocating this, is they are not referring to child protection services type physical punishment and there is a difference.Why either? You speak as if it's an option when both should be unthinkable.
Did the hen or the chicken come first?reasonvemotion wrote:Are not the affects from this far more insidious and damaging.
Are you talking about the people here? Because what James Markham, SpheresOfBalance or henry quirk (at his last now deleted comment about seizing every opportunity) has described is absolutely violent behaviour and should be punished and made sure not to happen again.I think to be fair to the people advocating this, is they are not referring to child protection services type physical punishment and there is a difference.
Voice, the first sentence in this paragraph was worded in response to the op, the rest outlines my opinion on what is fair discipline, I can't see how this can be labeled violent behaviour, as I said in another post, my eldest has been given the choice of a smack or confiscation, he chose the smack on his hand.James Markham wrote:If we're talking about smacking children, then I agree x should be clocked about the head. I have three children, and they've all had smacks from me, I have only one rule when it comes to disciplining children, and that is to give fair warning of consequence, I say very clearly, and if necessary loudly, "I'm going to count to three, if you don't stop by the time I say three, your going to get a smack", it seems to work well. My little girl is nine, and she's had less smacks than the number of her years, my boys are a bit braver, but I still rarely have to get to three, with my youngest, if I do get to three, I simply have to tap his hand with the force required to swat a mosquito.
You're delusional, I've never smacked that child, like I told you way back at the beginning, in the other thread, if you want a word that is descriptive as to degree, then 'kiss' is the word, and was violent, in no way shape or form, which doesn't mean that I haven't swatted a different child's bottom, just like my governments school system taught me, their word, their example, and their reasoning. You are projecting an unenlightened viewpoint, based upon your anger at your mother. You are not the definitive answer in this case, as nothing can be that certain. There are always variables, and like I said if it's only ever done as a last resort, only ever with the child's welfare in mind, and not that of the parents, then it can be well served. The fact that you're a coward has noting to do with it. You have said in a previous thread, that if war came to you, that you would belly up and die. So like Jesus Christ it is, for you, to turn the other cheek. But for many they want not to be victimized, and children can learn to victimize outside the home, and then bring it home, and then victimize the parents, and their siblings. EVERYTHING, is a case by case basis, there is no one definitive solution. And you are a nutter to think so.The Voice of Time wrote:Did the hen or the chicken come first?reasonvemotion wrote:Are not the affects from this far more insidious and damaging.
First of all, they are related, what's physical is also psychological, and in my experience what's psychological is also physical, as the mere threat of violence is enough to feel the pain of uncertainty and fear (and other less obvious psychological abuses might also lead the same way, as a threatening voice, or a situation which you associate to violence or associate to huge discomfort by other physical acts like putting you in a cold environment or refusing you food).
Second, both physical violence and psychological violence are scalable, so you seem to think that great psychological violence is worse than a little physical violence, and I would say "of course! how more obvious can it get?", because you first then already disproportionally scaled them. But at the bottom they are the same, because it pretty much starts being talk of violence when pain and/or suffering in any of its huge variety of forms, are present, and are intended in an act of hostility (like ones own desire for obedience, in other words, a kind of enforcement against another person's will).
Third, physical violence must not be thought to be simple, it's not. Even a single time leaves a mark, it seeds the idea of violence as "okay" and as something the kid can use against others (and it doesn't help if you try to tell the kid why you did it, it's not gonna make things much better, only tell the kid that you're an abusive asshole, I feel certain that it's how the kid's gonna think in the majority of cases they are not crying helplessly), it's also a bad seed of idea in the person who commits it, because of the inherent cowardice and abusiveness of the act. If you want the child's attention, you can talk to it, and there are a variety of ways in which you can get its attention otherwise if the child ignores you, for instance poking it (not on facebook, but a real life poke), or blow air into its face or ears until it surrenders, you can use very mild annoying methods, that's how it should be done, and I tell you, it'll work, unless you overuse it for no particular reason (just out of laziness or your own thoughtlessness), it's gonna work.
As for just giving tiny relatively fast hits on a little babies bum, like a slightly hardened patting, while you hold it to catch its attention, I still don't see the reason for why you should have to do it; it's cultivation of bad habit and demoralizing, it doesn't benefit anyone except a persons own laziness, you should start as early as possibly cultivating words and soft methods, the difficult but the good way. That said, in that case of slightly hardened patting, you are so far into the grey-zone of things it doesn't make much of difference whether you do it or not, it's not particularly wrong, but it's not beneficial, so you should still avoid it if you want to be optimal.
Are you talking about the people here? Because what James Markham, SpheresOfBalance or henry quirk (at his last now deleted comment about seizing every opportunity) has described is absolutely violent behaviour and should be punished and made sure not to happen again.I think to be fair to the people advocating this, is they are not referring to child protection services type physical punishment and there is a difference.
If you were talking about somebody else and they were using my last example, I would agree with you.
The Voice of Time wrote:...
Are you talking about the people here? Because what James Markham, SpheresOfBalance or henry quirk (at his last now deleted comment about seizing every opportunity) has described is absolutely violent behaviour and should be punished and made sure not to happen again
But this is pretty much the argument the above are putting forward?You cannot say this, as it's not true reasoning. There is such a thing as a "fake spank" and a "fake cry," that I characterize as: "I'm disappointed in you" (fake spank) and "I know" (fake cry). In this case there is no pain, or violence, and there is no hurt other than ones feelings. This is NOT an argument as to whether you have experienced this, as you have stated that YOU NEVER HAVE!!!!!! Rather it is a FACT that I have experienced this!! Your logic in this case is non sequitur, as my proof dictates!Arising_uk wrote:However I agree that those who try to describe this action as a fairly painless action are in error as the action obviously has to be hard enough to cause pain otherwise its a pointless action so they are deluding themselves that its not violence towards another.The Voice of Time wrote:...
Are you talking about the people here? Because what James Markham, SpheresOfBalance or henry quirk (at his last now deleted comment about seizing every opportunity) has described is absolutely violent behaviour and should be punished and made sure not to happen again
I have no understanding of your relationship with your son, I'd have to have more information in order to understand the situation. For instance, what year was this? How old was your son? As a person gets older, violent behaviour is gonna be felt less, depending on person, both physically and psychologically. I'm sure that had you used the same force on a 6 year old girl, that girl would not find it as easy. Now, 1 week without a computer? In our modern world, that is hugely excessive punishment. I don't know how old you are, but you sound very old in your head, and I'd wager 50+ years, but 40+ is not unlikely either. Unfortunately, old people are very stupid in our modern world, they have very little understanding for how people who grow up with technology feel about it. If you had done it this year, or last year or even 5 years back or further, 7 days without a computer (may, situations determine) feel like isolation to your child.James Markham wrote:Voice, the first sentence in this paragraph was worded in response to the op, the rest outlines my opinion on what is fair discipline, I can't see how this can be labeled violent behaviour, as I said in another post, my eldest has been given the choice of a smack or confiscation, he chose the smack on his hand.
It's not very long since I was a child myself and I remember it quite well, and I grew up with tons of children around me all the time, so don't suppose I don't know what drives them.James Markham wrote:You don't have your own children, so you don't understand what motivates them or drives them
And are you saying that if we are not violent against our children they'll end up violent? That's disgusting thinking. You're a perverted bastard to think like that. The kid had 14 years to find a reason to hit his mother, I'd rather look through 14 years than find the first most self-beneficial explanation I could.James Markham wrote:, I have a female friend whose husband died when her boy was young, as a result she tended to treat him in an excessively sympathetic manner, not much discipline, and never any smacking, when he got to fourteen he started smacking her.
I never said you did.SpheresOfBalance wrote:You're delusional, I've never smacked that child,
But did you kiss the child? ... So why compare it thus? Wouldn't that be a lie? A kiss is an action and does not have inherent "degree", hard kissing can be painful.SpheresOfBalance wrote:like I told you way back at the beginning, in the other thread, if you want a word that is descriptive as to degree, then 'kiss' is the word
Well here you say you did swat the child's bottom. So I don't know what is the point of this talk.SpheresOfBalance wrote:, and was violent, in no way shape or form, which doesn't mean that I haven't swatted a different child's bottom
Are you saying that because bad people told you it was correct you think it is correct?SpheresOfBalance wrote:, just like my governments school system taught me, their word, their example, and their reasoning.
I'm not certain what this is supposed to mean?SpheresOfBalance wrote:You are projecting an unenlightened viewpoint, based upon your anger at your mother. You are not the definitive answer in this case, as nothing can be that certain.
That there is certainly, and you'll be free to provide them.SpheresOfBalance wrote:There are always variables
That's never the case, now, is it. It's only ever in the greed of the parent who is incapable of mustering the willpower to do things properly and respectfully, or out of a misguided faith in the merits of violence against kids.SpheresOfBalance wrote:, and like I said if it's only ever done as a last resort, only ever with the child's welfare in mind, and not that of the parents, then it can be well served.
It has all to do with it, cowardice separates those who aspire to do right from those who do not care and would take the easy road to avoid the hardship of long be good road.SpheresOfBalance wrote:The fact that you're a coward has noting to do with it.
Not really, that is more to do with mental preparedness than belief. I do not know what would happen, and I would want to fight, but I don't like fighting, and killing would kill my heart and maybe turn my mind mad because it's not made for such things.SpheresOfBalance wrote:You have said in a previous thread, that if war came to you, that you would belly up and die. So like Jesus Christ it is, for you, to turn the other cheek.
Only people with problems want to be victimized, to feel victimized is a very sad feeling indeed, I don't think though that it would ever be a thought that would cross my mind.SpheresOfBalance wrote:But for many they want not to be victimized
Ay, so it is, but morals are quite resilient I'm afraid to the diversity of individual situations. They tend to want their presence to be felt across time and space.SpheresOfBalance wrote:, and children can learn to victimize outside the home, and then bring it home, and then victimize the parents, and their siblings. EVERYTHING, is a case by case basis, there is no one definitive solution.
My answers sums not up so much to a definitive solution, as to a almost definitive solution; you shall not commit violence against your kid, with the possible exception of the most extreme and fantastic situations.SpheresOfBalance wrote:And you are a nutter to think so.
I never said you did either, if you know grammar you would see I but the parenthesis behind henry quirk's name and not yours, and inside the parenthesis I wrote "his", so that would refer to the last person I named of male gender, which was henry quirk. Your paranoia is getting exceedingly annoying Spheres of Balance, and I'd like you to stop it.SpheresOfBalance wrote:P.S. I never said anything about 'seizing every opportunity,' it would seem that you seriously need an English dictionary, because you obviously don't understand basic English words.
The Voice of Time wrote:I never said you did.SpheresOfBalance wrote:You're delusional, I've never smacked that child,
Maybe my mistake, but you have used words other than the ones I've used, to characterize my actions, as stronger than they were, to suit your own desires.
But did you kiss the child? ... So why compare it thus? Wouldn't that be a lie? A kiss is an action and does not have inherent "degree", hard kissing can be painful.SpheresOfBalance wrote:like I told you way back at the beginning, in the other thread, if you want a word that is descriptive as to degree, then 'kiss' is the word
Again we see your problem with not understanding definitions. Take note of the two below in red.
kiss kiss [kis]
verb (used with object)
1. to touch or press with the lips slightly pursed, and then often to part them and to emit a smacking sound, in an expression of affection, love, greeting, reverence, etc.: He kissed his son on the cheek.
2. to join lips with in this way: She kissed him and left.
3. to touch gently or lightly: The breeze kissed her face.
4. to put, bring, take, etc., by, or as if by, kissing: She kissed the baby's tears away.
5. Billiards, Pool. (of a ball) to make slight contact with or brush (another ball).
verb (used without object)
6. to join lips in respect, affection, love, passion, etc.: They kissed passionately.
7. to express a thought, feeling, etc., by a contact of the lips: They kissed good-bye at the station.
8. to purse and then part the lips, emitting a smacking sound, as in kissing someone.
9. Billiards, Pool. (of a ball) to carom gently off or touch another ball.
noun
10. an act or instance of kissing.
11. a slight touch or contact.
12. Billiards, Pool. the slight touch of one ball by another.
13. a baked confection of egg whites and confectioners' sugar, served as a cookie.
14. a piece of toffeelike confectionery, sometimes containing nuts, coconut, or the like.
15. a small, sometimes conical, bite-size piece of chocolate, usually individually wrapped.
Verb phrases
16. kiss off, Slang.
a. to reject, dismiss, or ignore: He kissed off their objections with a wave of his hand.
b. (used to express contemptuous rejection or dismissal).
c. to give up, renounce, or dispense with: Leaving Tulsa meant kissing off a promising job.
Idioms
17. blow / throw a kiss, to indicate an intended kiss from a distance, usually in bidding farewell, by kissing one's own fingertips and moving the hand toward the person greeted.
18. kiss ass, Slang: Vulgar. to be obsequious; fawn.
Well here you say you did swat the child's bottom. So I don't know what is the point of this talk.SpheresOfBalance wrote:, and was violent, in no way shape or form, which doesn't mean that I haven't swatted a different child's bottom
You're not paying attention, blinded by your fervor.
Are you saying that because bad people told you it was correct you think it is correct?SpheresOfBalance wrote:, just like my governments school system taught me, their word, their example, and their reasoning.
Not at all, you do know that Norsemen used to be known as vikings, right??? And do you know how violent they were?
I'm not certain what this is supposed to mean?SpheresOfBalance wrote:You are projecting an unenlightened viewpoint, based upon your anger at your mother. You are not the definitive answer in this case, as nothing can be that certain.
Your fervor, born at your mothers hand, blinds your view. You are not the authority.
That there is certainly, and you'll be free to provide them.SpheresOfBalance wrote:There are always variables
Situations are only ever variable.
That's never the case, now, is it. It's only ever in the greed of the parent who is incapable of mustering the willpower to do things properly and respectfully, or out of a misguided faith in the merits of violence against kids.SpheresOfBalance wrote:, and like I said if it's only ever done as a last resort, only ever with the child's welfare in mind, and not that of the parents, then it can be well served.
Your misguided belief, to ensure your safety, as one that fears fighting.
It has all to do with it, cowardice separates those who aspire to do right from those who do not care and would take the easy road to avoid the hardship of long be good road.SpheresOfBalance wrote:The fact that you're a coward has noting to do with it.
No, by your own admission, you are a coward, that's what I meant, you fear to fight, for your right to live, or so you said in another thread.
Not really, that is more to do with mental preparedness than belief. I do not know what would happen, and I would want to fight, but I don't like fighting, and killing would kill my heart and maybe turn my mind mad because it's not made for such things.SpheresOfBalance wrote:You have said in a previous thread, that if war came to you, that you would belly up and die. So like Jesus Christ it is, for you, to turn the other cheek.
OK, you have changed your mind, surely. At least you admit that you don't know, and how could anyone know, how they would react to any particular instance of violence. So if a GANG of children, (under the decided age of adulthood) came at you with knives, you might snap, and smite them, with your fists, because you would want to defend yourself.
Only people with problems want to be victimized, to feel victimized is a very sad feeling indeed, I don't think though that it would ever be a thought that would cross my mind.SpheresOfBalance wrote:But for many they want not to be victimized
OK, then you would defend yourself against children that meant to do you bodily harm, if you had no other way to escape.
Ay, so it is, but morals are quite resilient I'm afraid to the diversity of individual situations. They tend to want their presence to be felt across time and space.SpheresOfBalance wrote:, and children can learn to victimize outside the home, and then bring it home, and then victimize the parents, and their siblings. EVERYTHING, is a case by case basis, there is no one definitive solution.
Not at all, once all of mankind is dead and buried, his morals shall be far more than gone, it would be as if they never existed at all.
My answers sums not up so much to a definitive solution, as to a almost definitive solution; you shall not commit violence against your kid, with the possible exception of the most extreme and fantastic situations.SpheresOfBalance wrote:And you are a nutter to think so.
But violence is relative, as I tried to show you with my Grizzly Bear analogy. You nor I could handle a swat of a grizzly bear cub, at play, yet they can. To a lessor degree, but still the case, is that of a relative pat on the back, between two huge men of the same strength compared to one big and strong, and one small and weak. For instance I have shook hands with another man where my hand was hurt to some degree. Violence??? I hardly think so!!!
I never said you did either, if you know grammar you would see I but the parenthesis behind henry quirk's name and not yours, and inside the parenthesis I wrote "his", so that would refer to the last person I named of male gender, which was henry quirk.SpheresOfBalance wrote:P.S. I never said anything about 'seizing every opportunity,' it would seem that you seriously need an English dictionary, because you obviously don't understand basic English words.
My mistake, possibly!
Your paranoia is getting exceedingly annoying Spheres of Balance, and I'd like you to stop it.
You'd do well to not mimic Arising_uk, as she has no idea what she's talking about. And what you'd like, is of no consequence to me. What, do I make you paranoid?
Please don't tell me you let the dictionary tell you what kiss is... that's so sad and so pathetic.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Again we see your problem with not understanding definitions. Take note of the two below in
None, it's not part of a widespread view that children need computers, and they do not strictly speaking need them either except in moments. It's about how the child feels about it rather than how it could be for them.James Markham wrote:Voice, you really do sound like an irritating little p****, first I'd get 3 months in prison for a smack on the hand, now taking away a child's computers is even worse, so how long do you think I should serve for that