France violating treaty by allowing parents to smack children: Council of Europe

A top rights body ruled on Wednesday that France was in violation of a European treaty because it did not fully ban the smacking of children.
The Strasbourg-based Council of Europe said France’s laws on corporal punishment for children were not “sufficiently clear, binding and precise.”
France bans violence against children but does allow parents the “right to discipline” them.

However, French law does forbid corporal punishment in schools or disciplinary establishments for children.
More than half of the 47 members of the Council of Europe, including Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, have completely banned smacking.
Other big European countries, such as Britain, either have similar laws to France or have not adopted concrete regulations on the issue.
Worldwide, 17 other countries have a complete ban on corporal punishment for children, notably in South America, Central America and Africa.
The Council of Europe was ruling on a complaint lodged by the Britain-based child protection charity Approach, which says that French law violates part of the European Social Charter, a treaty first adopted in 1961 and revised in 1996.
In May, the Green party in France tabled an amendment to a law on the family but it was eventually withdrawn.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/france-violating-treaty-by-allowing-parents-to-smack-children-council-of-europe/

I don't understand the smacking of children and why parents think it's ok.

eddie wrote:I don't understand the smacking of children and why parents think it's ok.

I agree Eddie, we protect adults with the view that if you pyhsically hit someone it is assualt, so why do we allow parents to pyhsically assualt children?
To me you can bring about better disciplin within children without having to hit them, which to me is nothing more than making phsyical assualt on children.
I myself was beaten to crap if I did wrong growing up, and to me my parents knew no other way it was how they were brought up, though I do not hate them for this, as I say, they knew no other way. I believe it certainly had an affect on me in my youth, making me see violence as a tool to hurt people with I did not like. I am different now, but it can lead people to think violence is okay, when it never is, as how often has this then led onto people thinking they can hit their partners based off a view they should obey them? I have never been like that, but I wonder how many of those who do abuse their partners were brought up with physical punishment?

eddie wrote:I don't understand the smacking of children and why parents think it's ok.

are you a parent ?

good for the French

Brasidas wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't understand the smacking of children and why parents think it's ok.

I agree Eddie, we protect adults with the view that if you pyhsically hit someone it is assualt, so why do we allow parents to pyhsically assualt children?
To me you can bring about better disciplin within children without having to hit them, which to me is nothing more than making phsyical assualt on children.
I myself was beaten to crap if I did wrong growing up, and to me my parents knew no other way it was how they were brought up, though I do not hate them for this, as I say, they knew no other way. I believe it certainly had an affect on me in my youth, making me see violence as a tool to hurt people with I did not like. I am different now, but it can lead people to think violence is okay, when it never is, as how often has this then led onto people thinking they can hit their partners based off a view they should obey them? I have never been like that, but I wonder how many of those who do abuse their partners were brought up with physical punishment?

do you have kids ?

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

I agree Eddie, we protect adults with the view that if you pyhsically hit someone it is assualt, so why do we allow parents to pyhsically assualt children?
To me you can bring about better disciplin within children without having to hit them, which to me is nothing more than making phsyical assualt on children.
I myself was beaten to crap if I did wrong growing up, and to me my parents knew no other way it was how they were brought up, though I do not hate them for this, as I say, they knew no other way. I believe it certainly had an affect on me in my youth, making me see violence as a tool to hurt people with I did not like. I am different now, but it can lead people to think violence is okay, when it never is, as how often has this then led onto people thinking they can hit their partners based off a view they should obey them? I have never been like that, but I wonder how many of those who do abuse their partners were brought up with physical punishment?

do you have kids ?

Yes

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
do you have kids ?

Yes

and you have never smacked them ?....ever

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Yes

and you have never smacked them ?....ever

Never needed to.
No child needs to be hit to understand if something is wrong. There are much better ways to help a child understand and punish them informs that do not require violence. I know that smacking does not work because it brought about in myself when it happened for me to rebel even further against my parents at the time. I was in and out of home from the age of 12. I then did many things wrong.

This whole not smacking your kids crap started with dr spock in the 1950s "treat the child like a individual" when previous conventional wisdom had been that child rearing should focus on building discipline
and that`s how it should be
but there is a difference between legitimate punishment and the violence you infer

i have two "kids" (not really kids any more ) and have smacked my son in his life maybe 5 times ,my daughter a couple of years younger i have never smacked ,she never warranted such action


i have never beaten them mostly just a sore backside for my son .
i agree parents who go over the top should be prosecuted but a little common sense needs applied.

korban dallas wrote:This whole not smacking your kids crap started with dr spock in the 1950s "treat the child like a individual" when previous conventional wisdom had been that child rearing should focus on building discipline
and that`s how it should be
but there is a difference between legitimate punishment and the violence you infer

i have two "kids" (not really kids any more ) and have smacked my son in his life maybe 5 times ,my daughter  a couple of years younger i have never smacked ,she never warranted such action


i have never beaten them mostly just a sore backside for my son .
i agree parents who go over the top should be prosecuted but a little common sense needs applied.

So you believe in assualting your children? (not insulting but using the word to affect)
So you state rightly you did not need to smack your daughter, showing clearly that there was no need to and yet claim the opposite for your son.
That is illogical Korben, why is it your non-violent methods worked for one and not the other? Clearly there is a failing here if you have not used better non-violent methods of discipline?
Sorry I use the word violence, not to insult you but to show that it is nothing short of physical assualt, which no adult would allow to happen to them, but we throw this concept out of the window to physically assualty children and think we can because we are their parents. What ethical view gives you right to cause physical harm to a child?
Would you allow someone else to smack your child?
Where is the child's rights in this?

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
and you have never smacked them ?....ever

Never needed to.
No child needs to be hit to understand if something is wrong. There are much better ways to help a child understand and punish them informs that do not require violence. I know that smacking does not work because it brought about in myself when it happened for me to rebel even further against my parents at the time. I was in and out of home from the age of 12. I then did many things wrong.

smacking did not work FOR YOU
bloody sure worked for me when i would get smacked from my dad ,and looking back i deserved at least 80%
i was a little shit when i was a kid (according to my sister ) i got smacked quite regularly and some time quite badly ,one time the whole side of my leg was black and blue (yes that`s over the top) but actions have consequences and a sore backside is way better than some of the alternatives

for example
say your 4 yr old child runs out in to a busy road fortunately you grab him before he is hit by a truck
do you
A. calmly and quietly explain to him why running out in the road is dangerous
B smack him and explain quite loudly why running out in the road is dangerous

personalty i would go for B as there is more chance he will remember

my upbringing was strict to almost victorian

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Never needed to.
No child needs to be hit to understand if something is wrong. There are much better ways to help a child understand and punish them informs that do not require violence. I know that smacking does not work because it brought about in myself when it happened for me to rebel even further against my parents at the time. I was in and out of home from the age of 12. I then did many things wrong.

smacking did not work FOR YOU
bloody sure worked for me when i would get smacked from my dad ,and looking back i deserved at least 80%
i was a little shit when i was a kid (according to my sister ) i got smacked quite regularly and some time quite badly ,one time the whole side of my leg was black and blue (yes that`s over the top) but actions have consequences and a sore backside is way better than some of the alternatives  

for example
say your 4 yr old child runs out in to  a busy road fortunately you grab him before he is hit by a truck
do you
A. calmly and quietly explain to him why running out in the road is dangerous
B  smack him and explain quite loudly why running out in the road is dangerous

 personalty i would go for B as there is more chance he will remember

my upbringing was strict to almost victorian  

1) It does not work for many people.

2) No child deserves any violence onto them, when again we know and you have proved you used non-violent methods to disciplin your own daughter.

3) Your question i would do neither of your points. I would point out we are going home in a firm voice to the child  becuase he has done something very dangerous. I would then use a variety of non violent punishements here and teaching as to the safety of being outside with crossing roads. In fact i would spend all day drumming this home and practicing how to safetly act outside. Why would I need to smack here? that is a fear reaction more than anything from the parent being scared to death of what might have happened?
Does it really warrant reacting that way?

I can certainly see why some might react that way because they are pertrified of what could have happened, but would it or does it work better than a non-physical form of punishement.

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:This whole not smacking your kids crap started with dr spock in the 1950s "treat the child like a individual" when previous conventional wisdom had been that child rearing should focus on building discipline
and that`s how it should be
but there is a difference between legitimate punishment and the violence you infer

i have two "kids" (not really kids any more ) and have smacked my son in his life maybe 5 times ,my daughter  a couple of years younger i have never smacked ,she never warranted such action


i have never beaten them mostly just a sore backside for my son .
i agree parents who go over the top should be prosecuted but a little common sense needs applied.

So you believe in assualting your children? (not insulting but using the word to affect)
So you state rightly you did not need to smack your daughter, showing clearly that there waqs no need to and yet claim the oppisite for your son.
That is illogical Korben, why is it your non-violenty methods worked for one and not the other? Clearly there is a failing here if you have noty used better non-violent methods of discipline?
Sorry I use the word violence, not to insult you but to show that it is nothing short of physical assualt, which no adult would allow to happen to them, but we thrown this concept out of the window to physically assualt children and think we can because we are their parents. What ethical view gives you right to cause physical harm to a child?
Would you allow someone else to smack your child?
Where is the child's rights in this?

no your inflating although yes technically in law its assault the word when applied to legitimate and measured parental chastisement
is emotive and could provoke (not in this case )

my son was physicaly able to get him self in to trouble that required mild punishment ....my daughter could not
but presented an example of both schools of thought

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
smacking did not work FOR YOU
bloody sure worked for me when i would get smacked from my dad ,and looking back i deserved at least 80%
i was a little shit when i was a kid (according to my sister ) i got smacked quite regularly and some time quite badly ,one time the whole side of my leg was black and blue (yes that`s over the top) but actions have consequences and a sore backside is way better than some of the alternatives  

for example
say your 4 yr old child runs out in to  a busy road fortunately you grab him before he is hit by a truck
do you
A. calmly and quietly explain to him why running out in the road is dangerous
B  smack him and explain quite loudly why running out in the road is dangerous

 personalty i would go for B as there is more chance he will remember

my upbringing was strict to almost victorian  

1) It does not work for many people.

2) No child deserves any violence onto them, when again we know and you have proved you used non-violent methods to disciplin your own daughter.

3) Your question i would do neither of your points. I would point out we are going home in a firm voice to the child  becuase he has done something very dangerous. I would then use a variety of non violent punishements here and teaching as to the safety of being outside with crossing roads. In fact i would spend all day drumming this home and practicing how to safetly act outside. Why would I need to smack here? that is a fear reaction more than anything from the parent being scared to death of what might have happened?
Does it really warrant reacting that way?

I can certainly see why some might react that way because they are pertrified of what could have happened, but would it or does it work better than a non-physical form of punishement.

the thing is 4 year old`s really don`t nessecerly understand or even remember the next time
how many kids he you seen in supermarkets being repeatedly told not to do something,of in the doctors
this happened to me to day kid running around causing chaos mum just sat there repeatedly saying

joss stop that, joss don`t do that, on an on ,did the kid stop or pay any attention NO and i see it every day

but using a basic inbuilt instinct pain they do see and learn a valuable lesson a sore arse is one thing and a quick effective tool
i am not advocating beating your kids

"What ethical view gives you right to cause physical harm to a child"

A child ???

NO my child only
my child my ethical views

so my ethical view i guess

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


1) It does not work for many people.

2) No child deserves any violence onto them, when again we know and you have proved you used non-violent methods to disciplin your own daughter.

3) Your question i would do neither of your points. I would point out we are going home in a firm voice to the child  becuase he has done something very dangerous. I would then use a variety of non violent punishements here and teaching as to the safety of being outside with crossing roads. In fact i would spend all day drumming this home and practicing how to safetly act outside. Why would I need to smack here? that is a fear reaction more than anything from the parent being scared to death of what might have happened?
Does it really warrant reacting that way?

I can certainly see why some might react that way because they are pertrified of what could have happened, but would it or does it work better than a non-physical form of punishement.

the thing is 4 year old`s really don`t nessecerly understand or even remember the next time
how many kids he you seen in supermarkets being repeatedly told not to do something,of in the doctors
this happened to me to day kid running around causing chaos mum just sat there repeatedly saying

joss stop that, joss don`t do that, on an on ,did the kid stop or pay any attention NO and i see it every day

but using a basic inbuilt instinct pain they do see and learn a valuable lesson a sore arse is one thing and a quick effective tool
i am not advocating beating your kids  

Disagree with that. If you drum something home with training a child does remember. Kids can understand very welll and you are not giving them much credit here Korben. The point is and again a stated before you can disciplin a child without hitting them effectivelly. The fact you have done this with one of your children proves that you really did not need to smack the other one.
Pain is not a means to teach a child in any shape or form, it brings fear in fact and not the lesson of why something is wrong.
What you have to show and prove is that it is a better method.
Of yet there is nothing to show it is, and even more so you chose to not smack one child.

korban dallas wrote:"What ethical view gives you right to cause physical harm to a child"

A child ???

NO my child only
my child my ethical views

so my ethical view i guess

That is your pinion , not an ethical view

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
the thing is 4 year old`s really don`t nessecerly understand or even remember the next time
how many kids he you seen in supermarkets being repeatedly told not to do something,of in the doctors
this happened to me to day kid running around causing chaos mum just sat there repeatedly saying

joss stop that, joss don`t do that, on an on ,did the kid stop or pay any attention NO and i see it every day

but using a basic inbuilt instinct pain they do see and learn a valuable lesson a sore arse is one thing and a quick effective tool
i am not advocating beating your kids  

Disagree with that. If you drum something home with training a child does remember. Kids can understand very welll and you are not giving them much credit here Korben. The point is and again a stated before you can disciplin a child without hitting them effectivelly. The fact you have done this with one of your children proves that you really did not need to smack the other one.
Pain is not a means to teach a child in any shape or form, it brings fear in fact and not the lesson of why something is wrong.
What you have to show and prove is that it is a better method.
Of yet there is nothing to show it is, and even more so you chose to not smack one child.

you know i am never sure you read my posts or just pick bits out
My daughter is physical disabled and needs constant adult supervision hence no opportunity to do something that required a smacked backside not so for my son

pain has Always been a method of teaching its the fundamental most basic form of teaching and reason for survival there is

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:"What ethical view gives you right to cause physical harm to a child"

A child ???

NO my child only
my child my ethical views

so my ethical view i guess

That is your pinion , not an ethical view

wrong

Ethics, sometimes known as moral philosophy

in this case my moral philosophy

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Disagree with that. If you drum something home with training a child does remember. Kids can understand very welll and you are not giving them much credit here Korben. The point is and again a stated before you can disciplin a child without hitting them effectivelly. The fact you have done this with one of your children proves that you really did not need to smack the other one.
Pain is not a means to teach a child in any shape or form, it brings fear in fact and not the lesson of why something is wrong.
What you have to show and prove is that it is a better method.
Of yet there is nothing to show it is, and even more so you chose to not smack one child.

you know i am never sure you read my posts or just pick bits out
My daughter is physical disabled and needs constant adult supervision hence no opportunity to do something that required a smacked backside not so for my son

pain has Always been a method of teaching its the fundamental most basic form of teaching and reason for survival there is

Okay lets take her out of the equation.
Show me then which i already asked how pain is a more affective means of teaching?
By saying that you also then back torture a s ameans to work based on pain.
Sorry all studies show toture does not work and in fact non violent methods work far better. You see I can use any scale here to show why pain is a poor method of teaching, it actually is one of the worst forms of teaching.

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

That is your pinion , not an ethical view

wrong

Ethics, sometimes known as moral philosophy

in this case my moral philosophy

Still wrong, what moral principle here an argument are you using.
Pain is a not a moral argument. Pain hurts people so you are thus saying it is morally okay to pysically hurt someone.
That is not an ethical point but an opinion.

Also there are may forms of assault we accept as standard.
some the government has to force parents to do to there own children
its all a matter of point of your view

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
wrong

Ethics, sometimes known as moral philosophy

in this case my moral philosophy

Still wrong, what moral principle here an argument are you using.
Pain is a not a moral argument. Pain hurts people so you are thus saying it is morally okay to pysically hurt someone.
That is not an ethical point but an opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Ethics, sometimes known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct

So not wrong

And please stick to the debate dude this is about disciplining your own children with a sore backside not "someone"
I have no problem with it as long as its reasonable and proportional

korban dallas wrote:Also there are may forms of assault we accept as standard.
some the government has to force parents to do to there own children
its all a matter of point of your view  

We are talking about physical assault, so there is no point of view, pain is a flawed method of teaching, because there is a huge scale to this which goes as i say all the way to torture.

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Still wrong, what moral principle here an argument are you using.
Pain is a not a moral argument. Pain hurts people so you are thus saying it is morally okay to pysically hurt someone.
That is not an ethical point but an opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Ethics, sometimes known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct

So not wrong

And please stick to the debate dude this is about disciplining your own children with a sore backside not  "someone"  
I have no problem with it as long as its reasonable and proportional  

You are still not understanding ethics.
What is your moral arguiment to use pain as a teaching method?
So you are avoiding my question to provide an ethical reason to use pain as a teaching method.
That is the concept here, teaching with the use of pain.
You are avoiding this fundemental point.

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:Also there are may forms of assault we accept as standard.
some the government has to force parents to do to there own children
its all a matter of point of your view  

We are talking about physical assault, so there is no point of view, pain is a flawed method of teaching, because there is a huge scale to this which goes as i say all the way to torture.

MMR injection is physical assault as well

And i have already conceded technically it`s physical assault

But so is a girlfriend slapping her cheating boy friend
there is a clear distinction between discipline and abuse  
a smacked arse compared to multiple injury's
its the lack of proper discipline and this namby pamby attitude is why the kids of today have to respect for them self`s or anybody else
i am in no way a violent person never have been but I firmly believe in the right of a parent to punish there kids as they see fit
and smacking them has been a legitimate tool and pain has been a past of the human learning experience forever for all sorts of things ,pain tells you when things are wrong or broken
pain can teach you not to poke a bees nest or touch something hot
it has been proved on many occasions that pain or the anticipation of pain is a workable teaching method(brain washing and the ilk )
you don`t agree i understand that that`s your view

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Ethics, sometimes known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct

So not wrong

And please stick to the debate dude this is about disciplining your own children with a sore backside not  "someone"  
I have no problem with it as long as its reasonable and proportional  

You are still not understanding ethics.
What is your moral arguiment to use pain as a teaching method?
So you are avoiding my question to provide an ethical reason to use pain as a teaching method.
That is the concept here, teaching with the use of pain.
You are avoiding this fundemental point.

no your not understanding the definition of ethics

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

We are talking about physical assault, so there is no point of view, pain is a flawed method of teaching, because there is a huge scale to this which goes as i say all the way to torture.

MMR injection is physical assault as well

And i have already conceded technically it`s physical assault

But so is a girlfriend slapping her cheating boy friend
there is a clear distinction between discipline and abuse  
a smacked arse compared to multiple injury's
its the lack of proper discipline and this namby pamby attitude is why the kids of today have to respect for them self`s or anybody else
i am in no way a violent person never have been but I firmly believe in the right of a parent to punish there kids as they see fit
and smacking them has been a legitimate tool and pain has been a past of the human learning experience forever for all sorts of things ,pain tells you when things are wrong or broken
pain can teach you not to poke a bees nest or touch something hot
it has been proved on many occasions that pain or the anticipation of pain is a workable teaching method(brain washing and the ilk )
you don`t agree i understand that that`s your view

All assumptions and this still goes back the to the fact you are unable to provide evidence or an ethical reason on pain being a better teaching method.
All you are giving me is an opinion.
This is what you need to show Korben and pain by accident is not even a valid reason it works better when you can certainly teach what is painful
Time you provided an ethical reason and evidence for your theory.
The fact I can show you torture does not work is a clue to why pain can make people take and have counter effects on the person. This you are not factoring in on any of your points.

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
MMR injection is physical assault as well

And i have already conceded technically it`s physical assault

But so is a girlfriend slapping her cheating boy friend
there is a clear distinction between discipline and abuse  
a smacked arse compared to multiple injury's
its the lack of proper discipline and this namby pamby attitude is why the kids of today have to respect for them self`s or anybody else
i am in no way a violent person never have been but I firmly believe in the right of a parent to punish there kids as they see fit
and smacking them has been a legitimate tool and pain has been a past of the human learning experience forever for all sorts of things ,pain tells you when things are wrong or broken
pain can teach you not to poke a bees nest or touch something hot
it has been proved on many occasions that pain or the anticipation of pain is a workable teaching method(brain washing and the ilk )
you don`t agree i understand that that`s your view

All assumptions and this still goes back the to the fact you are unable to provide evidence or an ethical reason on pain being a better teaching method.
All you are giving me is an opinion.
This is what you need to show Korben and pain by accident is not even a valid reason it works better when you can certainly teach what is painful
Time you provided an ethical reason and evidence for your theory.
The fact I can show you torture does not work is a clue to why pain can make people take and have counter effects on the person. This you are not factoring in on any of your points.

i am not talking about torture you are
i am talking about smacking a child on the bottom your own child please try not no inflate the premise
and you still don`t understand ethics so will try again

Ethics
plural noun
1.
(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles:


my moral principle in this case my child

feel free to argue with the dictionary definition

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

All assumptions and this still goes back the to the fact you are unable to provide evidence or an ethical reason on pain being a better teaching method.
All you are giving me is an opinion.
This is what you need to show Korben and pain by accident is not even a valid reason it works better when you can certainly teach what is painful
Time you provided an ethical reason and evidence for your theory.
The fact I can show you torture does not work is a clue to why pain can make people take and have counter effects on the person. This you are not factoring in on any of your points.

i am not talking about torture you are
i am talking about smacking a child on the bottom  your own child please try not no inflate the premise
and you still don`t understand ethics so will try again

Ethics
plural noun
1.
(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles:


my moral principle in this case my child

feel free to argue with the dictionary definition

Torture is important as to whether pain works as a method.
You do understand methodology here and the affects of pain through fear which is bascially what smacking is fear induced pain.
Hence why you have no moral ethical argument here and keep refusing to understand what one is.
Your case example is subjective and does not prove it was morally right for you to use that method, if I can prove other methods are  of equal worth or even better.
That is all I need to prove.
Spanking physically hurts a child which is not need to teach them something is wrong, because you can teach a child if something is wrong by many methods.
What you are saying is for a child to effectivelly learn at shcool when they get something wrong they must be punished with pysical punishment in order to understand?
Do you back that principle?
It is on the same level.
Does a child understand the difference of yes and no at 4, even 3 or 2?
Yes.
Did the above require smacking?
No

eddie wrote:I don't understand the smacking of children and why parents think it's ok.

I think they do it for reasons of discipline. As the theory goes, the more discipline you instil in your child, the happier his or her life will be.

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
i am not talking about torture you are
i am talking about smacking a child on the bottom  your own child please try not no inflate the premise
and you still don`t understand ethics so will try again

Ethics
plural noun
1.
(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles:


my moral principle in this case my child

feel free to argue with the dictionary definition

Torture is important as to whether pain works as a method.
You do understand methodology here and the affects of pain through fear which is bascially what smacking is fear induced pain.
Hence why you have no moral ethical argument here and keep refusing to understand what one is.
Your case example is subjective and does not prove it was morally right for you to use that method, if I can prove other methods are  of equal worth or even better.
That is all I need to prove.
Spanking physically hurts a child which is not need to teach them something is wrong, because you can teach a child if something is wrong by many methods.
What you are saying is for a child to effectivelly learn at shcool when they get something wrong they must be punished with pysical punishment in order to understand?
Do you back that principle?
It is on the same level.
Does a child understand the difference of yes and no at 4, even 3 or 2?
Yes.
Did the above require smacking?
No

Torture Jeeze we are not talking about torture and smacking a child for bad behaviour is not torture unless it is rises to the level of abuse
and now you trying to move the debate to school punishment when we are talking parental punishment
your really all over the palace with this

does a child no the difference at 2 and 3 between yes and no ..right and wrong safe and dangerous .maybe, maybe not as much as you think because you view implies that all ways they do
And if that was the case why the hell are parents responsible for there actions
so no they may not know the difference or what`s safe for them that`s why there children

And implies more than just a sore backside

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't understand the smacking of children and why parents think it's ok.

I think they do it for reasons of discipline.  As the theory goes, the more discipline you instil in your child, the happier his or her life will be.

well i have no complaints Q

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Torture is important as to whether pain works as a method.
You do understand methodology here and the affects of pain through fear which is bascially what smacking is fear induced pain.
Hence why you have no moral ethical argument here and keep refusing to understand what one is.
Your case example is subjective and does not prove it was morally right for you to use that method, if I can prove other methods are  of equal worth or even better.
That is all I need to prove.
Spanking physically hurts a child which is not need to teach them something is wrong, because you can teach a child if something is wrong by many methods.
What you are saying is for a child to effectivelly learn at shcool when they get something wrong they must be punished with pysical punishment in order to understand?
Do you back that principle?
It is on the same level.
Does a child understand the difference of yes and no at 4, even 3 or 2?
Yes.
Did the above require smacking?
No

Torture Jeeze we are not talking about torture and smacking a child for bad behaviour is not torture unless it is rises to the level of abuse
and now you trying to move the debate to school punishment when we are talking parental punishment
your really all over the palace with this

does a child no the difference at 2 and 3 between yes and no ..right and wrong safe and dangerous .maybe, maybe not as much as you think because you view implies that all ways they do
And if that was the case why the hell are parents responsible for there actions
so no they may not know the difference or what`s safe for them that`s why there children  

And implies more than just a sore backside

This is why you do not understand methodology.
Torture is the highest level of using pain through fear as this is the same as smacking which is a fear based method.
The same methods apply yet one more so in extreme
School is the same, why is it not okay for then a 5 year old at school to not be smacked basing your view on understanding right from wrong?
You are claiming one year makes the difference here?
Seriously, is that your moral argument, that someone who is 4 needs this until they reach the age of 5?
Are you claiming there is a difference here to understand?
Again just because you are a parent that does not mean you have a right to physcially inflict pain on a child, where is that childs rights?
Do they only have rights when they reach a certain age?
Again can you let a child know that something is wrong without inflicting pain on them?
Of course.
Does the method of pain deter them from doing something wrong again?
No, I am living proof of that myself.
So if the method is flawed and does not prevent a child from commiting the same wrong is it effective?
No


Catch you later Korben

feral youth......lack of discipline.....lack of a well timed and appropriate slapped arse....

I only smacked one of my children once and regretted it instantly and never had to resort to it again. Mind you, they did believe that Mummy's had super powers and could see through walls!

if you believe we evolved from primates than Smacking makes since as it is the way almost all social mammals raise their kids.
With PHYSICAL re-enforcement or lessons
Our brains still have the wiring of a social mammal thus smacking does work in many cases.

there is a huge difference that a smack on the bum and a beating. closed fists, objects etc should NEVER be used .

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think they do it for reasons of discipline.  As the theory goes, the more discipline you instil in your child, the happier his or her life will be.

well i have no complaints Q

Yep...nor do I.  My mother raised four boys.  She had the local shoemaker make a cat-o-nine-tails, a kind of rawhide whip, which tells you something.



On the other hand, I never raised a hand to any of my daughters.

Frankly, I don't think it matters much.  But I agree there is a difference between punishment and beating.

I was spanked as a very small child -- I think I'm OK. My parents talked to me about it later; they explained that they spanked me when I was too young for logical arguments, and that they used logical arguments when I was old enough. It makes sense to me.

I don't believe in inflicting actual physical or emotional damage on a small child, of course. Nor do I believe that we really remember the things that happened to us before age 3 or 4.