No Spanking Laws

[Al Swearegen]

It sounds to me that you think of smacks on the bottom,  as child abuse and that it is all in the same league as beatings. I disagree completely. It sounds to me that you are saying anyone who therefore has smacked a child is a child abuser. I again disagree and regardless of how you try to pitch the allusion, it is not going to make me second guess myself or feel bad. If this is true, I hope not as I would have thought you were a little less judgmental

So what did i say that ''sounded like i think smacks on the bottom is child abuse''?   and what did i say that ''sounds to you like i am saying anyone who has smacked a child is a child abuser'' ?     

Look at the preceding post and say if it might well be at least intimated that saying smacking bottoms and hitting kids with things (especially when you then reference "smacking" with an anecdote about a teenage friend who's Father beat his kids with things) and that hitting and smacking and beating are all the same thing to varying degrees. When further you say that trying to separate smacking a child's bottom from things like violent beatings is just grey areas. But also when you say that the use of smacking bottoms of children is to cause the child pain and humiliation. (Yup or parents who do are clearly NOT doing it purely as an aversion tool to parent child but rather it use is just a means to hurt and humiate their children, besides they are.......sadists?).

I would say this pretty much leads the reader to the garden gate in so far of convincing the reader that you believe smacking children's bottoms as assault and child abuse to be considered with beating children. In fact I think you not only lead up the garden path,but you knock on the door for good measure.

Are you honestly saying that you don't think it looks this way? Really?

[bodie]

It sounds to me that you think of smacks on the bottom,  as child abuse and that it is all in the same league as beatings. I disagree completely. It sounds to me that you are saying anyone who therefore has smacked a child is a child abuser. I again disagree and regardless of how you try to pitch the allusion, it is not going to make me second guess myself or feel bad. If this is true, I hope not as I would have thought you were a little less judgmental

So what did i say that ''sounded like i think smacks on the bottom is child abuse''?   and what did i say that ''sounds to you like i am saying anyone who has smacked a child is a child abuser'' ?     

Quote me where i said that.

[odeon]

It may, but it certainly does not harm mine.
The unmindful, uncaring, dangerous, drinkers in society, who drove were targeted. The ones who caused damage to society. Those who had a social wine over lunch or whatever, were not considered in the same overall category. To include those responsible drinkers would be unfair.

It was about raising public consciousness and helping society. Both which are commendable. Not marginalising the responsible to drive a point about drinking in general terms. Hence the "Two and that'll do" campaign

And by not attempting to define "smacking" as opposed to "hitting" and banning both (actually, the consensus was that both were harmful to the child), the legislation did protect children. Perpetrators who would previously not be committing a crime when beating a child now were, and many no longer did.

So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?

As for drinking and driving, what are the limits down under?

[odeon]

If it's not abusive, then why should there be laws against it?

Because there is disagreement over the definition of "abuse".

[Calavera]

Both spanking and yelling with an angry tone can be just as bad as each other. As for what is a better option, if I ever become a father, I'll let you guys know. I hope just having a gentle talk with the kid should work when he/she does something troublesome, but how effective is that, I have no idea.

With all that said, my mother used to spank me a lot when I was a kid (and in her case, it often seemed like she was lashing out in anger at me and my brother because of how her husband treated her, and not purely to discipline). My mother was otherwise extremely loving when she wasn't spanking/yelling. I think had it not been for her continual expressions of love, I would've hated just as much as I hate my father.

The irony is my father never laid a finger on me. But he was nasty regardless (and still is).

[bodie]

Both spanking and yelling with an angry tone can be just as bad as each other. As for what is a better option, if I ever become a father, I'll let you guys know. I hope just having a gentle talk with the kid should work when he/she does something troublesome, but how effective is that, I have no idea.

With all that said, my mother used to spank me a lot when I was a kid (and in her case, it often seemed like she was lashing out in anger at me and my brother because of how her husband treated her, and not purely to discipline). My mother was otherwise extremely loving when she wasn't spanking/yelling. I think had it not been for her continual expressions of love, I would've hated just as much as I hate my father.

The irony is my father never laid a finger on me. But he was nasty regardless (and still is).

My darkest hour as a parent was the day i grabbed the urchins hair after he had been pulling hair a lot.  I vowed that day i would never ever do anything like that again. I thought to myself why have i spent the last three or four years running around behind him preventing him from getting hurt and then i go and do it myself' dohhh   I was angry too.  I promised myself that i would not cross that line and i haven't.  Other kids pulled his hair too and it didn't stop him.  We got there in the end, using a girls world hair model.

I am glad i made that promise now.  He still makes me mad at times,  and sometimes i will lock his scooter in the boot of my car, sometimes i will be that mad i will say  'for a week' or 'for a year' but it's ok if i overreact as i can put it right.

[Jack]

If it's not abusive, then why should there be laws against it?

Because there is disagreement over the definition of "abuse".

A spanking law would certainly clear that up, the legal definition of abuse.

Though the question was for bodaccea.

[Jack]

Bodaccea, do you think spanking is abusive?

[Al Swearegen]

It may, but it certainly does not harm mine.
The unmindful, uncaring, dangerous, drinkers in society, who drove were targeted. The ones who caused damage to society. Those who had a social wine over lunch or whatever, were not considered in the same overall category. To include those responsible drinkers would be unfair.

It was about raising public consciousness and helping society. Both which are commendable. Not marginalising the responsible to drive a point about drinking in general terms. Hence the "Two and that'll do" campaign

And by not attempting to define "smacking" as opposed to "hitting" and banning both (actually, the consensus was that both were harmful to the child), the legislation did protect children. Perpetrators who would previously not be committing a crime when beating a child now were, and many no longer did.

So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?

As for drinking and driving, what are the limits down under?

.08 I think.

I think this is the crux of things.

So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?

Is it a reasonable question?

I think so. The answer is i do not believe in the type of mindset of "Kill them all, God will know his own". The reason for it is that the superficial answer is "Yes if it spares the kids it is great, children need protecting from beatings". I am not a heartless person so I am encourage to give this answer until i consider it on a deeper level. It protects kids, even if they do not need it, BUT it potentially punishes good and bad parents. Is that also as commendable?" My answer is, "No"
I think the military call this collateral damage.
I think it demands a case by case basis. Kind of innocence til proven guilty.
It also is likely to drive a discourse which tars one with another unfairly and I think this is not beneficial to the parents, the kids, or society. Bad parents deserve bad repercussions and good parents deserve to be praised.

[bodie]

Bodaccea, do you think spanking is abusive?

If used mildly and rarely then no i do not think it is abusive.

[bodie]

If it's not abusive, then why should there be laws against it?

Because there is disagreement over the definition of "abuse".

A spanking law would certainly clear that up, the legal definition of abuse.

Though the question was for bodaccea.

I support the law in an outright ban simply to aid the kids at the extreme end of corporal punishment.  I think the stats from Sweden,, and other places where it has been implemented make a good argument.  If it saves just one kids life i think it is worth it. 

[bodie]

Actually, the question that has troubled me the most, and one which i am still thinking about  (from the UN website) is
DO YOU OWN YOUR CHILDREN?

[Al Swearegen]

It sounds to me that you think of smacks on the bottom,  as child abuse and that it is all in the same league as beatings. I disagree completely. It sounds to me that you are saying anyone who therefore has smacked a child is a child abuser. I again disagree and regardless of how you try to pitch the allusion, it is not going to make me second guess myself or feel bad. If this is true, I hope not as I would have thought you were a little less judgmental

So what did i say that ''sounded like i think smacks on the bottom is child abuse''?   and what did i say that ''sounds to you like i am saying anyone who has smacked a child is a child abuser'' ?     

I have addressed this and happy to post the quotes of yours that I believe lead the reader up the garden path to that conclusion but before I do, in fairness, explain the "bitchy" comment.

Ouch!  I think everyone knows that my son is up shit creek at school and is not always well behaved and sweet.  I am always proud of him, though.  I will persist with my parenting style.  This debate has not thrown anything to cause me to change my mind. ........No. I have no bitchy comments to make like the one above.

As I mentioned, you DID actually start a thread on this some time ago. Year ago was it? As I recall there was an issue at his school, you had (correct me if I am wrong) started a reward system because he wanted to be a good boy. From what i remember , this cleared up the issue and after letting us know that this seemed to be working, the thread died......so the assumption was end of issue.

I that a pretty good recollection? If it is, then is it a reasonable assumption that he has been ok ever since? If so then is it odd to suggest that "everyone knows he is up shit creek at school"? Because I sure as fuck didn't.

So explain bitchy...in this context and then i will cut n paste your own quotes back at you about why and what you have said which sounds to me that you are saying " i think smacks on the bottom is child abuse''?   and what did i say that ''sounds to you like i am saying anyone who has smacked a child is a child abuser"

You first though Bodie

[Jack]

Bodaccea, do you think spanking is abusive?

If used mildly and rarely then no i do not think it is abusive.

I think it is. That's why it's avoided. I think a lot of things are. I think threatening abandonment is worse than spanking, like the lady mentioned early in this thread who threatened to call the police, people who threaten boarding school, a home, or wherever kids get sent. I think those parents need their asses whipped. I could make up a lot of good laws like that one. I wouldn't actually support any of them. Still, it's hard to discuss the legalities across countries, so wont really try to.

[Jack]

Oops forgot my quote; fixed my post. Rushing about avoiding duty this morning.

If it's not abusive, then why should there be laws against it?

Because there is disagreement over the definition of "abuse".

A spanking law would certainly clear that up, the legal definition of abuse.

Though the question was for bodaccea.

I support the law in an outright ban simply to aid the kids at the extreme end of corporal punishment.  I think the stats from Sweden,, and other places where it has been implemented make a good argument.  If it saves just one kids life i think it is worth it. 

That's a really good answer, there actually being one to support where you are. It's different here, people in the US don't generally support the government being that deeply involved in the public's personal lives. This mentality makes notions like this almost seem absurd, and like said before, the government would have to first start treating children differently first, starting with the schools. Even then, a national campaign would be more fitting here. Can see such a law being accepted, though admit I've no idea about your country's state of family affairs, nor anyone else in this thread.