Quote:
So not having the judgment to properly use contraction
|
Quote:
What does that even mean? magically gives anyone that has a kid the sound judgment on whether or not it's alright to habitually abuse children and call it "discipline"? I don't need to be an F1 driver to tell you that driving into the walls is a bad idea, or that you shouldn't put gasoline in a diesel engine, or try to shift from your highest gear straight into your lowest without changing RPMs, and so on.
The last sentence makes very little sense. RPMs and so on? It's your speed you need to be concerned about when down shifting, not RPMs. Yet another stellar example of someone pretending to know what they're talking about and spewing shit.
|
I typoed contraception and it was autocorrected to contraction. That it was a typo is pretty obvious from the context of the discussion and the fact that "contraction" doesn't remotely make sense. Was it necessary to make such a large multicolored deal out of that?
Also utterly unrelated but since it IS a safety issue: learn some more about transmissions before you blow one up. Engine RPMs transmitted through the gears of the transmission apply torque to the wheels which gets you moving. It may be strongly correlated with vehicle speed, but RPMs and speed are NOT automatically equivalent.
Quote:
I've mentioned the pro-violence tendency to redefine things as is convenient in #64 already, this is just another example of that. Coming into a discussion of beltings, whippings, smackings, slappings, and other forms of corporal punishment and trying to make everyone arguing against it look unreasonable by redefining "corporal punishment" as something that can barely be qualified as physical force is just disengenuous.
Reread your post #64, there is no 'definition' of the conversation. Just your rambling about why your opinion is nonsense. Aside from that, the OP asks if parents have the right to 'smack' or discipline their own kids. Until you quoted me, I was not responding to you. There is nothing disingenuous about my post, it is my opinion from experience. And although you may like to steer the conversation into an area you have strong feelings about for your convenience, this string is about discipline, not abuse.
|
You are indeed being disengenuous (inbetween insults) and here's why: First you try and redefine "corporal punishment" to be something everyone in the thread agrees barely qualifies as physical force let alone "smacking" as has been discussed for a page and a half at least.
Now you're trying to redefine the OP's post to something else for YOUR convenience. The OP clearly asks whether we would/do smack our children, where we draw the line between discipline and abuse, how violence affects the child and long term affects on personality and behavior, and our thoughts on the UN (ie govt) involvement in the whole debate as you can clearly see right here:
Spoiler:
Quote:
So does the UN convention for the Rights of the Child apply here? Is smacking considered child abuse and should parents be held accountible for the way they discipline their children?
Would you/Do you smack your kids? where do you draw the line between discipline and abuse?
as a parent of a toddler who's going to start acting up soon, ive been thinking about this topic a lot. Does smacking affect the child, and if so, what long term affect does it have on a childs behaviour, and ultimately their personalities?
i have to say that im undecided on this debate as yet, but i think parents can and have a right to be firm with their kids and discipline them without smacking them. The problem here is that the UN convention refers to the physical and mental abuse of kids. Are parents hands tied? should we just ignore the UN?
what are your thoughts?
|
Quote:
This isn't a "continuum", there's a very clear line between what the ever-referenced Reasonable Person would consider to be corporal punishment or not. Swatting a kids hand away from something immediately dangerous in a manner which is specifically done to move the hand rather than cause pain, or their clothed butt in a way designed to cause noise rather than a physical strike when they're about to run into the street, is absolutely different from the calculated brutality of deliberately striking them in a manner which is calculated to cause maximum pain with minimum legal liability.
Yet another example of "I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'll just repeat it until someone listens. If you smack a child's butt, when he/she's about to run into traffic, enjoy the funeral. The first reaction is going to be to get away from you, which will lead directly into traffic if that's the way he/she's facing. Nice.
|
No, that's not every child's first reaction starting with the fact that I myself am still here as are at least five other toddlers I've ridden the bus with in the last month alone.
Quote:
Trying to compare the two is like coming into a police brutality thread and trying to use cracked ribs from CPR to justify going Rodney King on someone.
Then why are you making the comparison, I didn't. And what does cracked ribs from CPR have to do with the police abusing authority to beat down a drunk asshole?
|
It's called a metaphor.