Hitting your children. Watch

pendragon
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#201
Report 12 years ago
#201
(Original post by creamcrackered)
Owe your parents? Kinda. But nothing more than respect. I admit these days kids are probably deserving a whack or two. They are quite irritable. The sixth form college I go to is part of a secondary school and the little bas**rds are everywhere. Swearing, spitting, running about, braking windows, talking to you obscenely and you have to take it because you don't wanna get expelled or something... it's crap. Personally I never want kids. So I don't think I'm ever going to have to hit them... and I wouldn't anyway. But I certainly wouldn't let them get away with things they should be punished for.
Parents just need to be strict. If you can't express your dominance and authority over your kids then you shouldn't have ever become a parent... that's my view. You need to let them know who's boss, if you do that then they'll pay up with some respect.

As for old people, well to an extent they can look after themselves, but if they are one of those who cannot look after themselves, then yes, I think you should look after them... it's a deed that shows you still respect them as an adult too... and that you didn't just do it as a kid to get things and to not get into trouble...
Sensible.

But there is a fundamental flaw in your position, though perhaps it will not bother you. Its a problem that some feminists face too, if you dont want to have kids how will your views be perpetuated? People like you who dont want kids cant pass on your ideas about not hitting children, and gender equality in the case of feminists. My girlfriend said similar things about not having kids if you arent going to be a good parent, but if western societies that protect children with their values and laws have low birthrates then the people who inherit the earth will not share those values. You and your society will be outbred by people in Africa who believe in beating children, because they are possessed, and by muslims who treat women as inferior chattels. If you have any values worth protecting, you need to have kids and teach them those values.
0
quote
reply
RieLouise
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#202
Report 12 years ago
#202
(Original post by Angelil)
text-talk is for stupid people. If you're not stupid/don't want to come across as stupid, then you should start speaking and writing properly.
That's hardly fair. She's describing some very traumatic circumstances. 'Stream of Consciousness' may be the only way she can do that.
0
quote
reply
RieLouise
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#203
Report 12 years ago
#203
(Original post by pendragon)
People dont owe their children anything either, they could leave them to starve, but the state forces them not to even if they were so inclined. You get forced to look after you kids, and you get forced to exist, what is the difference? Yet parents mostly treat their kids with love, care, financial expendature and compassion, you owe them that much in return when they can no longer look after themselves. People in Britain are selfish about their parents because they can offload their responsibilities on the state. If there were no state would parents let kids starve, and would adults let their elderly parents starve? Only if they were bad people. So you do owe your parents something, and sadly people tend to realise that only when they become parents themselves.
Well, they do actually as they were the ones who decided to bring them into the world. There's an easy way to avoid having children.
0
quote
reply
RieLouise
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#204
Report 12 years ago
#204
(Original post by pianist)
Growing up with a reasonable amount of stress and fear can do wonders. It makes you stronger.
<Snip>
Cool. I shall have to thank my father for all the stress and fear he subjected my brother, mother and I to. Father of the Decade! :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
zooropa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#205
Report 12 years ago
#205
(Original post by Jonah Ramone)
Should this be illegal or not? If a child has done wrong, they deserved to be punished, and quite often just shouting isn't enough. I think parents should be able to hit their children. Obviously not a punch in the face, that would be ridiculous, but a slap on the bottom as is conventional. It never did me any harm.
Thoughts?
Spanking should be outlawed.

It's counter-productive. Smacking teaches a child that force and violence are the primary means of getting what you want in life. It also makes children fear their parents, so they would comply out of fear and not out of deference for their parents wishes.
0
quote
reply
pendragon
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#206
Report 12 years ago
#206
(Original post by BellaCat)
Well, they do actually as they were the ones who decided to bring them into the world. There's an easy way to avoid having children.
There are ways, but none of them are easy, contraceptives dont always work and its hardly easy to have an abortion or practice sexual abstinance. You also have to overcome your instincts to have children, hormonally driven instincts inhibit your freedom of choice in the matter too.
(Original post by pendragon)
You are forced to have children by nature, you have sexual urges, and children are the result. Also we are forced to have kids in another way by nature; it is our evolutionary instinct to do so. Choice is a relatively modern phenomenon based on recent medical innovations, I agree with condoms and abortions, but some people don’t, and you shouldn’t expect that people should have to be forced to adopt celibacy or have abortions (and contraceptives are never 100% effective) if they don’t want kids. So nature can still force some people to have kids..
You have not refuted these points made in my previous posts.
0
quote
reply
Schroedinger's Pandora
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#207
Report 12 years ago
#207
Guys do we have clarification as to what is "smacking" and what is "beating"?
0
quote
reply
Jonah Ramone
Badges: 19
#208
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#208
Smacking is one slap, flat hand, palm side to make contact with one part of the anatomy, usually bottom, occasionally legs. Beating is doing it more than once, i.e. repeated hitting, and/or using some sort of item, i.e. a stick, to seriously abuse the child. Common english dictionary definitions of 'serious' and 'abuse' apply.
quote
reply
Melana
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#209
Report 12 years ago
#209
(Original post by zooropa)
Spanking should be outlawed.

It's counter-productive. Smacking teaches a child that force and violence are the primary means of getting what you want in life. It also makes children fear their parents, so they would comply out of fear and not out of deference for their parents wishes.
Completely agree.

Little_red_sox - We're talking about any force, whether it be a slap on the leg, hand, any violence. Unless it's to stop your kid running into the road, violence should NEVER be used for discipline.
0
quote
reply
2026
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#210
Report 12 years ago
#210
Unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary, violence should not be used towards children. Not just children for that matter, anyone.
0
quote
reply
xXx-Kiki-xXx
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#211
Report 12 years ago
#211
I dont think that right a adult hitting a child however how naughty the child it because it gives messages to the child saying if someone does something bad there allowed to hit them.
0
quote
reply
completely random
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#212
Report 12 years ago
#212
Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - "right to respect for private and family life."
Yet -
Protection of children etc - where is the line drawn between corporal punishment and abuse?

II'm aware I have only rippled the surface of what is a complex debate. I'm completely and utterly against it but there are many who would argue that banning it is an intrusion on civil liberties and is too paternalistic.
0
quote
reply
Rock Fan
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#213
Report 12 years ago
#213
If you install disicipline early on you are less likely to even have to tell the child off becuase they done something wrong, obviously hitting them is going too far, but usually when you shout no at them they usually get the message.
0
quote
reply
Jelkin
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#214
Report 12 years ago
#214
I think it depends on the child - some don't respond to shouting. Personally, I was terrified of being shouted at, so I maintain that my parents should not have smacked me as it was unnecessary and upset me for the wrong reasons rather than teach me that I'd done something wrong. I think smacking should be reserved for extreme cases.
0
quote
reply
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#215
Report 12 years ago
#215
I think it depends on the parents/carers. If you shout at everything then the child will not respond to shouting and you have to resort to physical punishment. Me and my girlfriend only use raised voices when our seven year old really misbehaves and it has the same effect as a smack from parents who shout more often. I haven't even come close to using physical punishment yet.
0
quote
reply
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#216
Report 12 years ago
#216
I also would be interested as to how many people that side with the "no hitting" side are liberals. You know, fight against the man. Down with the big brother. Then, turn around and say that the government should tell parents how to be parents. Would be an interesting survey...
0
quote
reply
pendragon
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#217
Report 12 years ago
#217
(Original post by Rusty33)
I also would be interested as to how many people that side with the "no hitting" side are liberals. You know, fight against the man. Down with the big brother. Then, turn around and say that the government should tell parents how to be parents. Would be an interesting survey...
Dont try and apply American political definitions to British politics, the British left are very different from the American conception of a liberal. :rolleyes:

As for American politics there are people on both sides of the spectrum who favour small government, and others who favour big government.
0
quote
reply
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#218
Report 12 years ago
#218
(Original post by pendragon)
Dont try and apply American political definitions to British politics, the British left are very different from the American conception of a liberal. :rolleyes:

As for American politics there are people on both sides of the spectrum who favour small government, and others who favour big government.
Don't try and side step the issue with termonology and emoicons.

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

-Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
-Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
-Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
-Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

www.dictionary.com

Now that we've established the intended meaning of the word "liberal"...
0
quote
reply
pendragon
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#219
Report 12 years ago
#219
While you could identify some points of vague commonality, the 'Liberal Democrats' in the UK do not meaningfully correspond with liberal 'Democrats' in the USA. There is an even greater divergence between American and continental European understanding of the word liberalism.

Wikipedia

"Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe. In the US, liberalism is usually contrasted with conservatism, and American liberals support broader tolerance and more readily embrace multiculturalism and affirmative action. In Europe, on the other hand, liberalism is not only contrasted with conservatism and Christian Democracy, but also with socialism and social democracy. In some countries, European liberals share common positions with Christian Democrats."

"Racism is incompatible with liberalism. Liberals in Europe are generally hostile to any attempts by the state to enforce equality in employment by legal action against employers, whereas in the United States many liberals favor such affirmative action. Liberals in general support equal opportunity, but not necessarily equal outcome. Most European liberal parties do not favour employment quotas for women and ethnic minorities as the best way to end gender and racial inequality. However, all agree that arbitrary discrimination on the basis of race or gender is morally wrong."

Or as explained by an American academic Gerald F. Gaus in Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Liberalism can be understood as (1) a political tradition (2) a political philosophy and (3) a general philosophical theory, encompassing a theory of value, a conception of the person and a moral theory as well as a political philosophy. As a political tradition liberalism has varied in different countries. In England — in many ways the birthplace of liberalism — the liberal tradition in politics has centred on religious toleration, government by consent, personal and, especially, economic freedom. In France liberalism has been more closely associated with secularism and democracy. In the United States liberals often combine a devotion to personal liberty with an antipathy to capitalism, while the liberalism of Australia tends to be much more sympathetic to capitalism but often less enthusiastic about civil liberties. To understand this diversity in political traditions, we need to examine liberalism as a political theory and as a general philosophy."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
0
quote
reply
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#220
Report 12 years ago
#220
(Original post by pendragon)
While you could identify some points of vague commonality, the 'Liberal Democrats' in the UK do not meaningfully correspond with liberal 'Democrats' in the USA. There is an even greater divergence between American and continental European understanding of the word liberalism.

Wikipedia

"Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe. In the US, liberalism is usually contrasted with conservatism, and American liberals support broader tolerance and more readily embrace multiculturalism and affirmative action. In Europe, on the other hand, liberalism is not only contrasted with conservatism and Christian Democracy, but also with socialism and social democracy. In some countries, European liberals share common positions with Christian Democrats."

"Racism is incompatible with liberalism. Liberals in Europe are generally hostile to any attempts by the state to enforce equality in employment by legal action against employers, whereas in the United States many liberals favor such affirmative action. Liberals in general support equal opportunity, but not necessarily equal outcome. Most European liberal parties do not favour employment quotas for women and ethnic minorities as the best way to end gender and racial inequality. However, all agree that arbitrary discrimination on the basis of race or gender is morally wrong."

Or as explained by an American academic Gerald F. Gaus in Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Liberalism can be understood as (1) a political tradition (2) a political philosophy and (3) a general philosophical theory, encompassing a theory of value, a conception of the person and a moral theory as well as a political philosophy. As a political tradition liberalism has varied in different countries. In England — in many ways the birthplace of liberalism — the liberal tradition in politics has centred on religious toleration, government by consent, personal and, especially, economic freedom. In France liberalism has been more closely associated with secularism and democracy. In the United States liberals often combine a devotion to personal liberty with an antipathy to capitalism, while the liberalism of Australia tends to be much more sympathetic to capitalism but often less enthusiastic about civil liberties. To understand this diversity in political traditions, we need to examine liberalism as a political theory and as a general philosophy."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
There are different sects and interpretations of every Political party everwhere.

____

(Original post by Rusty33)
Now that we've established the intended meaning of the word "liberal"...
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (261)
26.69%
No (717)
73.31%

Watched Threads

View All