Smack my kids up?Follow

It seems it was effective in teaching him that using violence against children is a positive thing.

I strugglefail completely to see how that can be seen as a good thing.

Also, you should listen to this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV8Sw7hBBrA. Pay attention to the lyrics.

Sorry, still just a little uncertain of the exact meaning. A smack to me could be a single swat to the bottom or maybe a slap across the face. A spanking would be multiple strikes, usually involving an instrument (like a belt or paddle).

Ive never been in a fight in my entire life.

I really need to illustrate why Violence = Bad? Are you serious??

How about you illustrate where Violence = Good.

I didn't make the claim it was good. You, however, asserted it was bad as if there was some universal code stating such that we should all recognize and adhere to. The burden of proof is on you.

I can tell you a few positive qualities off the top of my head though. Violence is what has built nearly every great dynasty, religion and empire in history, and it's an incredibly effective problem solver. These are all facts, purely objective. Can you give me an equal amount of facts supporting your case?

Also, violence and love aren't mutually exclusive. You should try BDSM sometime.

Edited, Aug 4th 2009 10:48pm by watew

I assume that you mean that you don't see yourself enjoying using physical discipline towards children??

If its not easy, and you dont see yourself enjoying it, then why do it?

Do you believe that a child has an ability in its early years to understand why the very people who are supposed to be loving the child, are the very ones who are causing the child physical pain? And if you could see how that may be confusing to a child, can you also see how that child may begin to develop some pretty confused perceptions as to what is normal or not in its relationships with other people?

Famous people who were abused in a repetitive and systematic way as children:

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Ceaucescu.

And it is my belief that children who are physically abused as children lose the ability to feel guilt when it becomes their turn to be the abuser. They are unable to see the abuse as anything other than "for the victims own good", because thats what they were repeatedly told when they were on the receiving end.


Your facts seem to support the case that violence propagates violence, leading to subjugation of the non-violent. I cannot see that as a 'positive.


You're confusing consenting adults with children.

An easy mistake to make, if you're not very good at thinking, I suppose.

I'm going to have to disagree with that. I think there is a big difference between swatting your child's *ss once with the flat of your hand and wailing on them with a belt.

I'm pretty sure the child would be able to tell the difference.

I would agree that corporal punishment is way overused and probably one of the least efficient methods of parenting available. But at the same time I do think it has it's time and place and could not support an unconditional and outright ban.

Hitler was abused as a child, thus he committed genocide. Cool logical fallacy.



You've yet to prove that it's bad.

I think you're wrong.

A child is ignorant of the ways of the world. It needs adults to take them seriously, to love them, teach them and to orientate them in the world.

A child doesn't differentiate between degrees of physical punishment. they are aware only that they have been punished. That is the point. If we as parents, allow our anger (for that is what it is) to lead to physical discipline, we are teaching our kids that violence is an acceptable behaviour, that violence is a manifestation of love and therefore violence is 'good'.

If that is what we as a society find to be an acceptable outcome, then no wonder there are 'so many little twats running around', as KTurner said.....

I never had a problem distinguishing. We're not talking about 3 year olds necessarily, I would agree with you there.