The smacking debate

[EternalOptimist]

You're referring to an intervention to stop the child from bringing harm to itself. In that scenario, using force to prevent it from doing so is perfectly justifiable. That's the basis I am differentiating on.

What about seat belts ?

an intervention designed to statistically reduce harm in a population. i.e. not designed to protect YOU from an accident.


smoking bans
passive smoking
crash helmets
alcohol laws

etc

[mudskipper]

You're referring to an intervention to stop the child from bringing harm to itself. In that scenario, using force to prevent it from doing so is perfectly justifiable. That's the basis I am differentiating on.

I can prevent him putting the screwdriver in the socket without smacking him though. The smack is the signal that "mummy is very cross" - the 'shock' to reinforce the message that you must not stick screwdrivers in sockets, or kittens in microwaves, or ten pound notes down the toilet. The more I use it, the less effective it becomes, but that's my judgement, not the states, isn't it? There are already assault laws to protect children when excessive force is used.

[Zero Liability]

I doubt we're disagreeing about much then.

What about seat belts ?

an intervention designed to statistically reduce harm in a population. i.e. not designed to protect YOU from an accident.


smoking bans
passive smoking
crash helmets
alcohol laws

etc

Is the population made up of toddlers?

[EternalOptimist]

I doubt we're disagreeing about much then.



Is the population made up of toddlers?

eh ??

toddlers can be A population


not too smart are we ?

[suityou01]

I tried saying no to my daughter once.

[Zero Liability]

eh ??

toddlers can be A population


not too smart are we ?

I'm aware it can be, that is why I was asking, to clarify.

[EternalOptimist]

I'm aware it can be, that is why I was asking, to clarify.

seat belts do not prevent A accident. they prevent accidents in a population

smacking does not prevent A screwdriver in A socket


i.e. If I say 'STOP' , you had better darn well stop

[SpontaneousOrder]

A smack on the hand of a 3 year old poking a screwdriver into a plug socket is arguably more effective in preventing the child's death than saying "That behaviour is inappropriate, sweetie".

So you prefer to abuse your child rather than taking responsibility and keeping him away from open sockets and tools? Wow.

[barrydidit]

I can prevent him putting the screwdriver in the socket without smacking him though. The smack is the signal that "mummy is very cross" - the 'shock' to reinforce the message that you must not stick screwdrivers in sockets, or kittens in microwaves, or ten pound notes down the toilet. The more I use it, the less effective it becomes, but that's my judgement, not the states, isn't it? There are already assault laws to protect children when excessive force is used.

^this. And only this. In 6 years i've never had to resort to it but I wouldn't hesitate, should it be needed. So far i've negotiated most situations but I won't have any **** try and tell me that it's inappropriate in all circumstances.

Besides which, any complaint could only be made retrospectively, in which case the beneficial outcome of the actions should be easy to demonstrate...

[SpontaneousOrder]

That would only be the case if your initial statement was accepted. As it obviously wasn't, your guess is a bit silly. However, the use of the word "retard" to indicate a stupid person is incredibly offensive to those who have, for example, children with learning difficulties and you should hang your head in shame for upsetting your parents like that.

Taking offence is entirely voluntary. The word means a particular thing, and if you want to feel like a victim then that's up to you. Your differentiation between the usage of the words retard and stupid is entirely arbitrary - if you're equating the two (which you must be by saying that I use the word retarded to refer to a stupid person) then how does the degree to which one is afflicted determine their right to take offence?

If, in the other hand, you equate the term with "less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age."[the dictionary] then I'm not sure what your problem is? I'm quite clearly suggesting that to need to resort to violence one must be in a position to be outwitted by their child.

You see that guy ringed? That's not you two. You're they guys with your hands in the air, after Von Ribbentrop said "Simon says put your hand in the air".
Foolish children.

Projection much?