|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2013 17:46:29 GMT -5
It also suggests to me that RAM really has no idea of the enormity of the impact child sexual abuse has on victims. In my post above can you point out one reference to CSA? Perhaps you are extracting something from my post which isn't there? Is not the gist of my post "child physical chastisement?" If you consider CSA to be a form of child physical chastisement then I can understand your off base interpretations. You already know my feelings about CSA. Sorry Ram, I may have misinterpreted your humour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 17:48:57 GMT -5
In my post above can you point out one reference to CSA? Perhaps you are extracting something from my post which isn't there? Is not the gist of my post "child physical chastisement?" If you consider CSA to be a form of child physical chastisement then I can understand your off base interpretations. You already know my feelings about CSA. Sorry Ram, I may have misinterpreted your humour. That's okay fixit. Let it happen again. I like our little spats! We will make you a highly efficient CSA investigator of you yet!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 1, 2013 18:21:20 GMT -5
I'm not in favor of chronic, corporeal punishment. I'm dealing with the attitudes people take about discipline in general. Some people think the word "punishment" needs to be excised from the dictionary of parents and replaced with the word "consequences". I think this is double speak and depending on the occasion and child, it might be better to present and/or administer a consequence as a punishment. Regardless of dictionary changes you think people are trying to make, the disciplining of children does not have to include inflicting pain on them. We have centuries of proof that it is counter productive in which there has been a false belief that behaviour modification through violent means is virtuous. As soon as you teach children that violence is the means to getting your way, then they are taught that it is ok to practice in adult life too. I don't think a couple of swats to the butt constitutes violence. One has to wonder why it is ok to hit your child when he spills his milk but it is not ok to go next door and hit your neighbour because his dog messed up your lawn. Probably better to talk about being more careful, or just laugh about another random-seeming event. Do you realize that if children were born full size that you would never consider hitting them to discipline them? So you only hit them because you are big and they are little. If it was a fair fight, you would not do it. Reasonably parents do not conceive or exercise corporeal punishment in terms of fighting. Why not say it plainly? You think kids need to be hit sometimes so that they will see things your way. No. I think kids benefit from short, sharp spankings sometimes to arrest their bodies and minds from the tyannies of various follies. Do those reality checks really have to be done by violent means? You are teaching your child that resolving problems through violence is an acceptable methodology. By a short, sharp spanking administered in the interest of the child? If that's your definition of violence I don't agree at all. That sounds stupid on the part of that parent. It was worse than just stupid, it was sick. My wife and I never socialized with them again, we were both sickened and that was before we even had kids. Yet the only difference between them and other pain administrators is a matter of degrees. Pain is pain. They sound like wierdos but I don't completely agree with your conclusion. In the world as we know it, pain has a unique ability to make a point; admittedly the point is usually more negative than positive. One good rule in child rearing is this: don't do anything to your child that is illegal to do to your dog. I've never hit my dog. But my friend warned me once that if my nippy-with-children-on-occasion-collie ever bit her two-year-old she would literally bite my dog on her nose and establish herself as alpha-animal. I suspect her child would never be at risk of being bit again.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 1, 2013 18:26:10 GMT -5
And you, lee, as punishment for your attitude, you need to go stand in the corner & read what pediatric physicians have to say about how "spanking" affects a child.
Then go to the blackboard & write one-hundred times, "I will never spank a child again!" Why do you fault my attitude? I think it is perfectly acceptable to give up to two sharp swats to a six-and-under, child's tush with the hand to get their attention and say "No" with visceral impress. Well here is your post about 'attitude':"I'm not in favor of chronic, corporeal punishment. I'm dealing with the attitudes people take about discipline in general. Some people think the word "punishment" needs to be excised from the dictionary of parents and replaced with the word "consequences". I think this is double speak and depending on the occasion and child, it might be better to present and/or administer a consequence as a punishment." since you posted it wasn't that your 'attitude' also? excuse me, did you read the article by American Academy of Pediatrics while you were standing in the corner or did you just stand there & sulk?Here it is a second time if you missed the first. Spanking Linked to Mental Illness7/2/2012
The use of physical punishment to discipline children has been linked to a range of mental health problems and is strongly opposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. However, in surveys a significant number of American parents report spanking or slapping their children. The study, “Physical Punishment and Mental Disorders: Results From a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample,” in the August 2012 Pediatrics (published online July 2), examined whether harsh physical punishment, such as pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping or hitting, is linked to mental disorders even in the absence of more severe child maltreatment (i.e., physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, or exposure to intimate partner violence).
Researchers in Canada examined data from a U.S. epidemiologic survey from 2004 to 2005. Harsh physical punishment was associated with increased odds of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and several personality disorders.
Researchers found 2 percent to 7 percent of mental disorders were attributable to physical punishment. Study authors conclude pediatricians and other health care providers who work with children and parents should be aware of the link between physical punishment and mental disorders.
From a public health perspective, study authors conclude reducing physical punishment may help decrease the prevalence of mental disorders in the general population. - See more at: www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/Spanking-Linked-to-Mental-Illness.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token#sthash.3pT7X9a9.dpuf
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 1, 2013 19:01:41 GMT -5
Pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping or hitting carries all the connations and reality of harsh physical treatment whereas two sharp, swats to the butt does not. Some smetchberts do not know this.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 1, 2013 19:21:38 GMT -5
Theologically, it is the erroneous presentation of the Gospel that exacerbates, imbecile parents of the arguably, God-forsaken "Truth". The sect has no capacity for considering the evolving set of truths that came to comprise Christianity. It isn't the case that one must "save" oneself by answering to workers or anyone else. One is saved according to the completed revelation from God which overturned the Pharisaical notion and projection that everyone was naturally damned and alienated from God. It's true and it isn't true right down to the last human being according to the bountiful meal of ideas and hopes consummately expressed in Christ.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 1, 2013 19:46:04 GMT -5
fixit, I believe he is only referring to physical abuse on this thread. Also, I believe he joking and being a little factitious. I am quite sure he can be around swing sets and hear the word football without becoming mentally and physically ill. Could be wrong, so I'll let Ram tell me if I'm off base here. Actually Snow, my post was not about Child Physical abuse, but directed at Child Physical Chastisement. The former is illegal. The latter is not in most countries (provided it does not enter the legally defined domain of abuse). The first half of my post, I was being serious. However, as you rightly interpreted, the second part I was being a little facetious; well perhaps a bit more than that, along with my usual tongue in cheek mischief. Liked your humor. Now -- somewhere along the line children have to be allowed to make mistakes. No one is perfect, but the most effective lessons we learn are from our own mistakes. That is, unless you have parents who will try to find someone else to take the blame for the consequences. When I was growing up, my parents never punished me for any problem I had with ant teacher -- and neither did that go to anyone to have me excused for anything I had done. I was quite prepared to take responsibility for everything I did by the time I finished school.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 1, 2013 19:49:09 GMT -5
And you, lee, as punishment for your attitude, you need to go stand in the corner & read what pediatric physicians have to say about how "spanking" affects a child.
Then go to the blackboard & write one-hundred times, "I will never spank a child again!" Why do you fault my attitude? I think it is perfectly acceptable to give up to two sharp swats to a six-and-under, child's tush with the hand to get their attention and say "No" with visceral impress. Of course. That's why it's acceptable to give your wife four sharp swats when she doesn't pay attention.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 1, 2013 19:54:39 GMT -5
I don't think a couple of swats to the butt constitutes violence. Legally, it is both assault and battery. In some places violence against children is still an acceptable exception -- unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 1, 2013 19:59:27 GMT -5
Pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping or hitting carries all the connations and reality of harsh physical treatment whereas two sharp, swats to the butt does not. Some smetchberts do not know this. Two swats to the butt is two hits. How to you get a kid to hit his butt if you don't grab him first. I know a man who had a switch, and he didn't need to grab his kids before he hit them. They got to choose their punishment. No one wanted to sit near him at convention because they weren't sure he was all that skilled in aiming the switch.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 1, 2013 20:30:49 GMT -5
PUNISHMENT is not CORRECTION -- of the child. Punishment is correction of the appearance -- not an educating in the basics of responsible social behavior. For the parent, punishment takes much less time and achieves more impressive results -- probably giving the parents an appearance of more effective parenting. Effective correction is NOT for lazy parents. Slapping kids' fingers for messing up the coffee table is insane -- keep the trash out of the baby's reach. People are smart enough to fence cows away from freeway traffic, yet they expect babies to have an appreciation for adult style tidiness. Why do you fault my attitude? I think it is perfectly acceptable to give up to two sharp swats to a six-and-under, child's tush with the hand to get their attention and say "No" with visceral impress. Of course. That's why it's acceptable to give your wife four sharp swats when she doesn't pay attention. Yes!- bob, but of course you know whatever one hits their wife with has to be no larger than their thumb!
You know, the "rule of thumb"!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 1, 2013 20:45:26 GMT -5
Pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping or hitting carries all the connations and reality of harsh physical treatment whereas two sharp, swats to the butt does not. Some smetchberts do not know this. Pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping or hitting carries all the connations and reality of harsh physical treatment whereas two sharp, swats to the butt does not. Some smetchberts do not know this. Who are "smetchberts?" some new phrase you invented or just a misspelled word?
Well, anyway, you still haven't read the article by the American Academy of Pediatrics have you?So,it is you who is the more expert than the American Academy of Pediatrics on what constitutes "harsh physical treatment?"
What medical school did you get your medical degree in Pediatrics?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 21:32:45 GMT -5
I don't think a couple of swats to the butt constitutes violence. Legally, it is both assault and battery.In some places violence against children is still an acceptable exception -- unfortunately. I don't know about the US, but over here parental physical chastisement of a child is an exception to the laws of assault. However, as stated previously this must not be excessive or fall into the domain of physical abuse. That said, it is very much a socially unacceptable practice nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2013 21:37:44 GMT -5
Never said anything about it being genetic. It is as Ram puts it, the way they're wired. Has nothing to do with God. Seems to me that we're dealing with a larger issue than sexual attraction. From what I've read on WINGS, pedophiles aren't necessary sexually attracted to children. They're attracted to the control that they can have over another - children are simply the easiest targets. Am I off-bat on this, somehow? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 1, 2013 21:41:45 GMT -5
Legally, it is both assault and battery.In some places violence against children is still an acceptable exception -- unfortunately. I don't know about the US, but over here parental physical chastisement of a child is an exception to the laws of assault. However, as stated previously this must not be excessive or fall into the domain of physical abuse. That said, it is very much a socially unacceptable practice nowadays. In the US the law can vary from state to state. In Nevada the law is quite permissive with corporal punishment of children.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 1, 2013 22:10:36 GMT -5
fixit, I believe he is only referring to physical abuse on this thread. Also, I believe he joking and being a little factitious. I am quite sure he can be around swing sets and hear the word football without becoming mentally and physically ill. Could be wrong, so I'll let Ram tell me if I'm off base here. Actually Snow, my post was not about Child Physical abuse, but directed at Child Physical Chastisement. The former is illegal. The latter is not in most countries (provided it does not enter the legally defined domain of abuse). The first half of my post, I was being serious. However, as you rightly interpreted, the second part I was being a little facetious; well perhaps a bit more than that, along with my usual tongue in cheek mischief. Yes, I realize the first part was but the numbered portion just struck me as you being 'mischievous'. If you weren't you really are messed up. Imagine not being able to be around a swing set....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 3:28:02 GMT -5
Actually Snow, my post was not about Child Physical abuse, but directed at Child Physical Chastisement. The former is illegal. The latter is not in most countries (provided it does not enter the legally defined domain of abuse). The first half of my post, I was being serious. However, as you rightly interpreted, the second part I was being a little facetious; well perhaps a bit more than that, along with my usual tongue in cheek mischief. Yes, I realize the first part was but the numbered portion just struck me as you being 'mischievous'. If you weren't you really are messed up. Imagine not being able to be around a swing set.... Snow, me being "mischievous" is not an alternative to being "messed up." Both conditions are "synonymous!" People talk about the "swinging sixties." Well you see what they did for me!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 3:34:42 GMT -5
I don't know about the US, but over here parental physical chastisement of a child is an exception to the laws of assault. However, as stated previously this must not be excessive or fall into the domain of physical abuse. That said, it is very much a socially unacceptable practice nowadays. In the US the law can vary from state to state. In Nevada the law is quite permissive with corporal punishment of children. This is a problem Bob when we try to cross international or state lines in seeking common understandings and approach. Sometimes laws are introduced more on political grounds than what's best for the problem and we end up creating new problems. I say this in general terms, not specifically in regard to child physical chastisement.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 2, 2013 7:03:25 GMT -5
Why do you fault my attitude? I think it is perfectly acceptable to give up to two sharp swats to a six-and-under, child's tush with the hand to get their attention and say "No" with visceral impress. Of course. That's why it's acceptable to give your wife four sharp swats when she doesn't pay attention. Most people don't marry their children.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 2, 2013 7:05:04 GMT -5
I don't think a couple of swats to the butt constitutes violence. Legally, it is both assault and battery. That's too bad. In some places violence against children is still an acceptable exception -- unfortunately. Two swats to the butt isn't violence.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 2, 2013 7:07:08 GMT -5
Pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping or hitting carries all the connations and reality of harsh physical treatment whereas two sharp, swats to the butt does not. Some smetchberts do not know this. Two swats to the butt is two hits. How to you get a kid to hit his butt if you don't grab him first. I know a man who had a switch, and he didn't need to grab his kids before he hit them. They got to choose their punishment. No one wanted to sit near him at convention because they weren't sure he was all that skilled in aiming the switch. Uncoordination is a separate issue.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 2, 2013 7:09:15 GMT -5
Of course. That's why it's acceptable to give your wife four sharp swats when she doesn't pay attention. Yes!- bob, but of course you know whatever one hits their wife with has to be no larger than their thumb!
You know, the "rule of thumb"!And it use to be acceptable to have slaves (although it still is as people worship the purchasing power of their money and can rationalize paying someone two-dollars-an-hour.) Stop thinking you're being made holy apart from the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 2, 2013 7:13:40 GMT -5
Pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping or hitting carries all the connotations and reality of harsh physical treatment whereas two sharp, swats to the butt does not. Some smetchberts do not know this. Who are "smetchberts?" some new phrase you invented or just a misspelled word?
Well, anyway, you still haven't read the article by the American Academy of Pediatrics have you?So,it is you who is the more expert than the American Academy of Pediatrics on what constitutes "harsh physical treatment?"
What medical school did you get your medical degree in Pediatrics?The prevalence of medical-malpractice lawsuits suggests the erudite do error.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 7:41:43 GMT -5
Actually Snow, my post was not about Child Physical abuse, but directed at Child Physical Chastisement. The former is illegal. The latter is not in most countries (provided it does not enter the legally defined domain of abuse). The first half of my post, I was being serious. However, as you rightly interpreted, the second part I was being a little facetious; well perhaps a bit more than that, along with my usual tongue in cheek mischief. Liked your humor. Now -- somewhere along the line children have to be allowed to make mistakes. No one is perfect, but the most effective lessons we learn are from our own mistakes. That is, unless you have parents who will try to find someone else to take the blame for the consequences. When I was growing up, my parents never punished me for any problem I had with ant teacher -- and neither did that go to anyone to have me excused for anything I had done. I was quite prepared to take responsibility for everything I did by the time I finished school. For young children, when they make a mistake it is the fault of the parents for their failure in supervision, training and teaching. If anyone should get the swats on the butt, it is the parents. Oh wait, that can't happen because it is criminal to swat an adult on the butt. There is something really mixed up about society when it is illegal to hit an errant adult but legal to hit a child for any reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 8:00:37 GMT -5
Liked your humor. Now -- somewhere along the line children have to be allowed to make mistakes. No one is perfect, but the most effective lessons we learn are from our own mistakes. That is, unless you have parents who will try to find someone else to take the blame for the consequences. When I was growing up, my parents never punished me for any problem I had with ant teacher -- and neither did that go to anyone to have me excused for anything I had done. I was quite prepared to take responsibility for everything I did by the time I finished school. For young children, when they make a mistake it is the fault of the parents for their failure in supervision, training and teaching. If anyone should get the swats on the butt, it is the parents. Oh wait, that can't happen because it is criminal to swat an adult on the butt. There is something really mixed up about society when it is illegal to hit an errant adult but legal to hit a child for any reason.Not quite CD. If I walk up to a two year old child and give it a light smack "for any reason," I would be guilty of assault. The exceptions over here are Parent/child and formerly teacher/pupil, for the purposes of correction. The chastisement should be non-injurious otherwise it would also be an offence. Any complaint would be investigated with this in mind. "Any reason" would likely constitute a criminal offence. How often do I have to point out "context!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 8:10:40 GMT -5
For young children, when they make a mistake it is the fault of the parents for their failure in supervision, training and teaching. If anyone should get the swats on the butt, it is the parents. Oh wait, that can't happen because it is criminal to swat an adult on the butt. There is something really mixed up about society when it is illegal to hit an errant adult but legal to hit a child for any reason.Not quite CD. If I walk up to a two year old child and give it a light smack "for any reason," I would be guilty of assault. The exceptions over here are Parent/child and formerly teacher/pupil, for the purposes of correction. The chastisement should be non-injurious otherwise it would also be an offence. Any complaint would be investigated with this in mind. "Any reason" would likely constitute a criminal offence. How often do I have to point out "context!" Ask yourself why it is illegal for you to smack a two year old for a good reason but right for a parent to smack a two year old for any reason. Really sit back and ponder this because you will never come up with a good reason no matter what the "context". I would also have to ask: what hitting is not injurious? Or is that subject to "context"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 8:40:47 GMT -5
Not quite CD. If I walk up to a two year old child and give it a light smack "for any reason," I would be guilty of assault. The exceptions over here are Parent/child and formerly teacher/pupil, for the purposes of correction. The chastisement should be non-injurious otherwise it would also be an offence. Any complaint would be investigated with this in mind. "Any reason" would likely constitute a criminal offence. How often do I have to point out "context!" Ask yourself why it is illegal for you to smack a two year old for a good reason but right for a parent to smack a two year old for any reason. Really sit back and ponder this because you will never come up with a good reason no matter what the "context". Let's go back to base 1. Firstly, this is not about me or my opinion. It is about what is! Basically it is assault to put your hand on any person of any age against their will. Provision is made in law (exceptions) for the correction of children by parents and guardians and teachers (with pupils) where these categories of people find it necessary. There must be a justifiable reason for the physical correction. That is the legal context. FWIW there are many schools of thought out there that agree that physical chastisement of a child within the constraints of the law is often necessary and even beneficial. Education Depts have banned their teaching staff from exercising physical chastisement on pupils, most usually slapping on the leg with a ruler (younger children) or using a leather tawse for giving straps on the hands of older pupils. I recall much controversy raised when a boy had two fingers broken by an over-zealous teacher. That and other excessive examples led primarily to the ban by the Education Depts.
Good reason or bad reason is quite simply a matter of opinion. That IS the context. You will find arguments for and against. I have sat back and pondered the whole issue. I do not like the idea of physically chastising children even within the constraints of the law, but I do not hold to the belief that the practice may not be necessary on occasions. Again there are arguments for and against. I agree with a social unacceptable approach which puts a form of constraint on parents.
Again you are not grasping the nettle. Parents are NOT allowed to physically chastise a child for "any reason." You are missing the point. The exemption from law is to allow "correction" of the child for when it is being bad or for his or her own safety. It is for positive reasons and is confined to parents or guardians.
If you came across a parent even lightly smacking their child, but they were not doing it for a justifiable reason, then they would be committing assault.
I would also have to ask: what hitting is not injurious? Or is that subject to "context"? Yes it is. Have you forgotten about the document I provided the other day which explained what child physical abuse is?
Hopefully the context penny will drop soon?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 8:53:19 GMT -5
Ask yourself why it is illegal for you to smack a two year old for a good reason but right for a parent to smack a two year old for any reason. Really sit back and ponder this because you will never come up with a good reason no matter what the "context". Let's go back to base 1. Firstly, this is not about me or my opinion. It is about what is! Basically it is assault to put your hand on any person of any age against their will. Provision is made in law (exceptions) for the correction of children by parents and guardians and teachers (with pupils) where these categories of people find it necessary. There must be a justifiable reason for the physical correction. That is the legal context. FWIW there are many schools of thought out there that agree that physical chastisement of a child within the constraints of the law is often necessary and even beneficial. Education Depts have banned their teaching staff from exercising physical chastisement on pupils, most usually slapping on the leg with a ruler (younger children) or using a leather tawse for giving straps on the hands of older pupils. I recall much controversy raised when a boy had two fingers broken by an over-zealous teacher. That and other excessive examples led primarily to the ban by the Education Depts.
Good reason or bad reason is quite simply a matter of opinion. That IS the context. You will find arguments for and against. I have sat back and pondered the whole issue. I do not like the idea of physically chastising children even within the constraints of the law, but I do not hold to the belief that the practice may not be necessary on occasions. Again there are arguments for and against. I agree with a social unacceptable approach which puts a form of constraint on parents.
Again you are not grasping the nettle. Parents are NOT allowed to physically chastise a child for "any reason." You are missing the point. The exemption from law is to allow "correction" of the child for when it is being bad or for his or her own safety. It is for positive reasons and is confined to parents or guardians.
If you came across a parent even lightly smacking their child, but they were not doing it for a justifiable reason, then they would be committing assault.
I would also have to ask: what hitting is not injurious? Or is that subject to "context"? I wasn't referring to what the law states. I am referring to how nutty the law is. Just because it is legal to hit a child doesn't mean it is right. And let's not kid each other: all parents who smack their kids do it for correction.....or so they say. The point is simple: there is no moral justification for hitting children for any disciplinary reason. It cannot be justified. The law will catch up to this and in our country it is almost there. The bill passed by all houses prohibiting it but died when a election was called will come back.....and when it does it won't be too soon, much to the chagrin of the swatters. I could be wrong, but I thought you have been spending much of the last week repeatedly trying to convince us about how important it is to focus on ALL abuse. Now when you examine a particular abuse, you only want to talk about physical abuse. You really need to ask yourself why it is abusive to smack a 2 year old in a "non-injurious" way when you are a non-parent, but it is legally not abusive for a parent to do. Deep down you know the reason: it is abuse either way.
|
|