Smacking Your Children is Good For Them

[Shermanea]

Because it prevents them fro committing suicide, going into prostitution or catching sexually transmitted diseases:

The anti-smacking law is to blame for youth suicide, youth prostitution and even sexually-transmitted infections, a leading Conservative party candidate claims.

Edward Saafi, who is fifth on the Conservative list and would be elected if they break the 5 per cent threshold, has delivered the striking message during recent speeches at Tongan churches, Fairfax has learned.

"We are starting to recognise the incidence of suicide going up in Pacific communities, especially the Tongan community and people are starting to understand the lead-on from this legislation.

"Once you pass it, children, rather than doing what mum and dad says, they go and commit suicide. It opens up another thing they could do," Saafi, who holds a doctorate in biomedicine, said.

Asked if he thought there was a direct link between the anti-smacking bill and youth suicide, Saafi said: "It's just common sense, really. It's our way of thinking parents have a role to look after their kids, including disciplining them. If the law tells the child that mum and dad can't discipline you any more, they will do whatever they want, including these other alternatives like suicide. It's quite appalling."

God approved!

So basically this is a candidate for the New Zealand Conservative Party says that smacking your children will prevent them from doing all sorts of terrible things. And whilst I do not agree with this man in particular, I do think that the anti-smacking law, which was passed in Labour's last term in 2007 and was the subject of a controversial referendum in 2009, had the best intentions but did not actively seek to reduce the horrific amount of domestic abuse this country suffers.

So the question to you NSG is not whether or not this man is correct (I used him merely to make Americans feel better about themselves) but whether or not the anti-smacking bill is an effective piece of legislation and whether or not it should remain as law. Because the way I see it, nothing has changed before or since the bill was introduced.

Shermanea will not tolerate this fascist grown-up regime!

[Digital Planets]

Because it prevents them fro committing suicide, going into prostitution or catching sexually transmitted diseases:

The anti-smacking law is to blame for youth suicide, youth prostitution and even sexually-transmitted infections, a leading Conservative party candidate claims.

Edward Saafi, who is fifth on the Conservative list and would be elected if they break the 5 per cent threshold, has delivered the striking message during recent speeches at Tongan churches, Fairfax has learned.

"We are starting to recognise the incidence of suicide going up in Pacific communities, especially the Tongan community and people are starting to understand the lead-on from this legislation.

"Once you pass it, children, rather than doing what mum and dad says, they go and commit suicide. It opens up another thing they could do," Saafi, who holds a doctorate in biomedicine, said.

Asked if he thought there was a direct link between the anti-smacking bill and youth suicide, Saafi said: "It's just common sense, really. It's our way of thinking parents have a role to look after their kids, including disciplining them. If the law tells the child that mum and dad can't discipline you any more, they will do whatever they want, including these other alternatives like suicide. It's quite appalling."

God approved!

So basically this is a candidate for the New Zealand Conservative Party says that smacking your children will prevent them from doing all sorts of terrible things. And whilst I do not agree with this man in particular, I do think that the anti-smacking law, which was passed in Labour's last term in 2007 and was the subject of a controversial referendum in 2009, had the best intentions but did not actively seek to reduce the horrific amount of domestic abuse this country suffers.

So the question to you NSG is not whether or not this man is correct (I used him merely to make Americans feel better about themselves) but whether or not the anti-smacking bill is an effective piece of legislation and whether or not it should remain as law. Because the way I see it, nothing has changed before or since the bill was introduced.

Shermanea will not tolerate this fascist grown-up regime!

Can't tell if RPing, or referring to their person...

[Camelza]

-snip-

Sorry, NSG is OOC: out-of-character.

[Ashmoria]

well an unruly toddler is a feature of the age. parents think that spanking makes them more well behaved but all that really happens is that they grow up a bit and behave better because they are more mature.

I wasn't talking about toddlers though and I've explained in another post in this thread that patience is one of the main aspects of good parenting.

patience, knowledge and consistency will get you through most of the travails of parenting.

[Camelza]

I wasn't talking about toddlers though and I've explained in another post in this thread that patience is one of the main aspects of good parenting.

patience, knowledge and consistency will get you through most of the travails of parenting.

Aye! They should teach that kind of parenting in schools.

[Arcturus Novus]

This is almost as ridiculous as the "links" between vaccines and autism.

[SaintB]

This is almost as ridiculous as the "links" between vaccines and autism.

The 'links' between vaccines and autism, the evilness of GMO crops, the flat earth theory, its good to smack children, and a million other things people believe because they ignore the scientific data and go with their gut feeling no matter how often they are proven wrong.

[Digital Planets]

This is almost as ridiculous as the "links" between vaccines and autism.

The 'links' between vaccines and autism, the evilness of GMO crops, the flat earth theory, its good to smack children, and a million other things people believe because they ignore the scientific data and go with their gut feeling no matter how often they are proven wrong.

Or it could be an Illuminati front.

The Illuminati still exists, right? I mean, praise our reptilian overlords?

[Qanchia]

The 'links' between vaccines and autism, the evilness of GMO crops, the flat earth theory, its good to smack children, and a million other things people believe because they ignore the scientific data and go with their gut feeling no matter how often they are proven wrong.

Or it could be an Illuminati front.

The Illuminati still exists, right? I mean, praise our reptilian overlords?

Towards a Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory?

[Infected Mushroom]

Smacking your children is Battery. So yes it should be outlawed.

I never understood the common law's historical exception for allowing it for the purpose of disciplining children.

Smacking children = Battery

[Cyrisnia]

Why can't we just smack everyone?
Limitless weapon laws.

[Mundiferrum]

Smacking your children is Battery. So yes it should be outlawed.

I never understood the common law's historical exception for allowing it for the purpose of disciplining children.

Smacking children = Battery

Because back then, children weren't wimps? xD

Back then, at least from what I understand of it (and by back then, I'm hearkening to the Middle Ages here), kids really didn't have many privileges to remove. Grounding them wouldn't have done anything, since, in the case of peasants, they would've been needed in the fields anyway, and in the case of nobility, that's what they would've been doing for most of the day anyway, hence, such a removal of privileges would've done nothing, or would've been absolutely harmful. Smacking really would've been the only punishment for unruly kids, period. And since then, and perhaps even before that, the punishment just stuck.

But then came all these things called "healthcare" and "rights". Nowadays, kids seem to have a lot more stuff to play around with, and their priorities and values seem to have changed; if back then, simply living would've been seen as a mere privilege from God, nowadays, living healthily is a bloody right, and harming a kid wouldn't be seen by the kid as a fair punishment, but as an injustice. Smacking your children today really doesn't work anymore not because it does any lasting harm to children in general, but because it does lasting harm to the children of today.

Not saying that smacking your kid should be done, or that all this progress is bad, though; I'm just saying, the whole practice isn't immoral in and of itself. The idea behind the practice of smacking yer kids is right, but because of progress, its usefulness has been superseded (well, at least for the social groups which do have them alternatives).

[Benuty]

This is one massive slippery slope.

[Ashmoria]

The 'links' between vaccines and autism, the evilness of GMO crops, the flat earth theory, its good to smack children, and a million other things people believe because they ignore the scientific data and go with their gut feeling no matter how often they are proven wrong.

Or it could be an Illuminati front.

The Illuminati still exists, right? I mean, praise our reptilian overlords?

*glares*

reptilian is racist! the PC term is REPTILOID.

[Mundiferrum]

This is one massive slippery slope.

What is? My argument, or this whole thread?

[Infected Mushroom]

Smacking your children is Battery. So yes it should be outlawed.

I never understood the common law's historical exception for allowing it for the purpose of disciplining children.

Smacking children = Battery

Because back then, children weren't wimps? xD

Back then, at least from what I understand of it (and by back then, I'm hearkening to the Middle Ages here), kids really didn't have many privileges to remove. Grounding them wouldn't have done anything, since, in the case of peasants, they would've been needed in the fields anyway, and in the case of nobility, that's what they would've been doing for most of the day anyway, hence, such a removal of privileges would've done nothing, or would've been absolutely harmful. Smacking really would've been the only punishment for unruly kids, period. And since then, and perhaps even before that, the punishment just stuck.

But then came all these things called "healthcare" and "rights". Nowadays, kids seem to have a lot more stuff to play around with, and their priorities and values seem to have changed; if back then, simply living would've been seen as a mere privilege from God, nowadays, living healthily is a bloody right, and harming a kid wouldn't be seen by the kid as a fair punishment, but as an injustice. Smacking your children today really doesn't work anymore not because it does any lasting harm to children in general, but because it does lasting harm to the children of today.

Not saying that smacking your kid should be done, or that all this progress is bad, though; I'm just saying, the whole practice isn't immoral in and of itself. The idea behind the practice of smacking yer kids is right, but because of progress, its usefulness has been superseded (well, at least for the social groups which do have them alternatives).

i see...

this is a very interesting hypothesis.

Still, I don't like the practice. I don't like the imagery it invokes. It makes me uncomfortable.

[Eric Lauder]

Violence is always the last resort: a good parent knows how to punish the son without physical violence.
But the fact that violence is the last and most extreme resource does not mean that must be forbidden tout court: If the State puts his big nose in these things, the cure may be worse than the disease.
Of course I am talking about normal situations, and not brutality, which must be always to strongly condemned.
Personally I have two kids, and I've never had the need to give them a slap in the face to keep them in their place: raise the tone of voice is more than sufficient, and if not enough, there's always the TV block, the seizure of the video game, and so on.
Patience is good but must be used very carefully because often it can be an error: parents are parents, not friends or brothers. Roles are important.

[Infected Mushroom]

Violence is always the last resort: a good parent knows how to punish the son without physical violence.
But the fact that violence is the last and most extreme resource does not mean that must be forbidden tout court: If the State puts his big nose in these things, the cure may be worse than the disease.
Of course I am talking about normal situations, and not brutality, which must be always to strongly condemned.
Personally I have two kids, and I've never had the need to give they a slap in the face to keep them in their place: raise the tone of voice is more than sufficient, and if not enough, there's always the TV block, the seizure of the video game, and so on.
Patience is good but must be used very carefully because often it can be an error: parents are parents, not friends or brothers. Roles are important.

really?

I actually think we should have Child Protection Squads. Remember the NSG issue where that happens if you click the option to ban smacking?

I actually think the state should be more involved. Children must be protected. Sometimes the parents abuse children.

[Eric Lauder]

really?

I actually think we should have Child Protection Squads. Remember the NSG issue where that happens if you click the option to ban smacking?

I actually think the state should be more involved. Children must be protected. Sometimes the parents abuse children.

Yes, really.
I writed: I'm talking about NORMAL situations, and not brutality or abuses.
Mobilizing a Child Protection Squad for a slap is IMHO exactly the perfect case in which the cure is worse than the disease: the child will be more shocked by the protection squad than by the slap.
The road to hell is paved by good intentions.

[Mundiferrum]

Violence is always the last resort: a good parent knows how to punish the son without physical violence.
But the fact that violence is the last and most extreme resource does not mean that must be forbidden tout court: If the State puts his big nose in these things, the cure may be worse than the disease.
Of course I am talking about normal situations, and not brutality, which must be always to strongly condemned.
Personally I have two kids, and I've never had the need to give they a slap in the face to keep them in their place: raise the tone of voice is more than sufficient, and if not enough, there's always the TV block, the seizure of the video game, and so on.
Patience is good but must be used very carefully because often it can be an error: parents are parents, not friends or brothers. Roles are important.

really?

I actually think we should have Child Protection Squads. Remember the NSG issue where that happens if you click the option to ban smacking?

I actually think the state should be more involved. Children must be protected. Sometimes the parents abuse children.

All parents mess up their kids, one way or another. And yes, some of them go way overboard, but if the state pokes its nose into this issue with what I'm supposing is your idea of CPSs, you're gonna cause way more damage to the kids than by just letting them be. I mean, think about it: if the state has to meddle into the affairs of a family just because the father slapped his daughter on the cheek once, do you think that that would be a good usage of the family or the state's time and money? Or that it would help reinforce the bond between father and daughter positively (in the sense that, for a singular loss of temper, the state shall have to undermine the authority of the parent, and essentially shame him in front of his daughter). The best way to solve these sort of problems is by education (and drugs, hehehe), not by pushing the justice system in.
Of course, I may be misconstruing yer argument. But meh.

On the Mushroom's post: That sort of reinforces my point. Nowadays, we have videogames and tv to block our kids out of; back then, all they had was....literally nothing. Spanking isn't in and of itself bad, it's just outdated.

On an unrelated note: I dunno, I kind of feel uncomfortable that a lot of you seem to be willing to call parents who spank their kids "bad parents" in general, without considering the context. It feels like you're destroying the whole idea of parenthood for a lot of families (mine included; occasionally, I was spanked as a kid, and honestly now I really don't mind).

[Infected Mushroom]

really?

I actually think we should have Child Protection Squads. Remember the NSG issue where that happens if you click the option to ban smacking?

I actually think the state should be more involved. Children must be protected. Sometimes the parents abuse children.

Yes, really.
I writed: I'm talking about NORMAL situations, and not brutality or abuses.
Mobilizing a Child Protection Squad for a slap is IMHO exactly the perfect case in which the cure is worse than the disease: the child will be more shocked by the protection squad than by the slap.
The road to hell is paved by good intentions.

I guess we shall have to disagree. Because in my opinion, even just slapping a child, just that act has already crossed into the realm of child abuse.

You shouldn't wait until the bruises are visible. If the state catches an adult slapping a child around, the state should immediately send in the Protection Squad. No question. Because its battery.

[Mundiferrum]

Yes, really.
I writed: I'm talking about NORMAL situations, and not brutality or abuses.
Mobilizing a Child Protection Squad for a slap is IMHO exactly the perfect case in which the cure is worse than the disease: the child will be more shocked by the protection squad than by the slap.
The road to hell is paved by good intentions.

I guess we shall have to disagree. Because in my opinion, even just slapping a child, just that act has already crossed into the realm of child abuse.

You shouldn't wait until the bruises are visible. If the state catches an adult slapping a child around, the state should immediately send in the Protection Squad. No question. Because its battery.

So if, say, a family has to restrain a, er, mentally challenged kid having a fit by power-hugging him, that would be child abuse? Or if a mother, in a fit of reasonable rage, slapped her young daughter once for, say, killing someone, that would automatically be child abuse? Yes, my examples are a bit overboard, but you're not really giving me much to work with here. Your definition of child abuse seems rather mightily inconsiderate.....

[Aequalitia]

Oh serious, conservative person tells non-logic arguments in the hope to win support with false facts.

In fact, smacking (you own) children is very bad for the child(ren) physical and mentally. Even when you give a 'soft' slap, the child(ren) gets a hard slap mentally.

[Infected Mushroom]

I guess we shall have to disagree. Because in my opinion, even just slapping a child, just that act has already crossed into the realm of child abuse.

You shouldn't wait until the bruises are visible. If the state catches an adult slapping a child around, the state should immediately send in the Protection Squad. No question. Because its battery.

So if, say, a family has to restrain a, er, mentally challenged kid having a fit by power-hugging him, that would be child abuse? Or if a mother, in a fit of reasonable rage, slapped her young daughter once for, say, killing someone, that would be child abuse? Yes, my examples are a bit overboard, but you're not really giving me much to work with here.

i think with the first one, it can be carved out as an exception because of the child's medical condition.

The second one is definitely actionable as battery. After the young daughter goes to prison for the killing, I am fairly certain she should have a claim of Battery against the mother if she chooses to pursue it.

[Mundiferrum]

Oh serious, conservative person tells non-logic arguments in the hope to win support with false facts.

In fact, smacking (you own) children is very bad for the child(ren) physical and mentally. Even when you give a 'soft' slap, the child(ren) gets a hard slap mentally.

I can't tell if you're responding to someone else, my argument concerning the possible (I repeat, possible: I was conjecturing then) historical validity of smacking, or my argument concerning "smacking" as "battery" (which, I admit, is rather incomplete).