Author Topic: Smack your kid and leave a mark? Prison for 5 years (Read 1154 times)

Swoop · « **on:** November 03, 2004, 01:51:25 AM »

That's the law in Britain now. Leave a red mark on your kid when giving the little git a clout after the rotton little bastard sets fire to the cat and you could go to prison for 5 years. Daaaaymn. My Grandad would take his belt off and use it.

I have no children (that I know of anyway) so my opinion doesn't count. What do parents think?

NUKE · « **Reply #1 on:** November 03, 2004, 01:52:52 AM »

WTG UK!

Ever the compasionate country and all......

CavemanJ · « **Reply #2 on:** November 03, 2004, 01:55:28 AM »

I think that's mickey mouse BS.

When my kids need a spanking I've got a nice leather belt that gets the point across, usually with only 1 or 2 licks, and they get thier spanking.

Depends on what they do.. time out standing in the corner, not let'em do something they wanted to do, spank thier butts. All useful tools in child rearing.

I think the folks that come up with these bleeding heart ideas and try to tie the hands of parents didn't like getting spanked.

Of course... some people seem unable to differentiate between beating/abuse and a good spanking/popping the kid's hand.

mora · « **Reply #3 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:07:38 AM »

That was on our evening news last night. They were horrified THAT BEATING A CHILD WAS STILL LEGAL in the UK after this law.

Well, what do you expect... this country is run be feminists and lefties, especially the media.

moot · « **Reply #4 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:29:41 AM »

Parenting with violence is wrong, but a law for it is like one for abortion.

CavemanJ · « **Reply #5 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:33:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
Parenting with violence is wrong, but a law for it is like one for abortion.

I'm gonna take exception to this...

you got kids?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #6 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:39:02 AM »

Its a great idea. Maybe the UK should get a whole bunch of colour surveilace cameras to check every passing kid for telltale "red marks" so their dastardly parents can be locked up for 5 years...

moot · « **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:45:30 AM »

Gonna side step your question and say violence is just proof to your kids you lost control and don't have any rational answer or example for them.
It doesn't promise much for their subsequent behavior when you set that precedent.

If it's got to the point that violence is the only understood input, well, good luck reverse-engineering..

The law thing is just a comment on laws in theory and practice, a separate comment.

No kids yet.

Staga · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:48:14 AM »

I think beating someone is OK; when I was younger we merrily used our fists to make our will known so why shouldn't parents beat up their kids if they deserve it?

moot · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2004, 02:51:35 AM »

it's the premise for that that I'm questionning.

Why is irrationality the better choice? Why don't teachers at school still use metal rulers on fingertips or public spankings?

imo there's some more intricate mechanics to it, but the bottom line is you're using a fallacious argument. Where's the credibility?

Lazerus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 03, 2004, 03:25:30 AM »

moot, when ya finally make here to hang out with me, you'll find that I am very far from the violent type.

I was brought up in the old tradition and got my bellybutton beat frequently.

It's not the application. I don't support spanking to the point of abuse.

You can't equate one with the other, except in extreme circumstanses.

ASTAC · « **Reply #11 on:** November 03, 2004, 04:31:59 AM »

Before anyone else starts going on about how it is wrong to use spanking or whatever to dicipline children, lets look at a few things. Kids have all the control now. You see it everywhere. Parents getting arrested for all sorts of stuff just because they pissed their kids off and the kid calls the cops making all sorts of accusations. Kids nowadays do stuff that I would have never even thought of doing..why because their whole lives there has been no real consequences for their actions. Do you think stuff like "time out" works on kids. Hell no. Ever since that damned generation that came of age in the 60's and 70's and started saying that striking children is wrong, more children have been involved in more of the most violent crimes. Growing up I had a belt used on me...but I can tell you that after I was about 6 years old the fear of that belt kept me in line and It was used rarely after that.

Second...if you are not putting bruises, cuts, breaking bones, or doing serious harm (concussions and such)..then it's nobody's damn business how you dicipline your child and for sure not the government's.

Third...People shouldn't have to be scrutinized and demonized so much for kicking a teenage punk's butt if need be. They think that they can do whatever to the adult population and get away with it because the law protects them. And often the adult defending himself or his property is the one in trouble with the law when incidents occur. Whats wrong with that picture?

I think I'll get off my soapbox now...I would be in jail in the UK.

moot · « **Reply #12 on:** November 03, 2004, 06:21:29 AM »

That's fine, you can do what you want, it's the result that counts.
But if I have to decide ahead of time, on what my strategy will be, I will opt for the most efficient one.
Aggression may be a nice sledgehammer on the lock that might be a stubborn or stupid mind, but if you can pick or just use the right key, you've probably gained something in not causing damage, and probably also in understanding the workings of the previously obscure mechanism.

Kind of like strength of scar- vs that of muscle- tissue, from the specimen's perspective.

And for so much talk of it we'll have to make it 5000 beers I think :-)

moot · « **Reply #13 on:** November 03, 2004, 06:32:36 AM »

In your example the kids are just not seeing the consequences. Exposing them to the factual reality instead of their faulty p.o.v. is simple enough. If they reject that, it's their responsibility.

There's a nuance between coercion(sp) for a correct argument when everything else fails, and plain and simple appeal to fear/force.

I don't mean to plagiarize but it's the same as plato's good and ignorance of good as opposed to good and evil. That and the fact that it's at least, and in the first place, a fallacious argument.

Curval · « **Reply #14 on:** November 03, 2004, 06:37:37 AM »

I would NEVER spank my child with anything other than my hand. Belts, sneakers, canes...anything else is wrong IMHO. You cannot judge how hard you are hitting the child with another object.

I have children and have spanked them.

I have left red marks on my kid's backsides after a spanking with my hand, so technically I could go to jail in the UK....which is ridiculous. BUT, the times where I have hit my child a wee bit too hard I am fully aware of it and stop immediately. I know this because I can judge the strength of the hit based upon how much my hand "stings" after hitting them. No such basis for such a decision can be made with a belt or anything else.

I'm not a "child beater". The only times I have spanked my kids have been very very warrented...direct and continual disobedience, talking back, act of malicious and willful damage (such as throwing a breakable object onto the floor on purpose) etc.

I hate doing it. I feel like an absolute bag of poop afterwards, but sometimes it is necessary.