The Fecking Naany State

[faraway saint]

14 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

Having a law that PROTECTS kids is a good thing. Taking away a parents last liner of defence/protection/control, and yes control is sometimes necessary, is wrong. I have grandchildren who now think it's ok to abuse their parents when they don't get their way knowing that the parents will want to "discuss".  Sorry. If a child is going over the mark then there will be times when it might be better to discipline quickly and show the error of the kid's way. The severity of the corporal punishment is the difference.

Aye, this is always the approach of the "anti smacking" crew, they take it to the "black and blue" or worse, and use that as a stick to bash parents (see what I did there) who use controlled contact when small children cannot understand words.

It's not straightforward but its fairly simple, doing something that is wrong or dangerous could receive a "smack".

As kids get older this isn't as effective but by that stage the kids should know what's acceptable and what isn't.

Again, there is no formula, children and parents are different but, IMO, the majority of parents who have used controlled discipline have found it effective.

Enter stage right Oaky, who runs his life in a different world, which he believes is right, and all other views, and experiences, are wrong. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Having a law that PROTECTS kids is a good thing. Taking away a parents last liner of defence/protection/control, and yes control is sometimes necessary, is wrong. I have grandchildren who now think it's ok to abuse their parents when they don't get their way knowing that the parents will want to "discuss".  Sorry. If a child is going over the mark then there will be times when it might be better to discipline quickly and show the error of the kid's way. The severity of the corporal punishment is the difference.

Aye, this is always the approach of the "anti smacking" crew, they take it to the "black and blue" or worse, and use that as a stick to bash parents (see what I did there) who use controlled contact when small children cannot understand words.
It's not straightforward but its fairly simple, doing something that is wrong or dangerous could receive a "smack".
As kids get older this isn't as effective but by that stage the kids should know what's acceptable and what isn't.
Again, there is no formula, children and parents are different but, IMO, the majority of parents who have used controlled discipline have found it effective.
Enter stage right Oaky, who runs his life in a different world, which he believes is right, and all other views, and experiences, are wrong. 

If you hit an adult it's assault.
Why should it be different when it's a child?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Having a law that PROTECTS kids is a good thing. Taking away a parents last liner of defence/protection/control, and yes control is sometimes necessary, is wrong. I have grandchildren who now think it's ok to abuse their parents when they don't get their way knowing that the parents will want to "discuss".  Sorry. If a child is going over the mark then there will be times when it might be better to discipline quickly and show the error of the kid's way. The severity of the corporal punishment is the difference.

Last line of protection for a parent Seriously!

[stlucifer]

Just now, TPAFKATS said:

If you hit an adult it's assault.
Why should it be different when it's a child?

Sorry but, GET f**kIN' REAL! Parents aren't assaulting their kids. It's those idiotic analogies that are making parents afraid to PROTECT their children with a quick sharp protecting smack.

[faraway saint]

5 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

If you hit an adult it's assault.
Why should it be different when it's a child?

If I "tap"an adult it is unlikely to be assault try to keep it real. 

[stlucifer]

3 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

39 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

Having a law that PROTECTS kids is a good thing. Taking away a parents last liner of defence/protection/control, and yes control is sometimes necessary, is wrong. I have grandchildren who now think it's ok to abuse their parents when they don't get their way knowing that the parents will want to "discuss".  Sorry. If a child is going over the mark then there will be times when it might be better to discipline quickly and show the error of the kid's way. The severity of the corporal punishment is the difference.

Last line of protection for a parent Seriously!

Seriously? Are you so stupid you can't realise it's protecting the child that's paramount?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Sorry but, GET f**kIN' REAL! Parents aren't assaulting their kids. It's those idiotic analogies that are making parents afraid to PROTECT their children with a quick sharp protecting smack.

You should look up the definition of assault.

[stlucifer]

1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:

2 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

Sorry but, GET f**kIN' REAL! Parents aren't assaulting their kids. It's those idiotic analogies that are making parents afraid to PROTECT their children with a quick sharp protecting smack.

You should look up the definition of assault.

Yep. You're so thick!

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Seriously? Are you so stupid you can't realise it's protecting the child that's paramount?

No need to call me stupid because you were unable to get ur point across.

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

3 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

Sorry but, GET f**kIN' REAL! Parents aren't assaulting their kids. It's those idiotic analogies that are making parents afraid to PROTECT their children with a quick sharp protecting smack.

You should look up the definition of assault.

You can take things as literally as you choose.........

Here's a definition......................"An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm"

 

[St.Ricky]

3 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

If I "tap"an adult it is unlikely to be assault try to keep it real. 

Are you tapping  me? 

[stlucifer]

Just now, TPAFKATS said:

3 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

Seriously? Are you so stupid you can't realise it's protecting the child that's paramount?

No need to call me stupid because you were unable to get ur point across.

I was asking you a question, not making an assumption.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

You can take things as literally as you choose.........
Here's a definition......................"An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm"
 

Here's the Scots law definition

Assault is defined in Scots law as a physical attack on another which is intended to cause bodily injury or which puts the victim in a state of fear that he or she may be about to suffer bodily injury. In Scotland, an 'assault' cannot be committed by words alone, nor can it be committed by accident.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Sorry but, GET f**kIN' REAL! Parents aren't assaulting their kids. It's those idiotic analogies that are making parents afraid to PROTECT their children with a quick sharp protecting smack.

You should look up the definition of assault.

Yep. You're so thick!

Debating on social media...

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:

Here's the Scots law definition

Assault is defined in Scots law as a physical attack on another which is intended to cause bodily injury or which puts the victim in a state of fear that he or she may be about to suffer bodily injury. In Scotland, an 'assault' cannot be committed by words alone, nor can it be committed by accident.

You really think that controlled contact comes into this category? 

As I already quoted, many definitions.

You're entitled to your opinion, I happen to see things, and my experience has done nothing to change my view, differently.  

[Guest TPAFKATS]

You really think that controlled contact comes into this category? [emoji38]
As I already quoted, many definitions.
You're entitled to your opinion, I happen to see things, and my experience has done nothing to change my view, differently.  

You can call it controlled contact or tapping or anything you like.
You can type as many definitions as you like.
I've given you the definition in law of assault.
The point of smacking a child is to cause fear or alarm and possibly pain in order to act as a deterrent or a punishment.

If you can't do this to another adult, why should it be legal to do it to a child?

[faraway saint]

3 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

You can call it controlled contact or tapping or anything you like.
You can type as many definitions as you like.
I've given you the definition in law of assault.
The point of smacking a child is to cause fear or alarm and possibly pain in order to act as a deterrent or a punishment.

If you can't do this to another adult, why should it be legal to do it to a child?

I've given you a definition, ignore, and believe what you like. 

The point is to let them realise right from wrong.

Twist away. 

Run along, maybe time you bought a child to practice your beliefs on, see ya in 20 years. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I've given you a definition, ignore, and believe what you like. 
The point is to let them realise right from wrong.
Twist away. 
Run along, maybe time you bought a child to practice your beliefs on, see ya in 20 years. [emoji38]

I didn't ignore your definition. I'm simply trying to tell you the legal definition. Just because you don't agree with it...

Yes, it teaches right and wrong teach through punishing a child with pain or the fear of pain.
I'm not twisting anything here.

Your last sentence is particularly poor.

[faraway saint]

4 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

I didn't ignore your definition. I'm simply trying to tell you the legal definition. Just because you don't agree with it...

Yes, it teaches right and wrong teach through punishing a child with pain or the fear of pain.
I'm not twisting anything here.

Your last sentence is particularly poor.

Your unwillingness to acknowledge any other point of view, however real, is very frustrating, hence the last sentence.

Head against a brick wall type scenario.

I have tried to recognise your point of view, however wrong I see it.

You, however, have not so lets just leave it, ya walloper. 

 

[St.Ricky]

6 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

I didn't ignore your definition. I'm simply trying to tell you the legal definition. Just because you don't agree with it...

Yes, it teaches right and wrong teach through punishing a child with pain or the fear of pain.
I'm not twisting anything here.

Your last sentence is particularly poor.

Simple question from an admittedly simple guy.  If a child was about to touch something very hot,  would you knock their hand away to save them from harm.?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Simple question from an admittedly simple guy.  If a child was about to touch something very hot,  would you knock their hand away to save them from harm.?

Yes

[St.Ricky]

2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

4 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Simple question from an admittedly simple guy.  If a child was about to touch something very hot,  would you knock their hand away to save them from harm.?

Yes

The action would  be to avoid greater damage to the child. 

Would slapping them if they didn't do their home work well enough be justified?  I think not. 

[shull]

Never mind parents. 

What about savage moronic teachers assaulting children with a fecking leather belt.

Cnuts should have been jailed.

Edited October 5, 2018 by shull

[Hendo]

I have two kids, a boy aged 6 and a girl aged 4. Never smacked my daughter, because she by and large behaves. My son, on the other hand, goes through mad spells when he behaves like a Tasmanian devil. He comes out of these spells, but during them he hits out at anyone and anything, and it can be really dangerous. At those times, he sometimes gets a smack, as it's the only thing that slows down his reign of terror.

Is it right? No. Does it change his behaviour long term? No. Does it make anyone feel better? No. But it happens because I don't know what else to do.

And I'm a fecking social worker!

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The action would  be to avoid greater damage to the child. 
Would slapping them if they didn't do their home work well enough be justified?  I think not. 

Proving that those actions were just, or not, would be part of the legal process. However for this to happen there needs to be a law in the first place [emoji57]