smacking

ExRes · 13 Mar 2015

ralphchadkirk said:
Point of order:

Your views are wrong. And more worryingly, you don't realise they are wrong. Unconscious incompetence is what I believe Maslow would have called it.

Only in your opinion and your opinion is no better or worse than that put forward by antman, you have no right whatsoever to force your beliefs on anyone else, as I'm sure you would tell anyone not agreeing with you
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ralphchadkirk said:
Yes they can. If you can't (or won't) see that then there's little point continuing.

Then you accept that your view can be wrong ?

RailUK Forums

TheKnightWho · 13 Mar 2015

ExRes said:
Only in your opinion and your opinion is no better or worse than that put forward by antman, you have no right whatsoever to force your beliefs on anyone else, as I'm sure you would tell anyone not agreeing with you

Except what's the point of evidence or any debate whatsoever?

Not all opinions are equal. If you don't like them, you explain how they're wrong. You don't just stick your fingers in your ears and tell people that they'd probably be hypocrites if they were in the same situation (something I've seen you do quite a few times...).

Literally no-one on the other side thinks that it's impossible for their views to be wrong, unlike you or Antman. What they did was say "here's a load of evidence plus your personal experience probably doesn't count for much because mine says the opposite".

ralphchadkirk · 13 Mar 2015

ExRes said:
Then you accept that your view can be wrong ?

If I said the world was flat, would you accept that as my "view", or my "opinion", or would you rightly call me an idiot?

TheKnightWho · 13 Mar 2015

ralphchadkirk said:
If I said the world was flat, would you accept that as my "view", or my "opinion", or would you rightly call me an idiot?

It does infuriate me that people think being entitled to an opinion means you're entitled not to be challenged on it, or that calling your view your "opinion" somehow means that it can't ever be wrong. This isn't a question of taste like your favourite colour, where no-one's opinion is "correct". It's a question of what works and what doesn't.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

ExRes · 13 Mar 2015

ralphchadkirk said:
If I said the world was flat, would you accept that as my "view", or my "opinion", or would you rightly call me an idiot?

I would say you were wrong because I have thousands of pictures and documents that I could refer to proving you wrong, but if you want to believe it's flat then that's your choice, I wouldn't tell you that you have no right to disagree

TheKnightWho · 13 Mar 2015

ExRes said:
I would say you were wrong because I have thousands of pictures and documents that I could refer to proving you wrong, but if you want to believe it's flat then that's your choice, I wouldn't tell you that you have no right to disagree

... literally no-one is saying that you aren't allowed to express the opposite opinion. They're just saying you're wrong if you do it. I'm pretty sure you made a similar argument about free speech another time?

If someone disagrees with you they aren't banning your right to disagree at all. Surely that's really obvious? They can still provide heaps of evidence as to why you're wrong.

ralphchadkirk · 13 Mar 2015

ExRes said:
I would say you were wrong because I have thousands of pictures and documents that I could refer to proving you wrong, but if you want to believe it's flat then that's your choice, I wouldn't tell you that you have no right to disagree

So you agree there are boundaries to what can be accepted as opinions or viewpoints when presented with evidence. How do you judge the quality of evidence to decide whether someone's opinion is wrong?

Oswyntail · 13 Mar 2015

ExRes said:
... I wouldn't tell you that you have no right to disagree

No one has done that, as you well know. It has simply been stated that you and Antman are wrong. You have a perfect right to be wrong, and we would all defend your right to the death, while still knowing you are wrong. Which you are.

TheKnightWho · 13 Mar 2015

Oswyntail said:
No one has done that, as you well know. It has simply been stated that you and Antman are wrong. You have a perfect right to be wrong, and we would all defend your right to the death, while still knowing you are wrong. Which you are.

It's a common tactic, whereby people who would like to suppress opposite opinions think it's being done to them, when in fact all that's happening is that they're having to tolerate dissenting opinions at all. As far as they're concerned, their right to utterly dominate the conversation is being challenged.

It's similar to when Christians in America think they're being "oppressed" when they have to tolerate a mosque or temple in their area. What they really mean is their ability to dominate other people is being oppressed. And it's good that it is, frankly.

radamfi · 13 Mar 2015

What if children beat their parents once they become strong teenagers in retaliation for being smacked as a young child?

Tetchytyke · 13 Mar 2015

Oswyntail said:
No one has done that, as you well know. It has simply been stated that you and Antman are wrong. You have a perfect right to be wrong, and we would all defend your right to the death, while still knowing you are wrong. Which you are.

I wish there was a like button sometimes :lol:

Antman · 13 Mar 2015

radamfi said:
What if children beat their parents once they become strong teenagers in retaliation for being smacked as a young child?

Children attacking parents, teachers or even police officers isn't exactly unheard of now...........................although no doubt some on here will claim it was exactly the same 40,50 or even 100 years ago

BTW when my old headmaster retired he would often pop into the local pub for lunch and there would more often than not be a former pupil wanting to buy him a drink, as far as I'm aware he never had any hostility from those he gave the cane too. Because most would readily admit that they deserved it and that he was actually doing them a favour..........cruel to be kind anyone?

londiscape · 13 Mar 2015

muz379 said:
I still disagree that even mildly mocking them in front of their peers is no better than forms of physical punishment . What might seem like a trivial embarassment to you as a teacher might be miles worse to the pupil .

Lets put it this way Im sure if the headteacher came into the staffroom and trivially mocked a teacher in front of the other staff about poor exam results or a poor observation or something like that the Teacher would rightly feel aggrieved at that conversation aired in public.

If targetted at the (usually) one or two disruptive children who fill the role of "class clown", using humour at their expense can be an extremely effective method of control - if you can get their mates pointing and laughing AT them rather than WITH them, they will think twice about trying to be the joker next time. After all, children generally care about their status within a peer group far more than they'll ever care what supposed "authority figures" think of them.

I don't believe there's anything wrong with that, but then again I am not 100% anti physical punishment (when appropriate) so my views probably aren't in the majority.

I also think we need to stop treating children as if they were adults - they are not - their minds work very differently. Children need to learn that adults have authority, and in return adults have the responsibility, while maintaining their safety and security, to educate children to become reasonable adults themselves when their time comes. As debates continue about children's "rights", the authority of the adult to set *and enforce* boundaries has become severely eroded.

TheKnightWho · 13 Mar 2015

Antman said:
Children attacking parents, teachers or even police officers isn't exactly unheard of now...........................although no doubt some on here will claim it was exactly the same 40,50 or even 100 years ago

BTW when my old headmaster retired he would often pop into the local pub for lunch and there would more often than not be a former pupil wanting to buy him a drink, as far as I'm aware he never had any hostility from those he gave the cane too. Because most would readily admit that they deserved it and that he was actually doing them a favour..........cruel to be kind anyone?

Why can you not see that your single personal example is not representative of absolutely everyone in all times and places?

It's not a difficult concept to understand.

Clint · 13 Mar 2015

There will always be those who had no physical punishment when they were children, and those who did.

Of those who had no physical punishment when they were children, some will grow up with good morals, and some will not.

Of those who had physical punishment when they were children, some will grow up with good morals, and some will not.

But the fact is that different children will respond to different methods of punishment for doing the wrong thing. For some children a stern word will be enough, for others it won't be.

The main point is that in order for us to attempt to teach children the difference between right and wrong, the methods for this differ from child to child.

The adults who say that children should never be smacked miss the point, which is that for some children it is an effective way of teaching them right from wrong.

It is human nature, a basic instinct within us all, to do what we can to gain pleasure and to avoid pain, be it physical or emotional. Some children will respond to the emotional pain of being 'told off', and learn to tailor their behaviour to avoid being told off again. For other children, being 'told off' will have no effect, but the physical pain of a smack may help them to tailor their behaviour in the future to avoid the same thing happening again.

ValleyLines142 · 13 Mar 2015

I've only just noticed this thread, and this is something I feel very strongly about.

To be fair, I'm only 21 so the cane was long gone before I was born, and the general rule where most adults think smacking a child is acceptable was very much in place before I was born, but I honestly think that smacking a child is the worst treatment in the world. I think it is psychologically damaging and will scar a child for life. Believe me, when I have children, I will NEVER, regardless of how badly behaved they are being, smack them. I honestly couldn't do that to anybody, certainly not my children.

I would GLADLY be in a favour of a vote that made smacking children against the law. I have absolutely no idea how anybody thinks that assaulting (and notice how I have changed it to assaulting) a child is a form of discipline.

That's my own opinion

radamfi · 13 Mar 2015

Clint said:
But the fact is that different children will respond to different methods of punishment for doing the wrong thing. For some children a stern word will be enough, for others it won't be.

In other words, the smartest thing to do is avoid contact with children altogether. As the saying goes, "never work with children or animals."

Antman · 14 Mar 2015

DanTrainMan185 said:
I've only just noticed this thread, and this is something I feel very strongly about.

To be fair, I'm only 21 so the cane was long gone before I was born, and the general rule where most adults think smacking a child is acceptable was very much in place before I was born, but I honestly think that smacking a child is the worst treatment in the world. I think it is psychologically damaging and will scar a child for life. Believe me, when I have children, I will NEVER, regardless of how badly behaved they are being, smack them. I honestly couldn't do that to anybody, certainly not my children.

I would GLADLY be in a favour of a vote that made smacking children against the law. I have absolutely no idea how anybody thinks that assaulting (and notice how I have changed it to assaulting) a child is a form of discipline.

That's my own opinion

So has anybody on here actually been smacked and suffered psychological damage as a result?

As for assault, well the problem is kids being assaulted/bullied by other kids. My old headmaster had a simple solution to that, six of the best, because as he said the one thing a bully doesn't like is a dose of their own medicine.

It's all very well coming on here with this holier than thou attitude but it would add some credibility to your argument if you explained how you would prevent bullying which is far more likely to cause psychological damage to the victims, some have even been driven to suicide.

I look forward to your explanation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

TheKnightWho said:
Why can you not see that your single personal example is not representative of absolutely everyone in all times and places?

It's not a difficult concept to understand.

But it is not just my experience, I am in regular contact with former classmates through Facebook etc and they are generally of the same opinion as me, as are many others who were at school when corporal punishment was in situ.

Anyway you've made it quite clear that as far as you're concerned you are right and anybody who has the temerity to disagree is wrong so there is very little point in attempting to discuss the issue further.

STEVIEBOY1 · 14 Mar 2015

Antman said:
Children attacking parents, teachers or even police officers isn't exactly unheard of now...........................although no doubt some on here will claim it was exactly the same 40,50 or even 100 years ago

BTW when my old headmaster retired he would often pop into the local pub for lunch and there would more often than not be a former pupil wanting to buy him a drink, as far as I'm aware he never had any hostility from those he gave the cane too. Because most would readily admit that they deserved it and that he was actually doing them a favour..........cruel to be kind anyone?

Yes, I would like to meet some of my old school teachers. I realise now that they must have had a difficult job and many of them were decent blokes.

Infact usually the lessons that were given by the strict teachers were better than those given by "softer" teachers, as there was no messing around by the pupils and you could concentrate on the lessons properly.

Someone in an earlier post here, also mentioned that suspending a pupil would not always be a deterrent as they would see it as extra holiday. It seems daft suspending someone who had been playing truant for example.

The threat of getting caned, lines or detention to me was usually enough for me.

radamfi · 14 Mar 2015

Unless you stop all children from going to school, stop them having social contact with other children and prevent them from having internet access, bullying is inevitable. If you have a child, you do so with the understanding that the child has a significant chance of being bullied, or worse, being a bully.

bnm · 14 Mar 2015

Caned once at school, black dap and ruler a few times. Smacked at home on occasions with a wooden spoon.

Did this physical punishment teach me a lesson and prevent further bad behaviour? Well, the fact I received it more than once would suggest not.

Did it turn me into a well rounded individual who knew right from wrong? Who knows? I knew it was wrong to break the law but I still did it. Several short prison sentences didn't prevent my irresponsibility either.

What worked? Education and rehabilitation. Talking through problems. Kept my nose clean for 10 years now.

I would never beat a child, or an adult for that matter, or threaten it. It just doesn't work as either punishment or deterrent.

Oswyntail · 14 Mar 2015

Antman said:
So has anybody on here actually been smacked and suffered psychological damage as a result?....

Well there do seem to be a number on here who think that violence is an appropriate response to use on children.

Antman · 14 Mar 2015

radamfi said:
Unless you stop all children from going to school, stop them having social contact with other children and prevent them from having internet access, bullying is inevitable. If you have a child, you do so with the understanding that the child has a significant chance of being bullied, or worse, being a bully.

Bullying is inevitable? I'm sorry but that is pathetic!

There is far too much human rights nonsense nowadays but as far as I am concerned EVERY child should have the right not to have to live in fear of bullying.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oswyntail said:
Well there do seem to be a number on here who think that violence is an appropriate response to use on children.

So your solution to bullying is......................

radamfi · 14 Mar 2015

Antman said:
There is far too much human rights nonsense nowadays but as far as I am concerned EVERY child should have the right not to have to live in fear of bullying.

Of course, bullying is wrong. But I don't see a way of preventing it, apart from not having kids.

Oswyntail · 14 Mar 2015

Antman said:
......
So your solution to bullying is......................

Complex

fowler9 · 14 Mar 2015

It is a complicated subject is it not. In my secondary school we did not have physical punishment (Other than being made to do laps of the footy field on you lunch or after school). The stricter teachers seemed to command respect without there ever being the threat of violence. They always seemed to be the most quick witted and could make someone acting cocky look pretty small in front of their peers (Which is what no child wants). As we grew up they also seemed to be the first to treat you like an adult and as I think I previously mentioned I am still friends with some.

I was lucky, I went to a very good school, one of the best in Liverpool, but whilst it was selective it wasn't fee paying and we had lads (And more recently girls) from vastly different backgrounds. Selection was by interview and not exam at that time so they weren't just creaming off people who could pass a test. There were bullies there, most of them came from a background of being hit by parents, I only recall one who's parents had a kind of hands off attitude.

Darandio · 14 Mar 2015

Antman said:
So has anybody on here actually been smacked and suffered psychological damage as a result?

I was smacked, it wasn't a form of mental torture or bullying, it helped teach me right from wrong and I'm no worse for it. And no, I'm not angry at my parents for it. Oh, it also didn't turn me into a bully either, I was on the receiving end.

I now have three young children of my own, and I expect many on here would expect the psychological effects have caused me to regularly beat my own children to within an inch of their life, but I don't. Apologies to anyone who hoped I would vindicate their point.

I know there have been many instances in this thread whereby people have stated what it would have been like 'back in the day'. However, I honestly reckon that if this thread was running 30 years ago, views would be completely different and make for an even more interesting discussion!

TheKnightWho · 14 Mar 2015

Antman said:
But it is not just my experience, I am in regular contact with former classmates through Facebook etc and they are generally of the same opinion as me, as are many others who were at school when corporal punishment was in situ.

Anyway you've made it quite clear that as far as you're concerned you are right and anybody who has the temerity to disagree is wrong so there is very little point in attempting to discuss the issue further.

But the evidence is against you. You and a few friends don't speak very much more strongly than just you, to be frank. Evidence that looks at thousands of cases does.

And frankly, I'm happy to be proved wrong. I just have to presented with evidence that's more than "it's obvious, isn't it?" and "me and my mates say so!" You, on the other hand, seem to have no clue what constitutes a decent argument.

Antman · 15 Mar 2015

radamfi said:
Unless you stop all children from going to school, stop them having social contact with other children and prevent them from having internet access, bullying is inevitable. If you have a child, you do so with the understanding that the child has a significant chance of being bullied, or worse, being a bully.

So to look at it another way what is the less of two evils?

Bullies are given a dose of their own medicine, ie corporal punishment.

Or do we just accept that bullying is inevitable.

It's a no brainer to me.

radamfi · 15 Mar 2015

Antman said:
So to look at it another way what is the less of two evils?

Bullies are given a dose of their own medicine, ie corporal punishment.

Or do we just accept that bullying is inevitable.

It's a no brainer to me.

Punishment only has a partial deterrent effect. People, and especially children, are not 100% rational. Even the most rational people have moments of madness. That is why serious crimes like murder continue to occur even though the detection rate is relatively high and punishment is several years in prison. Even prestigious fee paying schools like Eton have bullying. Eton was famous for both bullying and "beating" when corporal punishment was still allowed.

smacking

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member