Thread: Punishment for your children

Substitute wife for kids...

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

Why Not? I never need to smack my wife in public so would ever know. Do you really need the government to help you know how to look after your wife? Laws are there to protect, and as result of the lower and less educated members of society. The same way speed limits need to be so low to protect people from the worst drivers. How are the same laws that are needed to keep shitty junkie husbands in line relevant to me or mine?
Defies logic.

Hmmmmm.

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

but if you give them a clip around the ear

A clip round the ear is a euphemism for hitting someone on back or side of their head. I don't think that is an acceptable form of punishment for a child.

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

It's going to be a cold day in hell before the government stops me smacking my kid if I deem it appropriate.

It is tempting to get all uppity when the government has the timerity to interfere in your relationship with your child but legislating around what is and is not acceptable when physically disciplining a child is not an unreasonable notion. I don't think smacking on the hands, arms, legs or bum should be outlawed provided force is not excessive. I think smacking in the face or head should be a criminal offence.

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Thankfully most civilized countries are beginning to make laws against smacking your children

Teachers and parents are now powerless against the tyranny of unruly children. Great job.

Originally Posted by Looper

I don't think that is an acceptable form of punishment for a child.

Unless he leaves the lights on for the 1000th time, then it's perfectly ok.

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

Laws are there to protect, and as result of the lower and less educated members of society.

so you are saying that only the lower classes abuse their kids, the middle and upper classes do not?

I used a lower class person as an example. Of course anybody can abuse their child that's not the point. The point is, what has other people abusing their kids got to do with me? Why should I be subject to a law that has been implemented to control those people that do abuse their kids, when I don't?

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

I enjoyed the freedom to think and act on my own without fear of nosy fuck wits poking their noses where they don't belong.

the thing is, although they are your kids they are not to do with what you will, you are merely their guardian until they grow up

Wrong. They are mine to do with what I deem fit, unless I'm breaking the law and somebody can prove it. You moved to Thailand but you're still controlled by the laws of another country where you don't live. How does that work? Do you not make any decisions for yourself?

It's interesting to me that the few people that have aggressively stood against smacking their kids, all mention how they were beaten as kids. Not smacked, but beaten and abused. I think that will always cloud your opinion on the matter.

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Substitute wife for kids...

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

Why Not? I never need to smack my wife in public so would ever know. Do you really need the government to help you know how to look after your wife? Laws are there to protect, and as result of the lower and less educated members of society. The same way speed limits need to be so low to protect people from the worst drivers. How are the same laws that are needed to keep shitty junkie husbands in line relevant to me or mine?
Defies logic.

Hmmmmm.

Why? Do you treat your wife and children the same way?

So what sense does your post make?

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

Wrong. They are mine to do with what I deem fit,

Sad that you think you own another human.

Back in the old days the same argument was used against beating, starving or raping one's slaves.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

but if you give them a clip around the ear

A clip round the ear is a euphemism for hitting someone on back or side of their head. I don't think that is an acceptable form of punishment for a child.

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

It's going to be a cold day in hell before the government stops me smacking my kid if I deem it appropriate.

It is tempting to get all uppity when the government has the timerity to interfere in your relationship with your child but legislating around what is and is not acceptable when physically disciplining a child is not an unreasonable notion. I don't think smacking on the hands, arms, legs or bum should be outlawed provided force is not excessive. I think smacking in the face or head should be a criminal offence.

I wouldn't disagree with that mate to be honest. But that still doesn't mean a bloke who did give his kid a clip around the ear can be labelled a child abuser, which was my point from the start.

It was a week, baseless, accusation IMO.

You agree that smacking a child's legs with appropriate force is acceptable but you say I shouldn't get uppity when the government try and stop me doing it. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

Why? Do you treat your wife and children the same way?

So what sense does your post make?

I have never considered hitting my wife or children, but you are using exactly the same arguments as opponents of slavery and opponents of civil rights and opponents of emancipation for women.

Children are the last minority.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Thankfully most civilized countries are beginning to make laws against smacking your children

Teachers and parents are now powerless against the tyranny of unruly children. Great job.

Only incompetent ones.

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

Wrong. They are mine to do with what I deem fit,

Sad that you think you own another human.

Back in the old days the same argument was used against beating, starving or raping one's slaves.

Yes, raping slaves. Very relevant.

You are using the word "own" for effect. My son is my responsibility, nobody else's. What, do you think he a free spirit to do as he pleases?

Originally Posted by DrAndy

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

^ The bloke's not an abuser FFS.

Hillbilly is just another poster willy likes to stalk everytime he makes a post.

and you can't stop yourself stalking him. albeit secondhand

all part of your disgusting modus operandi

same as you verbally attacked and stalked the solicitor of your exwife

That is right, I remember reading that now.

Seems he keeps very good company in here.

Several child abusers and Buriramboy should feel well at home.

Beating a child and beating a woman, actually I feel ashamed and embarrassed about my comments days ago about many posters in here being less than human, how right could I have been with that assumption.

Would love to meet a few of you in a dark alley, in fact it does not need to be dark.

So far the arguments for hitting kids are;

They won't do what you want
They won't listen to you
You feel a bit mad and they make you angry
It's only a few whacks
You were hit as a child and so should perpetuate the violence on them
You personally own them

Have I missed anything?

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

Why? Do you treat your wife and children the same way?

So what sense does your post make?

I have never considered hitting my wife or children, but you are using exactly the same arguments as opponents of slavery and opponents of civil rights and opponents of emancipation for women.

Children are the last minority.

Those things aren't even remotely comparable.

I was told a story about a member in here that repeatedly beat a child with a bamboo stick.

I would pay good money to take a stick to him.

Is this what the poor lowlifes call cheap entertainment ?

Originally Posted by RumpyPumpy

Would love to meet a few of you in a dark alley, in fact it does not need to be dark.

Why? Do you like getting your head kicked in?

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

Wrong. They are mine to do with what I deem fit,

Sad that you think you own another human.

Back in the old days the same argument was used against beating, starving or raping one's slaves.

Yes, raping slaves. Very relevant.

Completely the same argument, explain to me how it is different!

You are using the word "own" for effect. My son is my responsibility, nobody else's. What, do you think he a free spirit to do as he pleases?

Your words,

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

Wrong. They are mine to do with what I deem fit,

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Thankfully most civilized countries are beginning to make laws against smacking your children

Teachers and parents are now powerless against the tyranny of unruly children. Great job.

Only incompetent ones.

Most parents (and teachers) are incompetent. It's not something you go to uni to study; it's something that you grow into with varying degrees of success.

Who is more incompetent? A 'loving' parent who spends an inordinate amount of time 'reasoning' with a 5 year old only to have him take the piss within seconds all the time, or a parent who adopts a stricter method, for example 'tell, raise voice, then slap or 'sit in the corner'? I know which parent gets complemented on having great kids and which one doesn't. And no, the second parent's kid doesn't live in a pool of fear, he's a very happy and loving kid.

It's always interesting to see TheSun readers on TD not being able to distinguish between 'slapping' and beating'. I assume they're the same lot who don't understand what a paedo is.

Ultimately, as someone already said, all kids are different and all need treating individually. Anyone who says 'you should treat all kids like this...' is obviously an idiot/Australian.

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

So far the arguments for hitting kids are;

They won't do what you want
They won't listen to you
You feel a bit mad and they make you angry
It's only a few whacks
You were hit as a child and so should perpetuate the violence on them
You personally own them

Have I missed anything?

I agree that talking is always the preferred solution. But parents are human beings with limits to their patience and resources of time. A good parent will be making so many sacrifices for their kids in other ways that I think resorting to the short cut discipline method of smacking to stop a child from misbehaving is acceptable if the parent does not feel that they have the talking option for whatever reason. If it is not excessive I don't think it does a child much psychological harm.

My mum always tells this story of when I was a kid and she took me to one side to give me a 'talking to' and with pleading in my eyes I asked if I could just have a smack instead Apparently I couldn't be bothered with another long drawn out verbal moral guidance session!

Perhaps Willy could share his expertese with the rest of us and advise us how this 6 year old should be dealt with..............

A former American footballer turned PE teacher is suing his employers after he was beaten up - by a six-year-old.
The unfortunate teacher is 27-year-old John Webster, who starred for his college football team before becoming a teacher in the New York borough of Queens.
Webster, who is 5'10" and tips the scales at 15 and a half stone, claims he was beaten up by six-year-old Rodrigo Carpio, who is 4'2" and weighs less than four stone. The teacher was apparently left with a fractured ankle, a badly-injured knee and stress so bad that he had to visit a psychiatrist after being terrorised by the tiny tot.
"It's sort of like an angel-devil sort of thing," Webster told the New York Post.
"(Rodrigo) looks like an angel but then, all of a sudden, that halo turns into horns. It's been a nightmare. It's embarrassing. It's humiliating."
The incident allegedly took place when Webster was escorting several children to the school dining room, with the teacher claiming that Rodrigo started kicking him after being told off for his horseplay.
"I tried to hold his wrists, and he began biting me,'' Webster said. "I took him to the principal's office, and he kicked me in the ankle, and one kick landed right on my knee. I felt a pop.''
Webster has been ordered back to work against his doctor's advice, and is now suing the City of New York since repeated warnings about Rodrigo's violent streak had not been heeded.
"This kid is clearly a tiny terror," said Webster's lawyer Andrew Siben. "It's sad that teachers like Mr. Webster are not offered protection from someone who can endanger other teachers and students."
The headmaster's incident report backs up Webster's claims that he was karate kicked, while the principal was also kicked and pinched, and another teacher and a security guard were also attacked during the lad's rampage.
But Rodrigo's parents are outraged at the lawsuit - despite the boy now being on medication.
"The lawsuit is totally absurd. How could my little boy do so much damage? My poor son," Rodrigo's father Jorge told the New York Post, while his mother Josefa Marcia da Silva was equally upset.
"This is a terrible thing to say (about) a child. To every mother, their child is an angel. I know that he has problems, but he doesn't deserve to be called such names," she said, adding that his medication has helped and that he is back at school.
"He is getting help, and he is much better now."

American footballer turned PE teacher beaten up by six-year-old | World of Sport - Yahoo! Eurosport UK

Originally Posted by buriramboy

But Rodrigo's parents are outraged at the lawsuit - despite the boy now being on medication. "The lawsuit is totally absurd. How could my little boy do so much damage? My poor son," Rodrigo's father Jorge told the New York Post, while his mother Josefa Marcia da Silva was equally upset. "This is a terrible thing to say (about) a child. To every mother, their child is an angel. I know that he has problems, but he doesn't deserve to be called such names," she said, adding that his medication has helped and that he is back at school. "He is getting help, and he is much better now."

And some parents will never be a success.

So ignoring your cheap ad homs which suggest to me that you have more invested in this argument than mere friendly debate, let's examine more closely.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Most parents (and teachers) are incompetent. It's not something you go to uni to study; it's something that you grow into with varying degrees of success.

So you admit that abusing/beating/slapping your children is a sign of failure then? That actually for a 'competent' parent or teacher there is no need to physically harm a child?

Who is more incompetent? A 'loving' parent who spends an inordinate amount of time 'reasoning' with a 5 year old only to have him take the piss within seconds all the time, or a parent who adopts a stricter method, for example 'tell, raise voice, then slap or 'sit in the corner'? I know which parent gets complemented on having great kids and which one doesn't.

Falicious argument, it is not a black and white dichotomy. One can have a good child that is not the victim of violence, just as much as not all bad child are products of 'hippy parenting'.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by RumpyPumpy

Would love to meet a few of you in a dark alley, in fact it does not need to be dark.

Why? Do you like getting your head kicked in?

Internet tough guy alert with 40 thousand posts...

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Completely the same argument, explain to me how it is different!

Smacking a naughty 4 year old and raping and beating a slave. Same argument!!

I don't think I'll bother discussing it with you any more mate.

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

You are using the word "own" for effect. My son is my responsibility, nobody else's. What, do you think he a free spirit to do as he pleases?

Your words,

Originally Posted by EggSandwich

Wrong. They are mine to do with what I deem fit,

Yes, they are MY children. Ergo they are MINE. If you want to use the word "own" for effect that's fine by me.