Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON  (Read 14117 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 1766
    • Show only replies by Dan
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #59 from previous page: December 13, 2004, 01:13:18 PM »
Quote

X-ray wrote:
"...Then dont have picknicks at that site, its you who claim that children is sole the parents responsibility guess what that means for any picknick by the dangerous water..."

Hmmm, that hardly seems to be fitting advice from an 'anarchist'.

You have no idea what anarchism means have you?

Quote
Just as well my parents weren't like you. I would have had a very restricted childhood: maybe a padded cell as a room?

See option three, there is a reason for rules, if a parent say its dangerous then it is. just as well that you wasn´t raised on a farm, your parents method would never have worked, you would be maimed. If I was told to not touch anything, I {bleep}ing knew that it was for my own best. I also knew that other adults was serious when they told me to stay away from something.
Apple did it right the first time, bring back the Newton!
 

Offline Dan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 1766
    • Show only replies by Dan
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #60 on: December 13, 2004, 01:22:21 PM »
Quote

PMC wrote:
It's a deeper problem than just being about corporal punishment, it's about respect.

When I was a kid, I was taught respectful behaviour both by my mother and my teachers at school.  These days, with so much in society geared towards kids, the notion of respect for oneself and others has gone out of the window.

Exactly, finally somebody with a commonsense.

Quote
Personally, I feel those diabolical teenies who go around breaking into cars and homes without fear of prosecution should either be sent to boot camp or publically birched. Either way, the notion that one's actions have consequences must be brought home to them in some way.  After all, within ten years they may have children of their own.

Or restoration of those old fashioned jails, whitewashed walls, bed, table,chair, toilet,  New Testament and some other edifying literature as only entertainment. Not these sailing trips in the Mediterrean that is the youth crime correctional system today.

Apple did it right the first time, bring back the Newton!
 

Offline whabang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 7270
    • Show only replies by whabang
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #61 on: December 13, 2004, 02:04:18 PM »
@mdma

We need more emoticons!
Beating the dead horse since 2002.
 

Offline whabang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 7270
    • Show only replies by whabang
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #62 on: December 13, 2004, 02:05:34 PM »
I have an idea!
Make military service compulsorary again! That'd put some discipline into them!
Beating the dead horse since 2002.
 

Offline PMC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 2616
    • Show only replies by PMC
    • http://www.b3ta.com
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #63 on: December 13, 2004, 02:24:53 PM »
Quote

Dan wrote:
Or restoration of those old fashioned jails, whitewashed walls, bed, table,chair, toilet,  New Testament and some other edifying literature as only entertainment. Not these sailing trips in the Mediterrean that is the youth crime correctional system today.



About 14 - 15 years ago we had a spate of car crime in the UK.  Insurance policies trebled in cost (the insurance companies used the joyrider as an excuse to hike premiums) and all of a sudden the press was full of stories about the then chav class going out and stealing cars.

Problem was that no-one made them take any responsibility for their actions.  There was national outcry when they were either banned from driving for a year or two (most were aged under 17 anyway) or in a few cases were sent on "character building" junkets to Kenya....

What should (IMHO) have happened was - as I've said before - instilling a sense of self discipline into them.  They need to know that not only do they have a duty to live by the rules of society but also that they can make a worthy contribution.  Those that went away to Kenya after TWOCing someone's prized Golf GTi and burning it out afterward must have felt very smug with themselves, instead of being made to see their actions have a consequence and being punished accordingly.  If it means being strapped to a bench and having salted birch twigs applied to their bare backsides in public then so be it, I don't have a problem with that.

Instead, we live in a culture where a burglar can sue his victims for injuring him (and increasingly her) while he/she attempts to rob their proporty.  The victim meanwhile cannot expect much in the way of compensation and if they dared sue the burglar for damages it would probably get laughed out of court.  

I'm not advocating a return to kangaroo courts of old, but a return to common sense values.  The victim should receive some satisfaction that justice is done and the perpetrator should be aware that when they choose to waive their responsibilities to society, they also in turn waive rights also.  Only then will our society take crime and punishment seriously.  We can blame the media, Urban Music and pop culture as much as we like, but all these things are a reflection on society, not the other way around.
Cecilia for President
 

  • Guest
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #64 on: December 13, 2004, 03:08:15 PM »
Quote

PMC wrote:
Quote

Dan wrote:
Or restoration of those old fashioned jails, whitewashed walls, bed, table,chair, toilet,  New Testament and some other edifying literature as only entertainment. Not these sailing trips in the Mediterrean that is the youth crime correctional system today.



About 14 - 15 years ago we had a spate of car crime in the UK.  Insurance policies trebled in cost (the insurance companies used the joyrider as an excuse to hike premiums) and all of a sudden the press was full of stories about the then chav class going out and stealing cars.

Problem was that no-one made them take any responsibility for their actions.  There was national outcry when they were either banned from driving for a year or two (most were aged under 17 anyway) or in a few cases were sent on "character building" junkets to Kenya....

What should (IMHO) have happened was - as I've said before - instilling a sense of self discipline into them.  They need to know that not only do they have a duty to live by the rules of society but also that they can make a worthy contribution.  Those that went away to Kenya after TWOCing someone's prized Golf GTi and burning it out afterward must have felt very smug with themselves, instead of being made to see their actions have a consequence and being punished accordingly.  If it means being strapped to a bench and having salted birch twigs applied to their bare backsides in public then so be it, I don't have a problem with that.

Instead, we live in a culture where a burglar can sue his victims for injuring him (and increasingly her) while he/she attempts to rob their proporty.  The victim meanwhile cannot expect much in the way of compensation and if they dared sue the burglar for damages it would probably get laughed out of court.  

I'm not advocating a return to kangaroo courts of old, but a return to common sense values.  The victim should receive some satisfaction that justice is done and the perpetrator should be aware that when they choose to waive their responsibilities to society, they also in turn waive rights also.  Only then will our society take crime and punishment seriously.  We can blame the media, Urban Music and pop culture as much as we like, but all these things are a reflection on society, not the other way around.


Careful now! You almost sound like Wiliam Hague! :lol:

A new bill is currently being passed through parliament that will let home owners "use whatever force THEY deem NECCESSARY" to defend their home against intruders!

I can't fscking wait for someone to try and burgle my house while I'm home!  The day this bill gets passed will be a very happy occasion for all decent people.
 

Offline KennyR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 8081
    • Show only replies by KennyR
    • http://wrongpla.net
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #65 on: December 13, 2004, 03:14:56 PM »
Quote
mdma wrote:
A new bill is currently being passed through parliament that will let home owners "use whatever force THEY deem NECCESSARY" to defend their home against intruders!


Yeah, what a stupid, idiotic law. Not because of what it does, but because of it's ambiguity. So if I can work around laws and assault or murder an intruder, there's nothing here to say can't I work around other laws and use firearms, explosives, or chemical and biological agents if I deem them necessary? Can I throw acid at intruders if I feel my property under threat? Can I fire ricin-coated darts at them?

The Labour government is the greatest at making these new laws but leaving them so vague that they're totally useless.
 

  • Guest
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #66 on: December 13, 2004, 03:30:36 PM »
Quote

KennyR wrote:
Quote
mdma wrote:
A new bill is currently being passed through parliament that will let home owners "use whatever force THEY deem NECCESSARY" to defend their home against intruders!


Yeah, what a stupid, idiotic law. Not because of what it does, but because of it's ambiguity. So if I can work around laws and assault or murder an intruder, there's nothing here to say can't I work around other laws and use firearms, explosives, or chemical and biological agents if I deem them necessary? Can I throw acid at intruders if I feel my property under threat? Can I fire ricin-coated darts at them?

The Labour government is the greatest at making these new laws but leaving them so vague that they're totally useless.


I think it's a great law.  If the law allows it, i personally wouldn't stop kicking the sh!t out of an intruder until they were close to death.

I'm a law abiding citizen, a burglar isn't.

Once this law has been in place for a while and burglars have made the mistake of breaking into the house of someone who is not afraid to batter them senseless, then the burglary rate won't be as high.  The smackheads will just move on to easier targets like commercial properties.

I don't give a flying feck if a business gets burgled.  It's not my problem.  It is my problem when my house or the house of someone I care about gets turned over.

See, I'm left wing without being liberal! ;-)
 

Offline PMC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 2616
    • Show only replies by PMC
    • http://www.b3ta.com
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #67 on: December 13, 2004, 03:32:48 PM »
Quote

mdma wrote:

Careful now! You almost sound like Wiliam Hague! :lol:



Oh shhhhh....  Now you've upset me :lol:

Quote


A new bill is currently being passed through parliament that will let home owners "use whatever force THEY deem NECCESSARY" to defend their home against intruders!

I can't fscking wait for someone to try and burgle my house while I'm home!  The day this bill gets passed will be a very happy occasion for all decent people.


Yeah, hopefully it marks a return to common sense.  Unfortunately common sense policies only ever appear once every four years, usually prior to a general election.
Cecilia for President
 

Offline KennyR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 8081
    • Show only replies by KennyR
    • http://wrongpla.net
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #68 on: December 13, 2004, 03:42:11 PM »
Quote
mdma wrote:
I think it's a great law. If the law allows it, i personally wouldn't stop kicking the sh!t out of an intruder until they were close to death.

I'm a law abiding citizen, a burglar isn't.


That's not my point. My point is, the government will screw it up so badly that the intruder will still be able to sue you. Or justify themselves killing householders as self-defence! And people will find loopholes to commit other crimes under the pretence of protecting property. Like my chemical weapons example.

Their law just isn't solid enough. It has no foundation and nothing to back it up in other laws. And they can never make it solid without going straight up against the court of human rights. It'll be a complete mess, mark my words.
 

  • Guest
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #69 on: December 13, 2004, 03:45:47 PM »
Quote

KennyR wrote:
Quote
mdma wrote:
I think it's a great law. If the law allows it, i personally wouldn't stop kicking the sh!t out of an intruder until they were close to death.

I'm a law abiding citizen, a burglar isn't.


That's not my point. My point is, the government will screw it up so badly that the intruder will still be able to sue you. Or justify themselves killing householders as self-defence! And people will find loopholes to commit other crimes under the pretence of protecting property. Like my chemical weapons example.

Their law just isn't solid enough. It has no foundation and nothing to back it up in other laws. And they can never make it solid without going straight up against the court of human rights. It'll be a complete mess, mark my words.


Just like every other law that gets passed.

To paraphrase the great Rab C Nesbitt, the Chavs and the Toffs get all the benefits of the law.  The working class and the middle class hate each other with a passion, yet it's these two groups that always come off worst.
 

Offline whabang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 7270
    • Show only replies by whabang
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #70 on: December 13, 2004, 03:47:12 PM »


It's for home protection! :-D
Beating the dead horse since 2002.
 

  • Guest
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #71 on: December 13, 2004, 04:18:14 PM »
Quote

whabang wrote:


It's for home protection! :-D


Honestly officer, the wife bought it at an Ann Summers Party! ;-)
 

Offline Cymric

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 1031
    • Show only replies by Cymric
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #72 on: December 13, 2004, 05:10:52 PM »
Quote
Dan wrote:
Quote
Cymric wrote:
In the Netherlands, the Dutch Minister of Justice wanted to make it unlawful to hit a child. His argument: people should learn that it is not right to hit a child. Of course he was steamrolled by almost everyone: the law won't prevent serious child abuse (which was its main selling point), and parents should have the right to administer a corrective, educational slap. It is not a right to be taken lightly, of course, and should be avoided whereever possible.

The sad thing is that he was right.
It´s not okay to beat unknown people in the street or a shop that isn´t polite to you but it´s okay to hit your kid?

Most of what needed to be said was already put into words by many other posters---I simply forgot about this thread. I just want to comment on your reply.

First, the Minister was not right. His goal was to prevent serious child abuse by outlawing any form of contact other than a soft touch in 'neutral' areas. People who abuse their child will not be impressed one iota, and go ahead beating the child senseless anyway. Plus it doesn't do anything about psychological abuse, nor prevent other gruesome methods of torture. If you want to hurt children, you needn't do that by hitting them. Despite the fact I don't have any children, I can understand his worries and anxieties. But he is barking up the wrong tree, and fighting symptoms instead of working on, say, improved monitoring, keeping the anonymous hot line for child abuse open (it is most likely going to be closed), and making sure that all officials have the right information to have them step in quickly and quietly when necessary.

Plus it introduces the rather curious problem what to do about children hitting other children. That's just as bad as adults hitting children. Sometimes even worse since adults are supposed to know restraint and reason, despite them being much stronger. I speak from bitter experience of being the butt-end of a number of brainless bullies for a few years. (Their bullying only ended when I kicked one in the balls, causing him to walk funny for a day or two, and really hit another on the nose, causing a nose bleed of epic proportions. I was lucky I didn't break anything.) You want to try and get a law preventing this sort of thing through government? I give you a snowball's chance in Hell of it passing.  

Or what about administering drugs like Ritalin to active and difficult children to quiet them down and make them more 'managable'? I hear it's all the fashion these days. Is that okay?

Second, there is a not-so-subtle difference between hitting a child, and what I cryptically (and, in hindsight, rather anal-retentively) called administering a corrective, educational slap. With the latter I mean either a slap on the hand, or a slap on the buttocks. Never anywhere else, most especially the head. If you alter position, apply more force than you would apply during hand-clapping, or use anything other than an open palm, you're crossing the line. Period. That's when it becomes hitting, and people ought to seek out professional help if they did this more than once. (I think I got slapped about five times in my life, and only once in the face, but that was when I was 21 or thereabouts.)

Third, I specifically said that slapping really is a last resort. I would try peaceful methods first: moving things out of reach, taking away candy, not buying what the child wants. If that doesn't work: halting allowance, grounding them, putting them in their room, using psychological tricks. (My girlfriend told me she was once put under a cold shower, fully dressed. Harsh, but it got the job done quite effectively.) And only then, if all that fails, or if things demand immediate action, a slap. You're just as much crossing a line if you need to slap yourself out of every situation; other methods are often a lot more effective.

Finally, you really cannot compare hitting someone in the street with a slap you give a child when it's being headstrong, or throwing a temper tantrum.

That's why I have a hard time taking anyone serious who seeks to limit my (to be) paternal judgement by making the slap illegal. What's next on the list of things You Can't Do To A Child? Forbidding to send them to bed without dinner because it leads to malnutrition? Forbidding psychological tricks on ground of it hampering their mental development? No. Hitting children is Bad, but forbidding it won't solve anything, and giving a child a slap under very extreme circumstances is permissable.
Some people say that cats are sneaky, evil and cruel. True, and they have many other fine qualities as well.
 

Offline bjjones37

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2004
  • Posts: 524
    • Show only replies by bjjones37
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #73 on: December 13, 2004, 06:05:27 PM »
Quote

Cymric wrote:
Second, there is a not-so-subtle difference between hitting a child, and what I cryptically (and, in hindsight, rather anal-retentively) called administering a corrective, educational slap. With the latter I mean either a slap on the hand, or a slap on the buttocks. Never anywhere else, most especially the head.


This so, so true.  I would like to add something to this.  Discipline is NOT administered to get revenge on your child.  It should never be done in anger. It is an act of love which is done in love because you care for your child. It is not done because a child is bad.  Children are not bad but behavior can be.  This is a crucial difference which may seem trivial on the surface.  Never call a child bad, call the misbehavior bad.
Any obstacle can be an opportunity, try a different perspective.
 

Offline the_leanderTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 3448
    • Show only replies by the_leander
    • http://www.extropia.co.uk/theleander/
Re: BANNED FROM HOME FOR SMACKING SON
« Reply #74 on: December 13, 2004, 06:21:56 PM »
Wow!

If I'd known that this was such a powerful issue, I'd have put up something like this sooner! Of all the threads I have ever created, this on has recieved the most replies by far!

Fascinating discussion too :-)
Blessed Be,
Alan Fisher - the_leander

[SIGPIC]http://www.extropia.co.uk/theleander/[/SIGPIC]