Racist Chanting

[SwedeFox]

Re: smacking children

I've always found it quite disturbing that hitting children is considered socially acceptable by some, yet hitting women isn't by the same people. Not saying either (or indeed hitting men) is right, because I don't think any of them are, but children are much more defenseless and vulnerable than a fully grown adult and it's always seems even worse from a morale standpoint to me. May be just me though.

(To counteract the generic bullshit pro-smacker quote): My parents never smacked me and I never turned into a criminal.

But Prof, you don't your raise your woman, you don't need to teach her right from wrong. I think that's a really strange comparison, I don't think it's contradictory at all to believe in smacking children but not women.

But I do think it's wrong, so I agree with you on that point.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

It's comparable if you're causing physical injury. I've never come across a situation where someone hits a woman and hasn't meant to do them harm or vice versa. There may be cases out there but I've not come across them. If you're leaving bruises on a child then you're obviously using too much force and that is then violence. Most parents that smack, smack them on the bum, it's the safest part of the body to smack, due to the amount of muscle and fatty tissue there without causing any damage to bones etc. It's been used throughout human history as a tool of discipline and only been outlawed in the last few years. I'm not saying bring back caning. Are we saying that children weren't loved until 15-20 years ago?

Slightly off topic, but just out of curiosity do you class a woman slapping a man in an argument acceptable?

There are plenty of examples of it: i.e. if a man in an argument, say, slaps his wife to get her to shut up, but uses enough force to cause his wife pain (which is what happens to children as they usually end up crying after it) to make a, but doesn't use enough force to leave physical or cause bruises, than that is an example of it. Yet many people who view that as morally wrong, yet when parents do that to their children, who are much more vulnerable and defenseless, think that is okay. I'm not saying one is wrong and the other is right, I just think it's a bit of hypocrisy.

Where have I said children weren't loved 15 years ago? I never said smacking children meant they weren't loved, I could equally throw that quote back and say: are we saying that children who aren't smacked aren't going to be as disciplined or brought up as "well" as children who are? Of course not. You shouldn't need to smack your children.

And no, I don't think anyone hitting anyone in an argument is acceptable. Especially, given that in the heat of an argument it's likely to be driven by aggression as well and is more likely to cause physical pain.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

But Prof, you don't your raise your woman, you don't need to teach her right from wrong. I think that's a really strange comparison, I don't think it's contradictory at all to believe in smacking children but not women.

But I do think it's wrong, so I agree with you on that point.

There are plenty of situations where you need to remind or to teach fully grown adults what is right or wrong. That's what most arguments are over.

 

[gregs_y2k]

Ture. In fact that last line you bolded by gregs to me comes across as a very, very dangerous way of viewing things and I hope I am wrong and gregs will correct me on this, but it almost seems like he's saying that we shouldn't analyse human instinct, behaviour and our human conformist society and that we should blindly accept things the way they are and we shouldn't seek stamp out the bad things and bad traditions of them (of which there are many and of which there are many which were accepted in the past which have thankfully been stamped out over the years).

I'm not suggesting that, of course there are aspects that have been rightly stamped out such as slavery etc. What I'm suggesting about the human condition is that on occasion it propels us backwards or doesn't solve the problem. Positive racism and sexism is another fairly recent movement that is another example of moving things backwards rather than forwards, especially on the equality front. There is no such thing as positive racism, sexism, ageism etc.

 

[SwedeFox]

There are plenty of situations where you need to remind or to teach fully grown adults what is right or wrong. That's what most arguments are over.

It's never your responsibility to teach another fully grown, sane adult what is right or wrong (unless you do that for a living, ie as a judge). It is, however, your responsibility as a parent to raise your children into moral human beings. Do you not think there is a huge difference between the two?

 

[Profondo Rosso]

What statistics out there that say it is wrong and counterproductive. Are crime rates dramatically lower than 20-30 years ago? I think not.

Because crime rates, which have thousands of sociological and political reasons behind them (not to mention "crime rates" says nothing about type of crime and changing attitudes with regards to crime), aren't down, it's fine to smack children.

Okay then. That's me convinced.

 

[Dour]

What statistics out there that say it is wrong and counterproductive. Are crime rates dramatically lower than 20-30 years ago? I think not.

You could check. They are lower than 20 years ago.

 

[gregs_y2k]

There are plenty of examples of it: i.e. if a man in an argument, say, slaps his wife to get her to shut up, but uses enough force to cause his wife pain (which is what happens to children as they usually end up crying after it) to make a, but doesn't use enough force to leave physical or cause bruises, than that is an example of it. Yet many people who view that as morally wrong, yet when parents do that to their children, who are much more vulnerable and defenseless, think that is okay. I'm not saying one is wrong and the other is right, I just think it's a bit of hypocrisy.

Where have I said children weren't loved 15 years ago? I never said smacking children meant they weren't loved, I could equally throw that quote back and say: are we saying that children who aren't smacked aren't going to be as disciplined or brought up as "well" as children who are? Of course not. You shouldn't need to smack your children.

And no, I don't think anyone hitting anyone in an argument is acceptable. Especially, given that in the heat of an argument it's likely to be driven by aggression as well and is more likely to cause physical pain.

The crying thing isn't necessarily true, a child often cries not when they fall over, but when they see that their parent has noticed they have fallen over or begins making a fuss about them bumping their head. It's a way of getting that attention all young children crave. I'm not saying in every instance this is true but children cry for a whole number of reasons other than pain. Have you made a child cry when telling them off? or not letting them get their own way? Smacking a child that does not cause any physical injury is not abuse.

I'm not suggesting that you were inferring that, but it seems to me that you think that anyone who smacks a child is an abusive parent. Perhaps I should have rephrased it and asked do those on here who were smacked as children think that they were abused? do they class their parents as bad parents? (I know you weren't smacked prof and so don;t lash back at me on this one it's just a general question)

 

[Profondo Rosso]

I'm not suggesting that, of course there are aspects that have been rightly stamped out such as slavery etc. What I'm suggesting about the human condition is that on occasion it propels us backwards or doesn't solve the problem. Positive racism and sexism is another fairly recent movement that is another example of moving things backwards rather than forwards, especially on the equality front. There is no such thing as positive racism, sexism, ageism etc.

So you don't think it's a sad state of the human condition then that these things get over analysed? Just that there are a few examples you don't agree with.

Human behaviour, traditions, politics and society absolutely should be over analysed to ween out the bad things and to cater for an ever changing human society and developments in science and social and psychological science. If you don't agree with one or two of them fine, but I'd find it a very dangerous attitude if you think it's a sad state of the human condition that things like this don't get over analysed. Which I'm glad to hear doesn't seem like the case and seems more like miscommunication.

It's never your responsibility to teach another fully grown, sane adult what is right or wrong (unless you do that for a living, ie as a judge). It is, however, your responsibility as a parent to raise your children into moral human beings. Do you not think there is a huge difference between the two?

Of course, but responsibility to teach right from wrong should have nothing to do with whether it's okay to smack someone.

 

[gregs_y2k]

Because crime rates, which have thousands of sociological and political reasons behind them (not to mention "crime rates" says nothing about type of crime and changing attitudes with regards to crime), aren't down, it's fine to smack children.

Okay then. That's me convinced.

I'm just highlighting the flaw in Macky's argument that it's been proved wrong and counterproductive. There's no evidence to suggest that at all. In fact children like Baby P are still occurring despite the change in law. Anyway we've gone way off topic now so let's just leave it at that.

 

[gregs_y2k]

So you don't think it's a sad state of the human condition then that these things get over analysed? Just that there are a few examples you don't agree with.

Human behaviour, traditions, politics and society absolutely should be over analysed to ween out the bad things and to cater for an ever changing human society and developments in science and social and psychological science. If you don't agree with one or two of them fine, but I'd find it a very dangerous attitude if you think it's a sad state of the human condition that things like this don't get over analysed. Which I'm glad to hear doesn't seem like the case and seems more like miscommunication.



Of course, but responsibility to teach right from wrong should have nothing to do with whether it's okay to smack someone.

I'm only referring to the sad state of the human condition when we use it badly.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

The crying thing isn't necessarily true, a child often cries not when they fall over, but when they see that their parent has noticed they have fallen over or begins making a fuss about them bumping their head. It's a way of getting that attention all young children crave. I'm not saying in every instance this is true but children cry for a whole number of reasons other than pain. Have you made a child cry when telling them off? or not letting them get their own way? Smacking a child that does not cause any physical injury is not abuse.

I'm not suggesting that you were inferring that, but it seems to me that you think that anyone who smacks a child is an abusive parent. Perhaps I should have rephrased it and asked do those on here who were smacked as children think that they were abused? do they class their parents as bad parents? (I know you weren't smacked prof and so don;t lash back at me on this one it's just a general question)

No, but whether or not they think they were abused has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about what strikes me as a hypocrisy in people's morale judgement. I'm talking about that some people view hitting women to get them to shut up in an argument in a way which also doesn't cause psychical injury as okay, but yet doing the same to children as not okay.

If people think smacking children is fine, that's their opinion, I'm just wondering why plenty of these same people also think smacking a woman in an argument without causing physical injury is wrong.

 

[SwedeFox]

No, but whether or not they think they were abused has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about what strikes me as a hypocrisy in people's morale judgement. I'm talking about that some people view hitting women to get them to shut up in an argument in a way which also doesn't cause psychical injury as okay, but yet doing the same to children as not okay.

If people think smacking children is fine, that's their opinion, I'm just wondering why plenty of these same people (not saying you specifically gregs) also think smacking a woman in an argument without causing physical injury is wrong.

And my response to that is that children need to be disciplined, physically or not (the latter is my view), women do not. Therefore, I think they are two different matters altogether. But agree to disagree is fine by me.

 

[Macky]

I'm just highlighting the flaw in Macky's argument that it's been proved wrong and counterproductive. There's no evidence to suggest that at all.

Study after study, for many years, has shown that using violence as a parenting method is counterproductive. The jury is not out on this one, they returned their verdict years ago.
I don't have time right now to show you all the work that's been done on this, but if you're really interested, just Gooooogle it.

 

[SwedeFox]

Study after study, for many years, has shown that using violence as a parenting method is counterproductive. The jury is not out on this one, they returned their verdict years ago.
I don't have time right now to show you all the work that's been done on this, but if you're really interested, just Gooooogle it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cked-young-likely-successful-study-finds.html

I have vented my despise for the Daily Mail before, so I'm not serious.

 

[gregs_y2k]

Study after study, for many years, has shown that using violence as a parenting method is counterproductive. The jury is not out on this one, they returned their verdict years ago.
I don't have time right now to show you all the work that's been done on this, but if you're really interested, just Gooooogle it.

There's also been study after study that says that global warming isn't a problem but I think most of us would accept that it is. Most of these studies are not conducted from an unbiased viewpoint and so statistics are quite often engineered, sometimes even unconsciously, to create the desired outcome.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

And my response to that is that children need to be disciplined, physically or not (the latter is my view), women do not. Therefore, I think they are two different matters altogether. But agree to disagree is fine by me.

Fair enough, but what about cases where they are not doing something wrong which needs to be told to them that they are doing wrong? Most of the time, parents seem to smack their kids just because they are being rowdy and/or annoying or won't shut up, not because they have done something wrong and need to be taught that is wrong, like say run in front of a moving car.

 

[SwedeFox]

Fair enough, but what about cases where they are not doing something wrong which needs to be told to them that they are doing wrong? Most of the time, parents seem to smack their kids just because they are being rowdy and/or annoying or won't shut up, not because they have done something wrong and need to be taught that is wrong, like say run in front of a moving car.

Well, I think that's just plain bad parenting and I don't think gregs is condoning that.

Need to get back to my John Stuart Mill essay now, may bring some of the interesting thoughts mentioned here into that.

 

[gregs_y2k]

Fair enough, but what about cases where they are not doing something wrong which needs to be told to them that they are doing wrong? Most of the time, parents seem to smack their kids just because they are being rowdy and/or annoying or won't shut up, not because they have done something wrong and need to be taught that is wrong, like say run in front of a moving car.

See this is where the difference is, I said it should be used sparingly and I would only ever use it as a last resort. Not because the kids are being noisy in the house or pissing me off. That's how it should be used and I think if it is used in this way it is an effective disciplinary tool. It's not always possible to simply tell a child what they have done wrong, especially at a young age. as they don't understand the ramifications.

 

[Rich B]

My God. My entire argument has been undermined by a typo!

It's not complicated... there is a very obvious distinction between one person assaulting another because of their skin colour and one person assaulting another and then, aside from the motive, using racist language during the assault.

As an example:

a) A black bloke knocks over a white bloke's pint in a pub. Words are had and in escalates into a fight. During the course of the fight the white bloke says "**** you, you black bastard".

b) A black bloke is walking down a street. A racist spots him and decides to assault him because he is black.

Example a) was not a racially motivated assault, but racist language was used during the course of the event. Example b) was racially motivated.

How about this scenario then? A bunch of drunken Somalian woman attack – on film, a white woman whilst screaming “kill the white bitch” ? Is this a racist attack ?

No ? Thought not.

Oh, and the typo, suggest that you go to downloadasenseofhumour.com