Smacked children more successful in later life.
Ret.
those who have not, research has found.
The study concluded that children who had been physically disciplined when
they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were performing better as
teenagers on almost every measure that was taken into consideration than
those who had never been smacked.
Of course anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not need a piece of
research to tell them that some children require discipline - and those
children who need it, and don't get it, will invariably turn out to be badly
behaved teenagers and young adults, and hence do worse in adult life.
As usual the cretinous bleeding heart liberals are proved wrong again.
Kev
Richard
> Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful than
> those who have not, research has found.
> The study concluded that children who had been physically disciplined when
> they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were performing better as
> teenagers on almost every measure that was taken into consideration than
> those who had never been smacked.
>
>
> Of course anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not need a piece of
> research to tell them that some children require discipline - and those
> children who need it, and don't get it, will invariably turn out to be badly
> behaved teenagers and young adults, and hence do worse in adult life.
>
> As usual the cretinous bleeding heart liberals are proved wrong again.
>
> Kev
No ones been proved right or wrong............the question is
completely without value, as is the content of the past above.
johannes
Anyone with an anyone with an ounce of intelligence would realise that this
research is flawed. Even the cuddly use of the word 'smack' as substitute for
physical violence is a sign of the political bias. Physical violence against
children is profoundly demotivating of their development and interest in
learning.
Ret.
Utter codswallop from an obvious bleeding heart liberal. Can you not get it
into your head that the mass anti-social behaviour we are experiencing today
is a direct result of the removal of almost all discipline from young
people. Teachers are leaving the profession in droves because they simply
cannot put up with the appalling behaviour of their pupils - and have no
effective sanction to use against them.
Kev
Turk182
> johannes wrote:
> > "Ret." wrote:
>
> >> Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful
> >> than those who have not, research has found.
> >> The study concluded that children who had been physically
> >> disciplined when they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were
> >> performing better as teenagers on almost every measure that was
> >> taken into consideration than those who had never been smacked.
>
> >> Read more:
>
> >> Of course anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not need a
> >> piece of research to tell them that some children require discipline
> >> - and those children who need it, and don't get it, will invariably
> >> turn out to be badly behaved teenagers and young adults, and hence
> >> do worse in adult life.
>
> >> As usual the cretinous bleeding heart liberals are proved wrong
> >> again.
>
> >> Kev
>
> > Anyone with an anyone with an ounce of intelligence would realise
> > that this research is flawed. Even the cuddly use of the word 'smack'
> > as substitute for physical violence is a sign of the political bias.
> > Physical violence against children is profoundly demotivating of
> > their development and interest in learning.
>
> Utter codswallop from an obvious bleeding heart liberal. Can you not get it
> into your head that the mass anti-social behaviour we are experiencing today
> is a direct result of the removal of almost all discipline from young
> people. Teachers are leaving the profession in droves because they simply
> cannot put up with the appalling behaviour of their pupils - and have no
> effective sanction to use against them.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You haven't even taken the first step towards understanding your
fellow man, and that is because you don't understand yourself. Like
most of the Daily Mail reporters, you are without psychological
enlightenment. If you are ever lucky enough to get any, you'll
realise how far of course you became with your learned abusive
automated responses.
I'm sorry to this this, but you are using the same arguments that
child abusers do.
Turk182
johannes
The physical violence against children disappeared for good reason. I remember
well how awful and demotivating it was in my time. Go knocked out flat by a
language teacher for not citing the accusative correctly. Remember it to
this day. Thank goodness that it's gone and buried.
Turk182
> Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful than
> those who have not, research has found.
> The study concluded that children who had been physically disciplined when
> they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were performing better as
> teenagers on almost every measure that was taken into consideration than
> those who had never been smacked.
>
>
> Of course anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not need a piece of
> research to tell them that some children require discipline - and those
> children who need it, and don't get it, will invariably turn out to be badly
> behaved teenagers and young adults, and hence do worse in adult life.
>
> As usual the cretinous bleeding heart liberals are proved wrong again.
>
> Kev
Church child abuse in America is rife. Many preachers promote
assaults on Children and you can see from this link, that this is just
any old college who have produced this research. They are out and out
bible bashers. How typical of the Daily Mail people abusers to
publish this trash. The gutless Daily Mail reporter didn't even have
the courage to put his/her name on the article.
The Dail Mail Promotes Child Abuse. This just like the Sun, who
published a whole page telling you how to assault your child without
the police finding out - and the abusive Daily Express that also
promotes child abuse through it's advice column.
http://www.calvin.edu/about/mission.htm
Turk182
steve robinson
Rubbish , different children need different approaches depending on
thier demenur , character ,age understanding etc
What works for one child will not always work for the other
My two daughters when younger , pointless sending the eldest to her
room if she misbehaved as she would sit and read a book , tidy her
wardrobe , draw quite happily . A threat to slap her backside
however would soon bring her back into line
The younger exact opposite , she has a very high pain threshold so a
threat to smack wouldnt work but ssend her to her room and that was
worse punishment she could have
steve robinson
Rubbish , there is a big difference between chastiseing a naughty
child correctly and child abuse
steve robinson
That was abuse a smack on the backside by a parent if a child will
not behave and will not respond to other sanctions isnt .
There is a difference between beating a child and correcting
misbehavour by a smack on the backside
Fredxx
"Turk182" <digital...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:98c94bdd-15e5-4b84...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
It's such a shame you resort to using the generic catch all phrase of "child
abusers". That includes parents who allow their children to get obese and
all manner of awful treatment to a child. Corporal punishment where
appropriately and proportionately administered is not a form of abuse. (I'm
happy for you to call it violence, in much the same way it's administered by
the state to adults, sometimes with lethal consequences.) Unlike abuse,
discipline generally elicits a positive response. You should go away and
read some of the papers based on the Swedish experience.
Andy Pandy
"johannes" <jo...@size229747257254fitter.com> wrote in message
news:4B40EF95...@size229747257254fitter.com...
>
>
> "Ret." wrote:
>>
>> Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful than
>> those who have not, research has found.
>> The study concluded that children who had been physically disciplined
>> when
>> they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were performing better as
>> teenagers on almost every measure that was taken into consideration than
>> those who had never been smacked.
>>
>> Read more:
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240279/Children-smacked-young-likely-successful-study-finds.html#ixzz0bZvczaVB
>>
>> Of course anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not need a piece of
>> research to tell them that some children require discipline - and those
>> children who need it, and don't get it, will invariably turn out to be
>> badly
>> behaved teenagers and young adults, and hence do worse in adult life.
>>
>> As usual the cretinous bleeding heart liberals are proved wrong again.
>>
>> Kev
>
> Anyone with an anyone with an ounce of intelligence would realise that
> this
> research is flawed.
Why, because it doesn't fit your views? Point out the flaw in the research.
> Even the cuddly use of the word 'smack' as substitute for
> physical violence is a sign of the political bias.
Are you a bit thick? It's not used as a "substitute", it's used to describe
the act more specifically. "Physical violence" covers a wide range of
activity from a mild tap to a frenzied chainsaw attack culminating in the
victim's head being chopped off.
> Physical violence against
> children is profoundly demotivating of their development and interest in
> learning.
Bullshit. Pain is an essential learning tool for children. If you don't
believe me try reading the stories of children who suffer from congenital
insensitivity to pain.
--
Andy
Andy Pandy
> The physical violence against children disappeared for good reason. I
> remember
> well how awful and demotivating it was in my time. Go knocked out flat by
> a
> language teacher for not citing the accusative correctly. Remember it to
> this day. Thank goodness that it's gone and buried.
And I got deafened at a rock concert. So shouting is abuse. And I got run
over by a driver doing 90 down the high street. So bring back the man with
the red flag.
--
Andy
Andy Pandy
"Fredxx" <fre...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:hhqu6f$31i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yup - same with any form of punishment (and there are far worse punishments
than physical ones). Problems occur when it's not proportionate, not fairly
administered, not consistent, or when the child can't make the connection
between the act and the punishment.
--
Andy
Djornsk
Certainly parents first and formost should be responsable for
disciplining their children, but what happens when the parents are
children themselves and/or perhaps have never known parental discipline
themselves? Perhaps it is a case of parents who can always will, and for
the rest it would be safer not to suggest that beating children is a
good idea.
As for schools all we need is for state schools to follow best practice
in the independant sector particularly wrt class sizes. Simples.
j
Turk182
wrote:
> johannes wrote:
>
> > "Ret." wrote:
>
> > > Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more
> > > successful than those who have not, research has found.
> > > The study concluded that children who had been physically
> > > disciplined when they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6,
> > > were performing better as teenagers on almost every measure that
> > > was taken into consideration than those who had never been
> > > smacked.
>
> > > Read more:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Of course anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not need a
> > > piece of research to tell them that some children require
> > > discipline - and those children who need it, and don't get it,
> > > will invariably turn out to be badly behaved teenagers and young
> > > adults, and hence do worse in adult life.
>
> > > As usual the cretinous bleeding heart liberals are proved wrong
> > > again.
>
> > > Kev
>
> > Anyone with an anyone with an ounce of intelligence would realise
> > that this research is flawed. Even the cuddly use of the word
> > 'smack' as substitute for physical violence is a sign of the
> > political bias. Physical violence against children is profoundly
> > demotivating of their development and interest in learning.
>
> Rubbish , different children need different approaches depending on
> thier demenur , character ,age understanding etc
>
> What works for one child will not always work for the other
>
> My two daughters when younger , pointless sending the eldest to her
> room if she misbehaved as she would sit and read a book , tidy her
> wardrobe , draw quite happily . A threat to slap her backside
> however would soon bring her back into line
>
> The younger exact opposite , she has a very high pain threshold so a
> threat to smack wouldnt work but ssend her to her room and that was
>
> - Show quoted text -
You don't sound like a hitter to me. Go to Margate, South Shields, or
many other places. You will see what a hitter is. Take your choice:
slaps, punches, kicks or even people swinging children around by the
hair. These abusers have just been given a licence to carry on what
they are doing by the Daily Mail's chief Child Abuse promoter, the
anonymous, gutless reporter.
Turk182
MM
<digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>I'm sorry to this this, but you are using the same arguments that
>child abusers do.
What an utter and complete load of old bollocks. We have the current
endemic of anti-social behaviour precisely because children were NOT
disciplined enough over the past decade or so. As I have said so many
times, you cannot reason with a child. Also, persuasion is not the
right approach. The parent has to be firm and not waiver in the
slightest, else the child WILL take advantage. It's called pushing the
boundaries. I would say, two times "no", and then a smack.
MM
Turk182
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:42:21 -0800 (PST), Turk182
>
You are right....YOU can not reason with a child.
Actually, some people can. Learn the skills it's never too late!
Turk182
Ian
> Utter codswallop from an obvious bleeding heart liberal. Can you not get it
> into your head that the mass anti-social behaviour we are experiencing today
> is a direct result of the removal of almost all discipline from young
> people.
Crap. Unmitigated crap. The young people who behave worst are those
who get walloped at home. You don't get gangs of children of middle
class liberals steaming trains and fighting with knifes in the
streets.
> Teachers are leaving the profession in droves because they simply
> cannot put up with the appalling behaviour of their pupils - and have no
> effective sanction to use against them.
Teachers are always whining about being on the point of leaving the
profession. If more of the useless ones actually followed through,
schools would be better places.
Ian
Special Care
wrote:
> ...A threat to slap her backside
> however would soon bring her back into line
-------------------------------------------------------------
And that's not all it'll do:
1. NO VITAL ORGANS THERE, So They Say
by Lesli Taylor, M. D. and Adah Maurer, Ph. D.
http://nospank.net/taylor.htm
2. HOW TO SPANK - erotic spanking:
http://www.babeland.com/sexinfo/howto/spanking
Steve Firth
> Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful than
> those who have not, research has found.
Ah yes, that prestigious academic centre of excellence, Calvin College
of Grand Rapids, Michigan. A college that highlights its Bible-Bashing
right wing American values on its web page.
Of course, anyone with an ounce of intelligence would question the
validity of "research" perpetrated by a backwoods college with a
self-declared political and religious bias, wouldn't they?
Unless of course they happen to be the sort of twerp who reads the Daily
Mail and swears by every word.
Meanwhile in the real world, I raised my children without every having
to beat them up. End result they actually respect their parents, and
they have achieved the sort of success that a sidelined ex-police
inspector can only dream of.
Turk182
Correct on every point. As I walked down the corridors of the last
school I worked at, you could always spot the teachers who had few
skills with kids - they were the ones who were always bellowing,
yelling and showing no affection whatever for the kids. The ones who
genuinely liked children and respected them, ran the quiet, orderly
and productive classes. It's as simple as that. Every teacher faces
challenges, but when theres a poor teacher, all the kids they teach
are affected and their behaviour becomes unstable. Shouting teachers
need to look at their behaviour - they are actually re-enforcing the
behaviour of the damaged parents.
Teachers however are not trained to deal with severely damages
children - when they do cope it is a great tribute to them. There are
thousands of severly damaged children and they are a product of a
society in which aspirational goals of business and politics and poor
parenting, have put the interests and needs of children at the bottom
of the pile.
I always observe with interest the people who so often misuse the word
discipline. How can a parent who knows no self-discipline offer a
guiding influence to a child. It can't be done. Badly regulated
adults produce disturbed children - period.
Turk182
Mycroft
> You don't sound like a hitter to me. Go to Margate, South Shields, or
> many other places. You will see what a hitter is. Take your choice:
> slaps, punches, kicks or even people swinging children around by the
> hair. These abusers have just been given a licence to carry on what
> they are doing by the Daily Mail's chief Child Abuse promoter, the
> anonymous, gutless reporter.
I never thought it would come to this... I agree with you...
mc
Steve Firth
> On 3 Jan, 19:34, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
> > Utter codswallop from an obvious bleeding heart liberal. Can you not get it
> > into your head that the mass anti-social behaviour we are experiencing today
> > is a direct result of the removal of almost all discipline from young
> > people.
>
> Crap. Unmitigated crap. The young people who behave worst are those
> who get walloped at home. You don't get gangs of children of middle
> class liberals steaming trains and fighting with knifes in the
> streets.
Correct.
I can rememeber and will remember for the rest of my natural being with
one of my kids in a supermarket. Another child of the same age was
having a tantrum. The mother of that child picked it up and delivered "a
slap". The "slap" was a vicious swipe at the face of the child, severe
enough to leave an ugly mark of the parent's hand on the child's face.
It was a nasty, unecessary attack perpetrated by the sort of coward who
is bigger than the child and knows that the child cannot retaliate in
kind.
My child stared open mouthed having never seen anything like it before.
The mother of the child having beaten their offspring in public then
picked up the packet of sweets the child had been having a tantrum about
and screamed "here you little b******, now shut up and leave me alone!"
My child then pointed out that under the same circumstances when trying
the same trick mother had simply said "no, you're not having sweets", no
argument, no room for argument no pleading allowed and that was the end
of that. Child knew that it was pointless trying to escalate matters
because all that would happen was more loss of priveliges only to be
returned after child had apologised.
Child also pointed out that the worst behaved person in the incident we
witnessed was the mother, and I agree.
People who "smack" children are inarticulate bullies. I'm not surprised
to see that Kevin Lunn is one of them.
Andy Pandy
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1jbrmaa.1ahyhgh13ic0qbN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
I see you're using Dugh logic. A single example of inappropriate use of
excessive violence means all parents who smack are bullies, just like a
single example of a hit and run motorist killing a pedestrian means all
motorists are murderers.
--
Andy
Mentalguy2k8
"Ian" <uberg...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:599e7331-0451-4d0d...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Jan, 19:34, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>> Utter codswallop from an obvious bleeding heart liberal. Can you not get
>> it
>> into your head that the mass anti-social behaviour we are experiencing
>> today
>> is a direct result of the removal of almost all discipline from young
>> people.
>
> Crap. Unmitigated crap. The young people who behave worst are those
> who get walloped at home. You don't get gangs of children of middle
> class liberals steaming trains and fighting with knifes in the
> streets.
You're confusing a responsible, caring environment that uses punishment and
reward sensibly, with an uncaring environment where physical and mental
abuse is an everyday occurrence.
There are millions of other variables during upbringing which affect outcome
rather than whether a child is smacked or not.
Steve Firth
> I see you're using Dugh logic. A single example of inappropriate use of
> excessive violence means all parents who smack are bullies, just like a
> single example of a hit and run motorist killing a pedestrian means all
> motorists are murderers.
No, I'm using the old fashioned sort of logic.
I tell you what, next time someone in a supermarket queue is
misbehaving, you try slapping them. Make it as mild a slap as you like.
Now, what odds will you place on your chances of being had up for
assault?
Yet you apparently feel it's OK to commit a criminal assault on a child,
for no other reason than you being inarticulate, and a bully and bigger
than the child who can't retaliate.
Well done, I mean that will really show the child what's right and wrong
in the world.
Mentalguy2k8
> Andy Pandy <spam8...@wonderful.spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I see you're using Dugh logic. A single example of inappropriate use of
>> excessive violence means all parents who smack are bullies, just like a
>> single example of a hit and run motorist killing a pedestrian means all
>> motorists are murderers.
>
> No, I'm using the old fashioned sort of logic.
>
>
> I tell you what, next time someone in a supermarket queue is
> misbehaving, you try slapping them. Make it as mild a slap as you like.
>
> Now, what odds will you place on your chances of being had up for
> assault?
I suppose you think that parents who ground their kids should be charged
with kidnapping or false imprisonment?
Steve Firth
> I always observe with interest the people who so often misuse the word
> discipline. How can a parent who knows no self-discipline offer a
> guiding influence to a child. It can't be done. Badly regulated
> adults produce disturbed children - period.
Yes. Absolutely right. Lead by example, don't lead by screaming at
someone to behave in the way that you are incapable of behaving.
There are two things which brought me to feel distaste and disrespect
for teachers. One was for their pathetic, childish behaviour exhibited
by attempts to enforce "discipline" by screaming, shouting and
phsyically attacking pupils. The other was the fact that all bullying in
schools starts not with the children but with the teachers.
It was the teachers who would single out a child in a class to bully and
the children who would follow the lead they were given. Sickening
behaviour.
Steve Firth
Steve Firth
[snip]
> I suppose you think that parents who ground their kids should be charged
> with kidnapping or false imprisonment?
I suppose you don't think.
November 5
Ret. wrote:
> Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful than
> those who have not, research has found.
> The study concluded that children who had been physically disciplined when
> they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were performing better as
> teenagers on almost every measure that was taken into consideration than
> those who had never been smacked.
>
>
> Read more:
>
> Of course anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not need a piece of
> research to tell them that some children require discipline - and those
> children who need it, and don't get it, will invariably turn out to be badly
> behaved teenagers and young adults, and hence do worse in adult life.
>
> As usual the cretinous bleeding heart liberals are proved wrong again.
>
> Kev
A Daily Mail article is hardly categorical evidence that A is better
than B. So as usual I must echo other posters in this thread that Ret.
thinks in one track as an uneducated simpleton. Things are black/
white, good/bad and true/false in his rudimentary view of life.
As a bully who is used to beating people who can't fight back because
the laws have disarmed them, now that he is retired he is bored and
decides to extend his bullying to children because picking on chavs is
now a risky prospect for a bag of bones like himself.
For the record in an anarchy parents can bring up children however
they want. Let no third party say how one may bring up their family -
not the Daily Mail and certainly not Ret. If parents bring up their
children in a truly beneficial way their genes will be inherited by
later generations from children successful in life. That is the most
unbiased judge of merit. Let the proof be in the pudding.
N5
OG
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
news:wpGdnQxHf8qibN3W...@pipex.net...
> johannes wrote:
>> "Ret." wrote:
>>>
>>> Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful
>>> than those who have not, research has found.
>>> The study concluded that children who had been physically
>>> disciplined when they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were
>>> performing better as teenagers on almost every measure that was
>>> taken into consideration than those who had never been smacked.
>>>
>>> Read more:
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240279/Children-smacked-young-likely-successful-study-finds.html#ixzz0bZvczaVB
>>>
>>> Of course anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not need a
>>> piece of research to tell them that some children require discipline
>>> - and those children who need it, and don't get it, will invariably
>>> turn out to be badly behaved teenagers and young adults, and hence
>>> do worse in adult life.
>>>
>>> As usual the cretinous bleeding heart liberals are proved wrong
>>> again.
>>>
>>> Kev
>>
>> that this research is flawed. Even the cuddly use of the word 'smack'
>> as substitute for physical violence is a sign of the political bias.
>> Physical violence against children is profoundly demotivating of
>> their development and interest in learning.
>
> it into your head that the mass anti-social behaviour we are experiencing
> today is a direct result of the removal of almost all discipline from
> simply cannot put up with the appalling behaviour of their pupils - and
>
The research claims that physical punishment leads to a small improvement in
'outcomes' for children who may have received physical punishment up to age
6.
If physical punishment ('smacking') had been effective for older children do
you think the Daily Mail would have
a) Had it as a main headline
b) Mentioned it in the report
c) Quietly added a small column filler on a quiet day
d) Suppressed the information because it is scared of offending the 'PC
brigade'
You seem to be advocating corporal punishment of older children than 6 year
olds - even though this has not proved to be successful in modifying
behaviour.
So why do it?
Michael Swift
writes
>Utter codswallop from an obvious bleeding heart liberal. Can you not get
>it into your head that the mass anti-social behaviour we are
>experiencing today is a direct result of the removal of almost all
>discipline from young people. Teachers are leaving the profession in
>droves because they simply cannot put up with the appalling behaviour of
>their pupils - and have no effective sanction to use against them.
Indeed, my daughter in law has been called a fucking twat by one of her
pupils because she dared to tell him to be quiet during a class, my wife
who ran a play group was warned against reacting against three year olds
who kicked and bit her, she should hold them at arms length, so they
can't kick her, but not shout at them as it might disturb them.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Michael Swift
<kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>What an utter and complete load of old bollocks. We have the current
>endemic of anti-social behaviour precisely because children were NOT
>disciplined enough over the past decade or so. As I have said so many
>times, you cannot reason with a child. Also, persuasion is not the right
>approach. The parent has to be firm and not waiver in the slightest,
>else the child WILL take advantage. It's called pushing the boundaries.
>I would say, two times "no", and then a smack.
Softy, once a NO and then a smack and I'm proud to say it didn't happen
often and my three sons have turned out to be marvellous grown ups, #1
giving me a gorgeous granddaughter who pushes the line but is not
allowed to cross it.
Michael Swift
.com>, November 5 <november...@googlemail.com> writes
>A Daily Mail article is hardly categorical evidence that A is better
>than B. So as usual I must echo other posters in this thread that Ret.
>thinks in one track as an uneducated simpleton. Things are black/ whit
The Sunday Times had a similar article so the Mail disclaimer is voided.
Michael Swift
s.com>, Turk182 <digital...@aol.com> writes
>You are right....YOU can not reason with a child.
>
>Actually, some people can. Learn the skills it's never too late!
I bow to your expertise on how to reason with a two year old on the
finer principles of accepted behaviour, I look forward to your post on
how to achieve this miracle.
MM
<mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <216c99ff-05ec-48ee...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroup
>s.com>, Turk182 <digital...@aol.com> writes
>>You are right....YOU can not reason with a child.
>>
>>Actually, some people can. Learn the skills it's never too late!
>
>I bow to your expertise on how to reason with a two year old on the
>finer principles of accepted behaviour, I look forward to your post on
>how to achieve this miracle.
Expertise the old turkey has none of, in my opinion. It's people with
his attitude that have helped bring about the broken society that the
Tories will now have to fix.
MM
MM
<mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <f832k59r5j4642h44...@4ax.com>, MM
><kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>What an utter and complete load of old bollocks. We have the current
>>endemic of anti-social behaviour precisely because children were NOT
>>disciplined enough over the past decade or so. As I have said so many
>>times, you cannot reason with a child. Also, persuasion is not the right
>>approach. The parent has to be firm and not waiver in the slightest,
>>else the child WILL take advantage. It's called pushing the boundaries.
>>I would say, two times "no", and then a smack.
>
>Softy, once a NO and then a smack and I'm proud to say it didn't happen
>often and my three sons have turned out to be marvellous grown ups, #1
>giving me a gorgeous granddaughter who pushes the line but is not
>allowed to cross it.
And don't children ALWAYS try their hardest to see how far they can
go? My mum was always telling me "I give you an inch and you take a
yard!"
MM
MM
wrote:
>Turk182 <digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I always observe with interest the people who so often misuse the word
>> discipline. How can a parent who knows no self-discipline offer a
>> guiding influence to a child. It can't be done. Badly regulated
>> adults produce disturbed children - period.
>
>Yes. Absolutely right. Lead by example, don't lead by screaming at
>someone to behave in the way that you are incapable of behaving.
So.... how does the Army train new recruits? By taking them to one
side and saying, "Look, mate, I'd just like you to walk around this
square for half an hour, but we call it marching, is that okay with
you?"
MM
MM
wrote:
>Andy Pandy <spam8...@wonderful.spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I see you're using Dugh logic. A single example of inappropriate use of
>> excessive violence means all parents who smack are bullies, just like a
>> single example of a hit and run motorist killing a pedestrian means all
>> motorists are murderers.
>
>No, I'm using the old fashioned sort of logic.
>
>
>I tell you what, next time someone in a supermarket queue is
>misbehaving, you try slapping them. Make it as mild a slap as you like.
>
>Now, what odds will you place on your chances of being had up for
>assault?
What a ridiculous comparison! You CAN reason with adults; you CANNOT
with children. When children are wilful and thus do not listen to
reason, they have to learn a very simple lesson: the parent's word is
law. The child presumably knows the difference between 'yes' and 'no',
so if the parent tells the child 'no' but the child ignores it,
repeatedly, then a smack is called for. Not a beating, a smack.
However, proper discipline from the outset shouldn't let it get as far
as "repeatedly".
MM
MM
Punches, kicks, swinging children by their hair, that's all the same
as a smack, yes?
MM
MM
wrote:
>Mycroft <mycroft....@blooyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Punches, kicks, swinging children by their hair, that's all the same
MM
wrote:
>Ret. <xxx> wrote:
So, in your weird logic, beating them up = a smack? This is like
saying that 5 deg Celsius is almost boiling, 'cos it ain't freezing.
Don't you have ~any~ concept of degree? Here's another one: Do you
pull your child away from the fire and risk bruising his/her arm? That
bruise could cause ructions down at A&E should you have to explain
yourself. Or do you repeatedly explain to your two-year-old that fire
is dangerous and best to be avoided?
MM
Steve Firth
I take it from that drivel that you think that the Army functions by
slapping recruits who make mistakes? They don't, and any officer who
tried it would be on a charge.
Steve Firth
> And don't children ALWAYS try their hardest to see how far they can
> go?
Yes, it's in their nature. An adult explains to them where the limits
lie and enforces those limits. This does not require the adult to beat
up the child as you want to do.
You're a thug.
Steve Firth
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 00:25:45 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
> >Andy Pandy <spam8...@wonderful.spam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> I see you're using Dugh logic. A single example of inappropriate use of
> >> excessive violence means all parents who smack are bullies, just like a
> >> single example of a hit and run motorist killing a pedestrian means all
> >> motorists are murderers.
> >
> >No, I'm using the old fashioned sort of logic.
> >
> >
> >I tell you what, next time someone in a supermarket queue is
> >misbehaving, you try slapping them. Make it as mild a slap as you like.
> >
> >Now, what odds will you place on your chances of being had up for
> >assault?
>
> What a ridiculous comparison!
Not at all, and your outrage is telling.
> You CAN reason with adults; you CANNOT
> with children.
No, YOU CANNOT reason with children, it is clear. Any adult with some
empathy can reason with a child.
> When children are wilful and thus do not listen to
> reason, they have to learn a very simple lesson: the parent's word is
> law.
Only a sick bully thinks that is the case.
> The child presumably knows the difference between 'yes' and 'no',
> so if the parent tells the child 'no' but the child ignores it,
> repeatedly, then a smack is called for. Not a beating, a smack.
A "smack" is beating.
> However, proper discipline from the outset shouldn't let it get as far
> as "repeatedly".
Proper discipline from the start doesn't require beating as you
advocate. You're a sick bully.
Since you're obviously incapable of being reasoned with, I should
"smack" you in order for you to start seeing reason. I'm probably bigger
than you so it will be OK for me to "smack" you in order for you to
learn the lesson that what I say is the law.
Ret.
> On 3 Jan, 19:34, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>> "Ret." wrote:
>>
>>>> Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful
>>>> than those who have not, research has found.
>>>> disciplined when they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were
>>>> performing better as teenagers on almost every measure that was
>>>> taken into consideration than those who had never been smacked.
>>
>>>> Read more:
>>
>>>> Of course anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not need a
>>>> piece of research to tell them that some children require
>>>> discipline - and those children who need it, and don't get it,
>>>> will invariably turn out to be badly behaved teenagers and young
>>>> adults, and hence do worse in adult life.
>>
>>>> As usual the cretinous bleeding heart liberals are proved wrong
>>>> again.
>>
>>>> Kev
>>
>>> Anyone with an anyone with an ounce of intelligence would realise
>>> that this research is flawed. Even the cuddly use of the word
>>> 'smack' as substitute for physical violence is a sign of the
>>> political bias. Physical violence against children is profoundly
>>> demotivating of their development and interest in learning.
>>
>> get it into your head that the mass anti-social behaviour we are
>> experiencing today is a direct result of the removal of almost all
>> discipline from young people. Teachers are leaving the profession in
>> droves because they simply cannot put up with the appalling
>> behaviour of their pupils - and have no effective sanction to use
>> against them.
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You haven't even taken the first step towards understanding your
> fellow man, and that is because you don't understand yourself. Like
> most of the Daily Mail reporters, you are without psychological
> enlightenment. If you are ever lucky enough to get any, you'll
> realise how far of course you became with your learned abusive
> automated responses.
>
> I'm sorry to this this, but you are using the same arguments that
> child abusers do.
Then please provide *your* explanation for the deterioration in children's
behaviour over the past twenty years or so. If this deterioration is *not*
as a result of the removal of traditional methods of chastisement - what
*is* it a result of? You tell me.
Incidentally, there is a *massive* difference between chastisement and
abuse - it is only people like you who cannot recognise that. I smacked
both my children when they were young and needed it (which was not very
often) they have both turned out to be decent and well-adjusted adults and
we still have a very close family. If you can explain to me what
psychological damage they have suffered as a result of being smacked as
young children, then I would be interested to hear it.
Kev
Vicko Zoomba
Agreed. And no matter how much the "golden hello" is set at for new
teachers, it's still not enough to increase teacher numbers. The
politicians either fail to see or choose not to see this simple
effect. This is especially true in Scotland where the education
minister for the Scottish Parliament was recently sacked for the
dwindling numbers of teachers. They fail to realise that it's not
about money - it's about conditions and lack of discipline. Even in a
recession the teacher numbers were falling. No-one wants to be in a
classroom where the teachers have no respect, are abused, assaulted
and videoed on mobile phones, etc.
Since the belt was banned in Scotland (and probably elsewhere too)
discipline has been on the wain. We've now got an ill-disciplined
generation who have bred the current generation who are hooligans,
have little self-control and oppose all forms of discipline. They can
instantly tell you their rights but not their responsibilities.
Any wonder fewer and fewer people want to take up teaching?
If johannes had half a brain then he'd see the answer is to bring back
corporal punishment and put the balance of authority back into the
teachers hands.
McKevvy
Ret.
> In article <f832k59r5j4642h44...@4ax.com>, MM
> <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> What an utter and complete load of old bollocks. We have the current
>> endemic of anti-social behaviour precisely because children were NOT
>> disciplined enough over the past decade or so. As I have said so many
>> times, you cannot reason with a child. Also, persuasion is not the
>> right approach. The parent has to be firm and not waiver in the
>> slightest, else the child WILL take advantage. It's called pushing
>> the boundaries. I would say, two times "no", and then a smack.
>
> Softy, once a NO and then a smack and I'm proud to say it didn't
> happen often and my three sons have turned out to be marvellous grown
> ups, #1 giving me a gorgeous granddaughter who pushes the line but is
> not allowed to cross it.
Exactly. It is outrageous for these bleeding heart liberals to equate firm
chastisement, delivered within a loving family, with child abuse. It is
utter utter nonsense.
Kev
Ret.
>> Ian <uberg...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Jan, 19:34, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Utter codswallop from an obvious bleeding heart liberal. Can you
>>>> not get it
>>>> into your head that the mass anti-social behaviour we are
>>>> experiencing today
>>>> is a direct result of the removal of almost all discipline from
>>>> young people.
>>>
>>> who get walloped at home. You don't get gangs of children of middle
>>> class liberals steaming trains and fighting with knifes in the
>>> streets.
>>
>>
>> I can rememeber and will remember for the rest of my natural being
>> with one of my kids in a supermarket. Another child of the same age
>> was having a tantrum. The mother of that child picked it up and
>> delivered "a slap". The "slap" was a vicious swipe at the face of
>> the child, severe enough to leave an ugly mark of the parent's hand
>> on the child's face. It was a nasty, unecessary attack perpetrated
>> by the sort of coward who is bigger than the child and knows that
>> the child cannot retaliate in kind.
>>
>> My child stared open mouthed having never seen anything like it
>> before. The mother of the child having beaten their offspring in
>> public then picked up the packet of sweets the child had been having
>> a tantrum about and screamed "here you little b******, now shut up
>> and leave me alone!" My child then pointed out that under the same
>> circumstances when
>> trying the same trick mother had simply said "no, you're not having
>> sweets", no argument, no room for argument no pleading allowed and
>> that was the end of that. Child knew that it was pointless trying to
>> escalate matters because all that would happen was more loss of
>> priveliges only to be returned after child had apologised.
>>
>> Child also pointed out that the worst behaved person in the incident
>> we witnessed was the mother, and I agree.
>>
>> People who "smack" children are inarticulate bullies. I'm not
>> surprised to see that Kevin Lunn is one of them.
>
> I see you're using Dugh logic. A single example of inappropriate use
> of excessive violence means all parents who smack are bullies, just
> like a single example of a hit and run motorist killing a pedestrian
> means all motorists are murderers.
You cannot reason with Firth - he is a perfect example, in fact, of a
psychologically damaged and abusive person. Read most of his posts and they
are all insulting. Anyone who does not agree with him is a 'fucktard' or a
'twat' or a 'moron'. He cannot debate in a normal manner - all his debates
end in abuse so it is laughable for him to argue in this way.
As you point out, there is a massive difference between a 'smack' delivered
when necessary and within a loving family, and a punch or other form of real
physical abuse. Perhaps his behaviour on usenet is as a result of him being
brought up in a physcially abusive family? If not then he will have to
explain just why he feels it necessary to behave like an attack-dog in
almost every thread he joins.
Kev
Ret.
> Ret. wrote:
>> Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful
>> than those who have not, research has found.
>> The study concluded that children who had been physically disciplined
>> when they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were performing
>> better as teenagers on almost every measure that was taken into
>> consideration than those who had never been smacked.
>>
>>
>> Read more:
>>
>>
>> Of course anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not need a
>> piece of research to tell them that some children require discipline
>> - and those children who need it, and don't get it, will invariably
>> turn out to be badly behaved teenagers and young adults, and hence
>> do worse in adult life. As usual the cretinous bleeding heart liberals
>> are proved wrong
>> again. Kev
>>
>
> disciplining their children, but what happens when the parents are
> children themselves and/or perhaps have never known parental
> discipline themselves? Perhaps it is a case of parents who can always
> will, and for the rest it would be safer not to suggest that beating
> children is a good idea.
No-one has *ever* claimed that 'beating' a child is good for them. Why can
you not understand that there *is* a difference between a smack delivered
when necessary within a loving family relationship - and a 'beating'
delivered by a brutal parent?
Kev
Ret.
> In article
> <16d97c01-1d1e-4f38...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups .com>,
> November 5 <november...@googlemail.com> writes
>> A Daily Mail article is hardly categorical evidence that A is better
>> than B. So as usual I must echo other posters in this thread that
>> Ret. thinks in one track as an uneducated simpleton. Things are
>> black/ whit
>
> The Sunday Times had a similar article so the Mail disclaimer is
> voided.
LOL! I think the DM denigraters tend to overlook the fact that the papers
they consider to be more 'upmarket' than the DM often carry the same
stories!
Kev
Steve Firth
No, obviously not. They are not the *same* but they are all acts of
violence. You seem to be determined to beat up children - does it make
you feel big and powerful?
Steve Firth
> You cannot reason with Firth - he is a perfect example, in fact, of a
> psychologically damaged and abusive person. Read most of his posts and they
> are all insulting. Anyone who does not agree with him is a 'fucktard' or a
> 'twat' or a 'moron'. He cannot debate in a normal manner - all his debates
> end in abuse so it is laughable for him to argue in this way.
All lies, and demonstrably so since Lunn claims to have killfiled my
posts. Of course he kill-filed my posts since he was incapable of
arguing his way out of a paper bag and he found hiding away from me
easier than having to pursue a logical argument.
> As you point out, there is a massive difference between a 'smack' delivered
> when necessary and within a loving family, and a punch or other form of real
> physical abuse. Perhaps his behaviour on usenet is as a result of him being
> brought up in a physcially abusive family? If not then he will have to
> explain just why he feels it necessary to behave like an attack-dog in
> almost every thread he joins.
Another example of Kevin Lunn's bullying approach to life. Since he
cannot reason with anyone and on Usenet he can't lash out with his
fists, he resorts to verbal bullying and lies. All done to support his
"noble cause" of beating up children to enforce his will on them.
Steve Firth
They are all types of physical assault, yes. Try giving an adult "a
smack" then defending yourself from charges of assault with your belief
that "a smack" is somehow different from "a punch" or "a kick".
But of course you won't, because people who hit children are inherently
cowards. Were you abused by your parents?
Steve Firth
> Incidentally, there is a *massive* difference between chastisement and
> abuse - it is only people like you who cannot recognise that. I smacked
> both my children when they were young and needed it (which was not very
> often) they have both turned out to be decent and well-adjusted adults and
> we still have a very close family. If you can explain to me what
> psychological damage they have suffered as a result of being smacked as
> young children, then I would be interested to hear it.
If they turned out like you then res ipsa loquitur.
Steve Firth
> Exactly. It is outrageous for these bleeding heart liberals to equate firm
> chastisement, delivered within a loving family, with child abuse. It is
> utter utter nonsense.
Ah yes, "the loving family" the family that loves its members so much
that it's necessary to beat them from time to time to keep them in line.
How odd.
I have a loving family, no violence was ever involved between parents
and children. You, are advocating a violent relationship between parents
and children.
Steve Firth
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:51:16 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
[snip]
> >Meanwhile in the real world, I raised my children without every having
> >to beat them up. End result they actually respect their parents, and
> >they have achieved the sort of success that a sidelined ex-police
> >inspector can only dream of.
>
> So, in your weird logic, beating them up = a smack?
There's nothing weird about stating that "a smack" is a physical assault
on a child. There is something very weird about people like you who seem
to think that it's OK to physically assault a child just because they
are bigger than the child and the child can't retaliate.
You appear to be impatient, inarticulate and incoherent. Is this why you
have to assault children - they suffer because you are impatient and
unable to explain yourself?
> This is like saying that 5 deg Celsius is almost boiling, 'cos it ain't
> freezing. Don't you have ~any~ concept of degree? Here's another one: Do
> you pull your child away from the fire and risk bruising his/her arm? That
> bruise could cause ructions down at A&E should you have to explain
> yourself. Or do you repeatedly explain to your two-year-old that fire is
> dangerous and best to be avoided?
You like hitting children don't you? Does it make you feel big and
powerful? You should get some help with your problem and leave children
alone.
Steve Firth
[snip]
> If johannes had half a brain then he'd see the answer is to bring back
> corporal punishment and put the balance of authority back into the
> teachers hands.
If johannes had half a brain he would be Kevin Lunn. If he had one
quarter of a brain he'd be you.
Steve Firth
>
> LOL! I think the DM denigraters tend to overlook the fact that the papers
> they consider to be more 'upmarket' than the DM often carry the same
> stories!
If I give you "a smack" will it teach you how to punctuate your posts
without the use of spurious exclamation marks?
Steve Firth
> No-one has *ever* claimed that 'beating' a child is good for them. Why can
> you not understand that there *is* a difference between a smack delivered
> when necessary within a loving family relationship - and a 'beating'
> delivered by a brutal parent?
Why can you not understand that viuolence is violence and it doesn't
matter what the claimed intention or emotional state of the person
delivering the violence is, that the end result is the same?
Andy Pandy
> Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> I suppose you think that parents who ground their kids should be
>> charged
>> with kidnapping or false imprisonment?
>
> I suppose you don't think.
No, you don't. I was waiting for some idiot to trot out the "why
should you be allowed to do to your kids what you can't do to another
adult" argument. Anyone who's thought about it for more than 10
seconds knows the answer...
--
Andy
November 5
Kev the simpleton strikes again. Exactly where in my post did I
denigrate the DM? How hasty you are to fit a square to a circle.
Typical "fitting the suspect to the crime" behaviour of a corrupt,
moronic, apparatchik policeman.
I reckon you left school before 18 and likely after 12. Your reading
comprehension is appalling!
N5
Andy Pandy
> Andy Pandy <spam8...@wonderful.spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I see you're using Dugh logic. A single example of inappropriate
>> use of
>> excessive violence means all parents who smack are bullies, just
>> like a
>> single example of a hit and run motorist killing a pedestrian means
>> all
>> motorists are murderers.
>
Neanderthal?
> I tell you what, next time someone in a supermarket queue is
> misbehaving, you try slapping them. Make it as mild a slap as you
> like.
>
> Now, what odds will you place on your chances of being had up for
> assault?
Tell you what, next time someone comes round to your house, tell them
they can't leave. Make it physically impossible for them to get out.
Now, what odds will you place on your chances of being had up for
false imprisonment?
> Yet you apparently feel it's OK to commit a criminal assault on a
> child,
> for no other reason than you being inarticulate, and a bully and
> bigger
> than the child who can't retaliate.
Yet some people apparently think it's OK to commit the same criminal
act on their own young children by not letting the leave the house
whenever they want.
> Well done, I mean that will really show the child what's right and
> wrong
> in the world.
Well done, I mean that will really show the child how stupid you are.
--
Andy
MM
wrote:
>MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> And don't children ALWAYS try their hardest to see how far they can
>> go?
>
>Yes, it's in their nature. An adult explains to them where the limits
>lie and enforces those limits.
How? Venn diagrams? Slide rule?
> This does not require the adult to beat
>up the child as you want to do.
>
>You're a thug.
As were 99% of the baby boomer generation, who produced much better
behaved kids than the feral Lord of the Flies mob we have today.
MM
MM
wrote:
>Ret. <xxx> wrote:
>
>> Exactly. It is outrageous for these bleeding heart liberals to equate firm
>> chastisement, delivered within a loving family, with child abuse. It is
>> utter utter nonsense.
>
>Ah yes, "the loving family" the family that loves its members so much
>that it's necessary to beat them from time to time to keep them in line.
Always, but always bleeding heart liberals have to equate a smack with
a beating. It is so, so ridiculous.
MM
Andy Pandy
Because some of us can tell the difference between a mild smack and a
frenzied chain-saw attack. The end results are actually somewhat
different.
--
Andy
MM
wrote:
I think you'll find that new recruits have to suffer a great deal of
pain, one way or another, whether from screaming or painting coal
white - until they learn discipline and comply. And there's always the
Glasshouse for so-called hard cases. You can't form an Army from a
rabble and you can't build a society from feral, out-of-control
children who are to become the next adults.
MM
Ret.
I've unblocked you Steve because I find the irony of your arguments here
just too irresisitable to ignore. You claim that you have a loving family -
and yet it cannot have escaped your notice that you are almost universally
reviled on usenet because of your attitude to other posters. Scroll through
a few uk.driving threads in which you are involved in - and what do you see?
Invariably they descend into slanging matches with you throwing foul-mouthed
abuse at anyone who disagrees with you. You simply cannot avoid insulting
people can you? You are, quite simply, a wholly unpleasant character.
When you were asked if you treated people face to face in a similar fashion,
you apparently claimed that you did. Which, if true, makes you an extremely
obnoxious person to know.
So, have you brought your children up to treat others the same? When they
disagree with someone do they automatically refer to them as 'fucktards'?
(One of your favourite words it seems). If so - then clearly you have
brought them up to be as unpleasant and as obnoxious as you are. If not, why
not - as you seem to take a pride in your behaviour?
I suspect that they probably are as unpleasant as you are, bearing in mind
that, according to you, they are ultra-successful in life. There is a
plethora of research that shows that the majority of successfuly people are,
in fact, rather nasty and unpleasant people. It's the only way to get to the
top isn't it? - to walk over other people and treat them with disdain?
Sadly, what you, and so many people like you, overlook is that there is a
difference between 'standard of living' and 'quality of life'. You probably
wouldn't understand that.
The fact that you cannot grasp the difference between occasional mild
physical chastisement within a loving family and violent abuse speaks
volumes. If you are a shining example of a child brought up without ever
being smacked - then you undermine your case totally!
Kev
Ret.
You will have to explain that Steve. Do I regularly and consistently throw
foul-mouthed abuse at other posters? Do you?
Kev
Ret.
From someone whose standard MO on usenet is to use foul-mouthed verbal
abusive bullying - your argument is hypocritical.
Kev
MM
Yeah, I wonder how the Steve Firths and Turks of this world would
educate children if nobody wanted to become a teacher due to lack of
discipline in the home.
MM
MM
wrote:
People like me = relatively well-functioning society until the 1980s.
People like you = broken society since the 1980s. Go figure.
MM
Djornsk
Yes of course there's a difference, and I've both received and given the
occasional slap and was once caned for fighting in the library at school
but nevertheless I regard CP as being a second rate method of
disciplining children, better than none in most instances but not
something to be recommended because there are too many variables.
It shouldn't be a matter of protecting children from pain or minor
physical harm because it is unavoidable and perhaps necessary that they
experience injury at play, on the sportsground, or an occasional punch
or shove.
j
Andy Pandy
"November 5" <november...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:16d97c01-1d1e-4f38...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful
>> than
>> those who have not, research has found.
>> The study concluded that children who had been physically
>> disciplined when
>> they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were performing
>> better as
>> teenagers on almost every measure that was taken into consideration
>> than
>> those who had never been smacked.
>>
>>
>> Read more:
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240279/Children-smacked-young-likely-successful-study-finds.html#ixzz0bZvczaVB
>>
>> Of course anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not need a
>> piece of
>> research to tell them that some children require discipline - and
>> those
>> children who need it, and don't get it, will invariably turn out to
>> be badly
>> behaved teenagers and young adults, and hence do worse in adult
>> life.
>>
>> As usual the cretinous bleeding heart liberals are proved wrong
>> again.
>>
>> Kev
>
> than B.
It's not just the EDM. Try a search on "Marjorie Gunnoe Calvin College
smacking"
> So as usual I must echo other posters in this thread that Ret.
> thinks in one track as an uneducated simpleton. Things are black/
> white, good/bad and true/false in his rudimentary view of life.
You mean like those who say "violence is violence" and can't see the
difference between a mild smack and a chainsaw massacre? It's all
black and white isn't it?
> As a bully who is used to beating people who can't fight back
> because
> the laws have disarmed them, now that he is retired he is bored and
> decides to extend his bullying to children because picking on chavs
> is
> now a risky prospect for a bag of bones like himself.
You seem to know a lot about him.
> For the record in an anarchy parents can bring up children however
> they want. Let no third party say how one may bring up their
> family -
> not the Daily Mail and certainly not Ret. If parents bring up their
> children in a truly beneficial way their genes will be inherited by
> later generations from children successful in life. That is the most
> unbiased judge of merit. Let the proof be in the pudding.
What utter bullshit. Even unsuccessful people reproduce in our
society. In fact they probably reproduce more. It's not like 1000
years ago where unsuccessful people starved.
--
Andy
MM
wrote:
>MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:09:08 GMT, Mycroft
>> <mycroft....@blooyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:32:41 -0800, Turk182 wrote:
>> >
>> >> You don't sound like a hitter to me. Go to Margate, South Shields, or
>> >> many other places. You will see what a hitter is. Take your choice:
>> >> slaps, punches, kicks or even people swinging children around by the
>> >> hair. These abusers have just been given a licence to carry on what
>> >> they are doing by the Daily Mail's chief Child Abuse promoter, the
>> >> anonymous, gutless reporter.
>> >
>> >I never thought it would come to this... I agree with you...
>>
>> Punches, kicks, swinging children by their hair, that's all the same
>> as a smack, yes?
>
>They are all types of physical assault, yes. Try giving an adult "a
>smack" then defending yourself from charges of assault with your belief
>that "a smack" is somehow different from "a punch" or "a kick".
You appear to be deliberately ignoring the oft-mentioned fact that
children do not possess the reasoning skills of an adult, who has had
the experience of growing up and learning all about the hard knocks of
life. Your mollycoddling approach simply produces a broken society
that will only get worse as the current younger generation becomes
adult itself.
>But of course you won't, because people who hit children are inherently
>cowards. Were you abused by your parents?
No, I was brought up to be polite, not to be greedy and, yes, they
smacked me occasionally. I had a very close and loving family
relationship and all us children kept in close contact with our
parents and each other until mum and dad passed on.
MM
Ret.
> Ret. <xxx> wrote:
>
>> You cannot reason with Firth - he is a perfect example, in fact, of a
>> psychologically damaged and abusive person. Read most of his posts and
>> they
>> are all insulting. Anyone who does not agree with him is a 'fucktard' or
>> a
>> 'twat' or a 'moron'. He cannot debate in a normal manner - all his
>> debates
>> end in abuse so it is laughable for him to argue in this way.
>
> All lies,
They are not lies Steve - and anyone who posts regularly on uk.driving will
know they are not lies. Thread after thread after thread in which you are
involved descend into foul-mouthed abuse. It is your standard MO on usenet.
and demonstrably so since Lunn claims to have killfiled my
> posts. Of course he kill-filed my posts since he was incapable of
> arguing his way out of a paper bag and he found hiding away from me
> easier than having to pursue a logical argument.
I have, on this thread, unblocked you because I could not resist debating
directly with you on this issue. Blocking you has not stopped me from seeing
your posts when others have responded to you. You know this.
>
>> As you point out, there is a massive difference between a 'smack'
>> delivered
>> when necessary and within a loving family, and a punch or other form of
>> real
>> physical abuse. Perhaps his behaviour on usenet is as a result of him
>> being
>> brought up in a physcially abusive family? If not then he will have to
>> explain just why he feels it necessary to behave like an attack-dog in
>> almost every thread he joins.
>
> Another example of Kevin Lunn's bullying approach to life. Since he
> cannot reason with anyone and on Usenet he can't lash out with his
> fists, he resorts to verbal bullying and lies. All done to support his
> "noble cause" of beating up children to enforce his will on them.
Where is my verbal bullying Steve? I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy.
Some of your posts:
"The problems were caused entirely by twats who weren't prepared for snow"
"Thanks for proving that you're a knobhead."
"It's clear that you're a dull-witted arse."
"Have another one on me, you witless, uneducated clod."
"What a fuckwit you are are."
"You're right, I obviously grossly underestimated what a thick fuck you
are."
"Go, run off the mouth (again) like that other brainless twat Chilada
since you obviously both think that the more crap you post the better."
"You provided an irrelevant one. The fact that you're too fuckign
dimwitted to realise that is squarely your problem."
"Yes, I've got all my teeth because loud mouth twats like you are
fundamentally cowards. If you don't like people pointing out that you're
a thich cunt, you have an easy solution. Either shut the fuck up or
engage your brain before posting."
I could, of course, go on and on and on and on with examples of your
foul-mouthed abuse of other usenet posters, but I think that is sufficient
to be going on with - and proof that when you accuse me of lying by stating
that most of your posts descend into this sort of gutter debate - it is you
who is doing the lying.
Kev
MM
wrote:
>Ret. <xxx> wrote:
>
>> No-one has *ever* claimed that 'beating' a child is good for them. Why can
>> you not understand that there *is* a difference between a smack delivered
>> when necessary within a loving family relationship - and a 'beating'
>> delivered by a brutal parent?
>
>Why can you not understand that viuolence is violence
Yes, but there are different *degrees* of violence! You choose to
ignore that simple fact, probably because to accept it blows the basis
of your argument to smithereens. It is a violent act to grab hold of a
child and pull it forcibly away from a tipping chip pan, but even you
would surely agree that that violence is justified.
Or would you simply call out to the child and reason with it that the
chip pan is very dangerous in the hope that the child might see reason
and desist from grabbing the handle?
Well, of course, I know how you'll take the argument next! You'll say:
"There shouldn't BE a chip pan near children!" and thus you will feel
you have extricated yourself from having to explain how you'd react.
MM
Ret.
"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:04g3k5ddkrdbd5pul...@4ax.com...
This is the one factor that they have no response to isn't it? Children of
the 'smacking' era were undoubtedly dramatically better behaved than
children of today's 'nil discipline' era.
Kev
MM
wrote:
>MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:51:16 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> >Meanwhile in the real world, I raised my children without every having
>> >to beat them up. End result they actually respect their parents, and
>> >they have achieved the sort of success that a sidelined ex-police
>> >inspector can only dream of.
>>
>> So, in your weird logic, beating them up = a smack?
>
>There's nothing weird about stating that "a smack" is a physical assault
>on a child. There is something very weird about people like you who seem
>to think that it's OK to physically assault a child just because they
>are bigger than the child and the child can't retaliate.
>
>You appear to be impatient, inarticulate and incoherent. Is this why you
>have to assault children - they suffer because you are impatient and
>unable to explain yourself?
Children do not suffer from an occasional administered smack. They
learn where the boundaries are, therefore they have a happier life
later on.
>> This is like saying that 5 deg Celsius is almost boiling, 'cos it ain't
>> freezing. Don't you have ~any~ concept of degree? Here's another one: Do
>> you pull your child away from the fire and risk bruising his/her arm? That
>> bruise could cause ructions down at A&E should you have to explain
>> yourself. Or do you repeatedly explain to your two-year-old that fire is
>> dangerous and best to be avoided?
>
>You like hitting children don't you? Does it make you feel big and
>powerful? You should get some help with your problem and leave children
>alone.
Ah, my question carefully sidestepped, I see! So, again, what about
using violence to save a child from harm and the concomitant bruising?
MM
Ret.
Sigh... Once again you fail to respond to an eminently sensible post with
any attempt at an intelligent reply - you just fall back on your standard MO
of abusing other posters.
Kev
MM
wrote:
>Ret. <xxx> wrote:
Adults do not give each other a smack because they have learned how to
debate issues. Children haven't. Children think in much more black and
white terms.
MM
Ret.
My next door neighbour is a recently retired head teacher. He tells me that
he fears for the future of education because the majority of new teachers he
takes on leave within a matter of months because they simply cannot put up
with the appalling behaviour of today's pupils. He says that the only
teachers hanging on in there are the long-term teachers who only have a few
years to go to retirement and their pension. They are only hanging on
because they want their full pension. Once they are gone he doesn't know
what will happen.
But, of course, this is the modern generation of well-behaved pupils -
brought up in the way that Firth and Turk advocate...
Kev
Ret.
> MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 00:39:10 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mycroft <mycroft....@blooyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:32:41 -0800, Turk182 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > You don't sound like a hitter to me. Go to Margate, South Shields,
>> >> > or
>> >> > many other places. You will see what a hitter is. Take your choice:
>> >> > slaps, punches, kicks or even people swinging children around by the
>> >> > hair. These abusers have just been given a licence to carry on what
>> >> > they are doing by the Daily Mail's chief Child Abuse promoter, the
>> >> > anonymous, gutless reporter.
>> >>
>> >> I never thought it would come to this... I agree with you...
>> >
>>
>> as a smack, yes?
>
> you feel big and powerful?
Does slinging foul mouthed abuse at other usenet posters make *you* feel big
and powerful?
Kev
Ret.
> MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:09:08 GMT, Mycroft
>> <mycroft....@blooyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:32:41 -0800, Turk182 wrote:
>> >
>> >> You don't sound like a hitter to me. Go to Margate, South Shields, or
>> >> many other places. You will see what a hitter is. Take your choice:
>> >> slaps, punches, kicks or even people swinging children around by the
>> >> hair. These abusers have just been given a licence to carry on what
>> >> they are doing by the Daily Mail's chief Child Abuse promoter, the
>> >> anonymous, gutless reporter.
>> >
>> >I never thought it would come to this... I agree with you...
>>
>> as a smack, yes?
>
> smack" then defending yourself from charges of assault with your belief
> that "a smack" is somehow different from "a punch" or "a kick".
>
> cowards. Were you abused by your parents?
I certainly wasn't - although yes, I was occasionally smacked when I
overstepped the mark. I think you must have been abused by your parents
because no-one brought up in a decent loving environment could have turned
out as nasty and unpleasant a character as you have Steve.
Kev
Ret.
No - the end result is *not* the same.
Kev
Ret.
> Ret. <xxx> wrote:
>
>> Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful than
>> those who have not, research has found.
>
> of Grand Rapids, Michigan. A college that highlights its Bible-Bashing
> right wing American values on its web page.
>
> Of course, anyone with an ounce of intelligence would question the
> validity of "research" perpetrated by a backwoods college with a
> self-declared political and religious bias, wouldn't they?
>
> Unless of course they happen to be the sort of twerp who reads the Daily
> Mail and swears by every word.
>
>
> Meanwhile in the real world, I raised my children without every having
> to beat them up. End result they actually respect their parents, and
> they have achieved the sort of success that a sidelined ex-police
> inspector can only dream of.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'side-lined' - but, however, there is ample
research evidence to demonstrate that the most successful people in life are
often the most unpleasant people in life. Bearing in mind that they have
been brought up by you - I feel that may be the reason for their success.
Tell me - did you speak to your children like you speak to other usenet
posters? Did you call them fucktards, and c*nts, etc? If not, why not?
You use these words often enough to other posters.
Kev
Ret.
> MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:51:16 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> >Meanwhile in the real world, I raised my children without every having
>> >to beat them up. End result they actually respect their parents, and
>> >they have achieved the sort of success that a sidelined ex-police
>> >inspector can only dream of.
>>
>
> There's nothing weird about stating that "a smack" is a physical assault
> on a child. There is something very weird about people like you who seem
> to think that it's OK to physically assault a child just because they
> are bigger than the child and the child can't retaliate.
Sigh. Parents don't smack their children 'just because they are bigger than
the child and the child can't retaliate' - they smack them when all other
measures to teach that something is wrong have failed.
>
> You appear to be impatient, inarticulate and incoherent. Is this why you
> have to assault children - they suffer because you are impatient and
> unable to explain yourself?
>
>> This is like saying that 5 deg Celsius is almost boiling, 'cos it ain't
>> freezing. Don't you have ~any~ concept of degree? Here's another one: Do
>> you pull your child away from the fire and risk bruising his/her arm?
>> That
>> bruise could cause ructions down at A&E should you have to explain
>> yourself. Or do you repeatedly explain to your two-year-old that fire is
>> dangerous and best to be avoided?
>
> You like hitting children don't you? Does it make you feel big and
> powerful? You should get some help with your problem and leave children
> alone.
You like verbally abusing other usenet posters don't you? You like
referring to them as 'fucktards' and 'cunts' etc etc. Does it make you feel
big and powerful? You should get some help with your problem and leave other
posters alone...
Kev
Ret.
"November 5" <november...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:16d97c01-1d1e-4f38...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful than
>> those who have not, research has found.
>> when
>> they were young, between the ages of 2 and 6, were performing better as
>> teenagers on almost every measure that was taken into consideration than
>> those who had never been smacked.
>>
>>
>> Read more:
>>
>> Of course anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not need a piece of
>> research to tell them that some children require discipline - and those
>> children who need it, and don't get it, will invariably turn out to be
>> badly
>> behaved teenagers and young adults, and hence do worse in adult life.
>>
>> As usual the cretinous bleeding heart liberals are proved wrong again.
>>
>> Kev
>
> thinks in one track as an uneducated simpleton. Things are black/
> white, good/bad and true/false in his rudimentary view of life.
Oh dear. It is not a 'Daily Mail' article - it is a newspaper report on a
piece of research - and it also appeared in the Sunday Times.
>
> As a bully who is used to beating people who can't fight back because
> the laws have disarmed them,
I have never 'beaten' anyone in my life.
now that he is retired he is bored and
> decides to extend his bullying to children because picking on chavs is
> now a risky prospect for a bag of bones like himself.
Are you suggesting that as a retiree I am going about beating up children?
>
> For the record in an anarchy parents can bring up children however
> they want. Let no third party say how one may bring up their family -
> not the Daily Mail and certainly not Ret. If parents bring up their
> children in a truly beneficial way their genes will be inherited by
> later generations from children successful in life. That is the most
> unbiased judge of merit. Let the proof be in the pudding.
And the proof of the pudding, as shown over many generations, is that
children brought up by parents who occasionally resort to smacking, are
invariably better behaved and more successful than children who are not.
Kev
Ret.
> Ret. <xxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> LOL! I think the DM denigraters tend to overlook the fact that the
>> papers
>> they consider to be more 'upmarket' than the DM often carry the same
>> stories!
>
> If I give you "a smack" will it teach you how to punctuate your posts
> without the use of spurious exclamation marks?
If I give you 'a smack' will it teach you how to post without regularly
resorting to foul-mouthed abuse (see my other post for a 'collection' of
such abuse)?
Kev
Francis Burton
Andy Pandy <spam8...@wonderful.spam.invalid> wrote:
>"Fredxx" <fre...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:hhqu6f$31i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> It's such a shame you resort to using the generic catch all phrase of
>> "child abusers". That includes parents who allow their children to get
>> obese and all manner of awful treatment to a child. Corporal punishment
>> where appropriately and proportionately administered is not a form of
>> abuse.
>
>Yup - same with any form of punishment (and there are far worse punishments
>than physical ones). Problems occur when it's not proportionate, not fairly
>administered, not consistent, or when the child can't make the connection
>between the act and the punishment.
Yes! You (and Fred) have hit the nub on the head.
Francis
Francis Burton
>This is the one factor that they have no response to isn't it? Children of
>the 'smacking' era were undoubtedly dramatically better behaved than
>children of today's 'nil discipline' era.
In my day it was "Children should be seen and not heard" (*children*,
mind - not *kids*), and "Please, may I get down?" at mealtimes. Quite
right too!
Francis
November 5
Go read the original piece of research and start a thread on that
then. Newspapers are not known for their accuracy. For example my
company has appeared in the news on a few occasions and I can usually
find at least a few inaccuracies in the article, even when I was
interviewed by reporters.
> >
> > As a bully who is used to beating people who can't fight back because
> > the laws have disarmed them,
>
> I have never 'beaten' anyone in my life.
While I have no reason to believe you, even if what you say is the
truth, it is so because police officers are not used to the subjects
of their attention fighting back. Social conditioning has taught
criminals to flee from police and of course the law has seen to it
that no one may credibly resist the police, for better or worse.
> now that he is retired he is bored and
> > decides to extend his bullying to children because picking on chavs is
> > now a risky prospect for a bag of bones like himself.
>
> Are you suggesting that as a retiree I am going about beating up children?
Rather, that you propose as such.
> >
> > For the record in an anarchy parents can bring up children however
> > they want. Let no third party say how one may bring up their family -
> > not the Daily Mail and certainly not Ret. If parents bring up their
> > children in a truly beneficial way their genes will be inherited by
> > later generations from children successful in life. That is the most
> > unbiased judge of merit. Let the proof be in the pudding.
>
> And the proof of the pudding, as shown over many generations, is that
> children brought up by parents who occasionally resort to smacking, are
> invariably better behaved and more successful than children who are not.
>
> Kev
Go read the original research article. You look like a right
unsophisticated redneck for gesticulating at a random news article
purportedly supporting smacking and then stretching it to a one-size-
fits-all application.
I'm not saying smacking is good or bad but rather as is anything else
in an anarchy, should not be regulated. The genes and memes of bad
parents will die off, and those of good parents will prevail.
N5
RobertL
> Children who are smacked by parents often turn out more successful than
> those who have not, research has found.
...was conducted by an organsation that claims:
As a Reformed educational institution, Calvin College has been shaped
in its faith and scholarship by these central convictions:
God, the almighty creator of a good world, is sovereign over all of
creation, granting to human beings, made in his image, the
responsibility of caring for this world. Sin entered the world by
humanity's rebellion against God, affecting every aspect of creation,
including every area of human life. Nevertheless God graciously
preserves the world, holding all things in his tender embrace and
bending them to his purpose.
In saving grace God kept his covenant promises to our world, acting
unconditionally in the person of Jesus Christ to redeem humanity and
all creation from sin and evil. The risen Christ is Lord of all,
reconciling all things to himself and calling people to salvation
through faith alone, which is a gift of grace alone.
The Holy Spirit, active from the beginning, continues to move across
all creation. At Pentecost the Spirit permanently indwelled the
church, empowering it for service and gathering people from every
tongue, tribe, and nation into the unity of the body of Christ.
The Bible is the authoritative, Spirit-breathed Word of God, fully
reliable in leading believers to know God and to walk with Christ in
newness of life. Through Christ and in the power of the Spirit, God
meets his people in worship, conveying grace through Word and
sacrament. The Spirit empowers believers to bear witness to Christ's
love and to be agents of God's creative and renewing work in every
area of life. Christians live with unwavering hope of the new creation
where God's kingdom will fully come.
So Itake any reserach from it with a dose of salt.
Robert
Francis Burton
johannes <jo...@size229747257254fitter.com> wrote:
>The physical violence against children disappeared for good reason. I remember
>well how awful and demotivating it was in my time. Go knocked out flat by a
>language teacher for not citing the accusative correctly. Remember it to
>this day. Thank goodness that it's gone and buried.
That was disproportionate, inappropriate, unfair and abusive.
Smacking of children by parents doesn't have to be like that,
though unfortunately it can be. I remember getting smacked by
both my parents *on occasion*, and no doubt I deserved it! It
was a bit of a shock to get a smack (which explains why it was
effective as punishment) but it never hurt physically. More
importantly, it didn't make me fear my parents or feel any less
loved.
The problem is that some parents misuse the punishment, overdo
it, or apply it as the punishment of first rather than last
resort. Does outlawing smacking stop the parents who abuse
their children? Probably not (except in public places).
Using children's behaviour as a measure of the effectiveness of
mild corporal punishment is problemmatic. Behaviour may worsen
because the limits of what is acceptable may change, not because
the allowable means of enforcement have. I think that explains a
at least some of what is perceived as "bad behaviour". Children
are noiser these days because it has (I regret) become the norm
of behaviour; this has nothing to do with the fact they are not
smacked.
Francis
Ret.
Today very few families eat together - and when they do it's not at the
table!
Kev
Ret.
I am an atheist and cannot understand how anyone can believe in gods. Having
said that, to suggest, as you appear to be doing, that any research carried
out by a christian organisation *has* to be flawed is nonsense. In fact, you
would expect a christian organisation to be arguing against physical
punishment. The fact that their research appears to support the opposite
notion makes it all the more convincing.
Kev
Ret.
> Ret. <xxx> wrote:
>
>> Exactly. It is outrageous for these bleeding heart liberals to
>> equate firm chastisement, delivered within a loving family, with
>> child abuse. It is utter utter nonsense.
>
> Ah yes, "the loving family" the family that loves its members so much
> that it's necessary to beat them from time to time to keep them in
> line.
>
> How odd.
>
> I have a loving family, no violence was ever involved between parents
> and children. You, are advocating a violent relationship between
> parents and children.
Putting aside the sheer nonsense and exaggeration of that final paragraph -
normal, well-behaved, well adjusted and decent adults do not interact with
other people in the way that you frequently do on usenet Steve. This
suggests that you are not normal, well behaved, well adjusted and decent.
I repeat some of your recent posts here:
"The problems were caused entirely by twats who weren't prepared for snow"
"Thanks for proving that you're a knobhead."
"It's clear that you're a dull-witted arse."
"Have another one on me, you witless, uneducated clod."
"What a fuckwit you are are."
"You're right, I obviously grossly underestimated what a thick fuck you
are."
"Go, run off the mouth (again) like that other brainless twat Chilada
since you obviously both think that the more crap you post the better."
"You provided an irrelevant one. The fact that you're too fuckign
dimwitted to realise that is squarely your problem."
"Yes, I've got all my teeth because loud mouth twats like you are
fundamentally cowards. If you don't like people pointing out that you're
a thich cunt, you have an easy solution. Either shut the fuck up or
engage your brain before posting."
Are you proud of this sort of verbal abuse of other posters? Do you think
that is how normal well-adjusted adults behave? If so, you are seriously
deluded. Clearly you have *not* been brought up very well and therefore your
views on how to bring up children are fatally undermined.
Do your children behave in a similar fashion to this? I can assure you that
mine do not.
Kev
Cynic
wrote:
>> So.... how does the Army train new recruits? By taking them to one
>> side and saying, "Look, mate, I'd just like you to walk around this
>> square for half an hour, but we call it marching, is that okay with
>> you?"
>
>I take it from that drivel that you think that the Army functions by
>slapping recruits who make mistakes? They don't, and any officer who
>tried it would be on a charge.
Physical punishment is indeed used a lot in the military. It does not
(usually) take the form of smacking, but instead consists of runs,
heavy lifting, pokey-drill and the like.
--
Cynic