Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Anti-Smacking Bill in NZ
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="C A Iversen" data-source="post: 193795"><p>The main question you ask puts 'controlled' in a context which seems to infer that it's a bad thing. There are elements of control which are good you know. Like self-control and having control of one's living conditions and environment.</p><p></p><p>No one is suggesting "let's repress the kids". That's completely laughable. Children and young adults have been spiralling out of any sort of domestic or social control for a long time. As have many parents. I think there is a massive feeling of "you can't do this to me" and "I can do what I want" going through the upbringing of children today. This is not a blanket statement as some children are being bought up with great degrees of respect for both themselves and others. It's just that different things work for different circumstances.</p><p></p><p>If your child is 4-5 years old and reaches for the element on your oven or heater and is about to burn themselves, you should say, "Hey (name here), this can hurt you, stay back a little bit, daddy doesn't touch. It could hurt you bad". You shouldn't smack at that point. Kid's being kids, the little one will be wondering whats so bad about that attractive bright light and will try again. The parent should explain again, try different terms and try and get the message through. The kid may try again though and again. Then again and again. Each time the parent must try something new to get the message across. After all we don't want the kid to get massively painful burns, do we? Then finally if the child has continued to try and the parent has said and done everything possible to stop them, the parent should let them put their hand on the element when the parent has finally turned to grab some ingredients out of the cupboard. At least that's an anti-smacking person's view.</p><p></p><p>After that last possible explanation, I believe that a small tap on the hand and then an explanation that "this little owwie that you just got would be much, much bigger from that thing you want to touch". Then further the explanation, "Daddy/Mummy didn't want to do that to your hand, but you must listen or the thing will hurt you very bad. If you try again we will have to make that little tap a little bit harder and closer to what that thing will do".</p><p></p><p>I wonder how many of you anti-smackers understand the daily battle to teach children with out smacking them that responsible parents toil through? Responsible parents only use it as a last ditch response and if done with love for your child is much more effective than continual verbal explanations. These explanations should be used first as sometimes a child will learn from those alone.</p><p></p><p>I have not had to smack my child and don't plan to. If I run into a situation where I and my wife have tried every practical thing otherwise, then we will have to do it to protect our child. Not out of some sick sadistic pleasure, out of the fact that she is more precious to me than anything that exists and I want to ensure she lives safely and can learn from situations without having to experience greater and more painful harms than a smaller tap on the hand or bottom would ever do.</p><p></p><p>Looking at the attitude and decay of society today and it seems to me it's mostly caused by liberal minorities who control a more issue comprehending majority.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="C A Iversen, post: 193795"] The main question you ask puts 'controlled' in a context which seems to infer that it's a bad thing. There are elements of control which are good you know. Like self-control and having control of one's living conditions and environment. No one is suggesting "let's repress the kids". That's completely laughable. Children and young adults have been spiralling out of any sort of domestic or social control for a long time. As have many parents. I think there is a massive feeling of "you can't do this to me" and "I can do what I want" going through the upbringing of children today. This is not a blanket statement as some children are being bought up with great degrees of respect for both themselves and others. It's just that different things work for different circumstances. If your child is 4-5 years old and reaches for the element on your oven or heater and is about to burn themselves, you should say, "Hey (name here), this can hurt you, stay back a little bit, daddy doesn't touch. It could hurt you bad". You shouldn't smack at that point. Kid's being kids, the little one will be wondering whats so bad about that attractive bright light and will try again. The parent should explain again, try different terms and try and get the message through. The kid may try again though and again. Then again and again. Each time the parent must try something new to get the message across. After all we don't want the kid to get massively painful burns, do we? Then finally if the child has continued to try and the parent has said and done everything possible to stop them, the parent should let them put their hand on the element when the parent has finally turned to grab some ingredients out of the cupboard. At least that's an anti-smacking person's view. After that last possible explanation, I believe that a small tap on the hand and then an explanation that "this little owwie that you just got would be much, much bigger from that thing you want to touch". Then further the explanation, "Daddy/Mummy didn't want to do that to your hand, but you must listen or the thing will hurt you very bad. If you try again we will have to make that little tap a little bit harder and closer to what that thing will do". I wonder how many of you anti-smackers understand the daily battle to teach children with out smacking them that responsible parents toil through? Responsible parents only use it as a last ditch response and if done with love for your child is much more effective than continual verbal explanations. These explanations should be used first as sometimes a child will learn from those alone. I have not had to smack my child and don't plan to. If I run into a situation where I and my wife have tried every practical thing otherwise, then we will have to do it to protect our child. Not out of some sick sadistic pleasure, out of the fact that she is more precious to me than anything that exists and I want to ensure she lives safely and can learn from situations without having to experience greater and more painful harms than a smaller tap on the hand or bottom would ever do. Looking at the attitude and decay of society today and it seems to me it's mostly caused by liberal minorities who control a more issue comprehending majority. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Anti-Smacking Bill in NZ
Top