Corporal punishment Poll

[Razgovory]

We are lucky that most people are not like Martinus.

[Sheilbh]

I was smacked as a child.  I think it's healthy, every kid should be slapped by their mum or dad at least once.  Otherwise they'll grow up like Martinus

Et tu Brute? What the fuck was that?

Occassionally attention whore-ish only child.

[grumbler]

I guess for people who do not believe in violence against children (like me) this is worse. I can understand, if not condone, giving in to a temptation of a heated moment and smacking a kid who is insufferable. On the other hand, the cold and calculated corporeal punishment is monstrous and inhuman.

You can condone people hitting their kids in when they lose their temper.  I would hope most people are not like you.

He specifically said he wouldn't condone it.  Was your post a troll, or do you simply have no ability to comprehend written English?

I hope most posters here are not like you.

[Cecil]

The poll question is posed in a retarded way. Hardly any parent does not spank the kid EVER.

Maybe in Poland. In a civilized country like Sweden normal people don't spank their kids.

Well certain segments of our society are pretty good at beating the everliving crap out of their kids.

[Razgovory]

That's why they call it Stockholm syndrome.

[dps]

I guess for people who do not believe in violence against children (like me) this is worse. I can understand, if not condone, giving in to a temptation of a heated moment and smacking a kid who is insufferable. On the other hand, the cold and calculated corporeal punishment is monstrous and inhuman.

You can condone people hitting their kids in when they lose their temper.  I would hope most people are not like you.

He specifically said he wouldn't condone it.  Was your post a troll, or do you simply have no ability to comprehend written English?

I hope most posters here are not like you.

Whether or not he condones hitting your kids when you lose you temper, doing so if far than spanking them without anger.  Hitting while angry can all too easily slip into abuse (indeed, by saying "hitting" rather than "spanking" in this context at least implies striking with a fist, which IMO goes over the line on the face of it), while spanking while calm is a useful, nonabusive disciplinary tool.

[Martinus]

I guess for people who do not believe in violence against children (like me) this is worse. I can understand, if not condone, giving in to a temptation of a heated moment and smacking a kid who is insufferable. On the other hand, the cold and calculated corporeal punishment is monstrous and inhuman.

You can condone people hitting their kids in when they lose their temper.  I would hope most people are not like you.

He specifically said he wouldn't condone it.  Was your post a troll, or do you simply have no ability to comprehend written English?

I hope most posters here are not like you.

Whether or not he condones hitting your kids when you lose you temper, doing so if far than spanking them without anger.  Hitting while angry can all too easily slip into abuse (indeed, by saying "hitting" rather than "spanking" in this context at least implies striking with a fist, which IMO goes over the line on the face of it), while spanking while calm is a useful, nonabusive disciplinary tool.

Why are you talking about "hitting" considering I never used the word? 

And what I meant (which I thought was pretty clear, but I guess this forum has too many idiots) is that I could never understand deliberate, calm use of physical violence against the kid - the kind you call a "disciplinary tool". This is pretty psychopathic to even consider hurting your own child like that.

I can see a parent losing his or her temper on an exceptional occasion and just lightly smacking (the word I used by the way) the kid on the ear, even if I would find it a failure on behalf of the parent to keep his or her cool. But such a failure is human (which is exactly what I think is meant by the expression "I understand if not condone"), whereas the one where you deliberately, and in a cold blood, use physical violence against your child, is inexcusable.

In short: using physical violence against a child is bad. But there is a difference between a "crime of passion" and a "premeditated crime" - and that's how I see the difference between both cases I described.

[dps]

I guess for people who do not believe in violence against children (like me) this is worse. I can understand, if not condone, giving in to a temptation of a heated moment and smacking a kid who is insufferable. On the other hand, the cold and calculated corporeal punishment is monstrous and inhuman.

You can condone people hitting their kids in when they lose their temper.  I would hope most people are not like you.

He specifically said he wouldn't condone it.  Was your post a troll, or do you simply have no ability to comprehend written English?

I hope most posters here are not like you.

Whether or not he condones hitting your kids when you lose you temper, doing so if far than spanking them without anger.  Hitting while angry can all too easily slip into abuse (indeed, by saying "hitting" rather than "spanking" in this context at least implies striking with a fist, which IMO goes over the line on the face of it), while spanking while calm is a useful, nonabusive disciplinary tool.

Why are you talking about "hitting" considering I never used the word? 

Crazy Canuck said "hitting", not you.  Sorry 'bout that;  I let his spin on you comment affect my view of what you actually posted.

And what I meant (which I thought was pretty clear, but I guess this forum has too many idiots) is that I could never understand deliberate, calm use of physical violence against the kid - the kind you call a "disciplinary tool". This is pretty psychopathic to even consider hurting your own child like that.

I can see a parent losing his or her temper on an exceptional occasion and just lightly smacking (the word I used by the way) the kid on the ear, even if I would find it a failure on behalf of the parent to keep his or her cool. But such a failure is human (which is exactly what I think is meant by the expression "I understand if not condone"), whereas the one where you deliberately, and in a cold blood, use physical violence against your child, is inexcusable.

In short: using physical violence against a child is bad. But there is a difference between a "crime of passion" and a "premeditated crime" - and that's how I see the difference between both cases I described.

Clearly I disagree that the use of corporal punishment against a child is bad. 

[Ideologue]

Not infrequently. There were all sorts of unspoken "rules" about it that I found out as I grew older. Spanking while angry was verboten, for example.

I guess for people who do not believe in violence against children (like me) this is worse. I can understand, if not condone, giving in to a temptation of a heated moment and smacking a kid who is insufferable. On the other hand, the cold and calculated corporeal punishment is monstrous and inhuman.

You can condone people hitting their kids in when they lose their temper.  I would hope most people are not like you.

I suppose I see his point.  Premeditating violence against other people is often considered worse than losing one's temper in day-to-day life--imagine if the question was "Do you ever hold a knife to your friends' throats?" and you said "Only when I plan it out ahead of time"--but Mart's mistake is approaching the subject from the point of view that corporal punishment is by necessity an antisocial act, regardless of motivation, and with the assumption that the violence is an end in itself, neither of which is true.

I received corporal punishment as a kid.  I'd probably do the same, but I wouldn't spank, I'd smack in the face or head.  Spanking just seems weird to me.

In short: using physical violence against a child is bad. But there is a difference between a "crime of passion" and a "premeditated crime" - and that's how I see the difference between both cases I described.

See?  I guess the abyss stares also.

[Ed Anger]

'switches'.

That'll teach 'em.