@bibi5027 no, because smacking is an act of violence, it doesnt matter if its a hard smack or a lite smack, its still an adult hitting a child because the kid cant do anything about it
@bibi5024 no, because smacking is an act of violence, it doesnt matter if its a hard smack or a light smack, its still an adult hitting a child because the kid cant do anything about it.
300,000 move towards protecting their right to smack children, and you can bet not one of those who signed the petition would step up to protect a child who was getting smacked around.
@HackHunters Actually 1.5 million voted in 2009 that a smack shouldn't be illegal. Your inability to tell the difference between a corrective smack and "getting smacked around" tells more about you than anything else.
@SteveWrathall who's says i can't tell the difference? but to correct you i must admit i was generalizing which isn't fair to those who would stand up for a child. still, as an adult I opt for finding the right words than the impatience and disrespect a smack embodies.
A smack does not do any 'psychological' harm to children what so ever. It teaches respect and discipline. The idea that smacking damages children is a myth invented by the PC brigade. No one I knew as a kid had any problem with it. I didn't have a problem. I hardly ever got smacked any way. It doesn't even hurt. It's when parents hit their child for no reason, so much that it's actually a punch, but this and discipline are seperate. Anyone who says otherwise need a smack themselves
@1Thompsonmusic your violent , your advocating violence to people who disagree with you as well as defenceless children , and the funny thing is you don't think being hit as a child damaged you , you jus showed us how it has ... i REST MY CASE
@1Thompsonmusic YOUR VIOLENT ,you think that people who don't agree with you should be assulted as well as advocating smacking defenceless children . you think that you being hit has a child hasn't damaged you . you have just shown us it has ...i rest my case
@supahdupahguy81 You are welcome to morally judge parents who physically correct their children if you want. However plaster saints such as you have gone beyond this . You realise your moral persuasion has failed and are using the gun of the state.
To be perfectly honest, the only reason why i wouldn't want smackers criminalized is b'coz i don't really like the thought of state interference in my child's upbringing....other than that i find smacking kids in most circumstances VERY difficult to justify.....just how i feel about it, that's all...
@SteveWrathall However it is a much better idea to focus on those at-risk kids. Normally always where there is drug abuse, a solo mother with a succession of men drifting in and out of "care" of her childen, and welfare dependancy. Solving those problems will do vastly more to protect children than criminalising good parents.
@supahdupahguy81 I see you're from the UK, where they haven't (yet?) criminalised smacking? Yes, youre absolutely right to be afraid about state interference in your child's upbringing. However i presume that your aversion to some instances of child beating you have seen impells you to react the way you do. Fine. We are in agreement. You don't need to tell a NZer there are abusive parents out there.
Yeah, they haven't criminalised it YET but over here there are lots of "think tanks" & "quango's" who are paid to think of new ways to interfere in ppl's lives so it's probably only a matter of time...
one of the few instances i could justify smacking is say for instance, the child is running about on a busy road or something, a parent could smack out of fear which is understandable, i remember getting hit for the same reason when i was young & my mum really wasn't a smacker.
@rolopolo34 The same reason an adult can't choose the school, food, residence etc of another adult. The Parent/child relationship us unique and defies analogies.
i have been brought up in a working class family in England in a tough military orientated background where smacking was considered essential. I too until a few weeks ago was the biggest fan of smacking on the planet with two kids of my own. i have recently started watching a programme with Jo Frost supernanny. After implementing some of her techniques along side the "occasional" smack my good kids most of the time turned to angels all the time. i cannot remember the last time i smacked them.
@SteveWrathall of course, as parents there are no instruction manuals, you just have to doo what you think is the best. As long as it is not abuse or bullying then i absolutely respect what any parent decides to do. The only parent i have absolutely no respect for is the parent that does absolutely nothing to discipline their children smacking or no smacking.
smacking children is absolutely essential for enforcing boundaries and gives the child important lessons in consequences for wrongful behaviour, something that todays teenages lack due to not being smacked.
this has resulted in the " blameless society " where todays youth are incapable of accepting the consequences for there actions. physically disciplining a child for misconduct is a " natural " response that all animals exhibit towards there young to maintain social order.
PS- Why do you advocate buttock-battering for children only? Why aren't you advocating for it to be brought back into the military or the prisons where is once was?
In reply to your question about adult punishments. I can't send you to your room, dock your pay, make you eat your veges or choose your clothes. The adult-chils relationship is totally different.
Most compelling of all reasons to abandon this worst of all bad habits is the fact that buttock-battering can be unintentional sexual abuse for some children. There is an abundance of educational resources, testimony, documentation, etc available on the subject that can easily be found by doing a little research with the recommended reads-visit the website of Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education.
It's very sad that words such as "battering" are cheapened and devalued by your sort of dishonest misuse. To the point that real complaints of battery may not receive the required attention. Nonetheless, such abuse of the English language runs right through your list of thinkalike organisations that you post as a weak attempt at argument by authority.
Do you not have access to a dictionary? Please consult your dictionary for a definition of the term "battering". The inherited bad habit of hitting a child repeatedly on a part of their anatomy that would be classified as a sexual offense if done to a person over the age of 18 years is what you are arguing for.
Not sure why you prefer this behavior over learning how to discipline. Do you have more parenting experience or education than those whom I've listed above?
Please post links to opponents of the anti-smacking law who have advocated "repeatedly battering" anyone. Pathetic misrepresentations of practices of good parenting such as yours illustrate why 87% of NZers reject this law.
The fact that the majority of people where you live choose child bottom-slapping over DISCIPLINE, (it is, after all easier to hit than to take the time to DISCIPLINE) is saddening, but it does not make it any healthier.
Again, the opponents of this law repeatedly stated that use of weapons was wrong. They even offered an ammendment to this effect that the anti-smackers rejected.
PS- There are several organizations for battered women who support the abolition of hitting children. You may wish to get your facts straight before exposing such errors of judgment in the future.
Perhaps you should provide a picture or video demonstration of the "right way" to batter your child's buttocks, with an explanation of why you prefer this over learning how to DISCIPLINE.
"...improve their comprehension skills." Heh! Good stuff, Steve!
And, yes, coddling is the essence of Socialist and Statist appeal. "You're not weak, stupid or lazy. Other people are just evil cheaters! You need us to keep them in line! And, besides, you have a Right to free [whatever] at taxpayer expense."
whatever you think about the right or wrong of smacking is not the issue. the right to a referendum is not disputed. however, the way the referendum has been worded is blatantly biased. that's not democracy. that's propaganda.
If th opponents of smacking are unhappy with the question then they should have gone out and collected 300 000 signatures for their preferred motion then sought a mandate, before they changed the law.
As for the wording, if the qualifier "...as part of good parental correction..." had not been added then it would be even easier for the anti smackers to argue that they are opposing those who want to "bash" their kids.
au contraire. if the question had read 'should a smack as part of parental correction be a criminal offence' then the question would then be relatively neutral.
as it stands the question is blatantly leading and the response by key politicians simply confirms this. according to your logic skewing the question in favor of one side is justified because a neutral description will be interpreted as favoring the opposing position. such pre-emptive moral relativism is somewhat hypocritical.
i think the problem with the question is the word "good". define "good" parental correction. I agree with kewlklutzklan, leaving out the 'good' in the question would have made it more neutral.
just like in Sweden........... where children can blackmail their parents because parents are assumed to be offenders. In the street or a shop nobody would risk to say anything about somebody else's child's behaviour - they are scared. But in Sweden adults are treated like children - they've got half prohibition on alcohol.
you are the voice of reason, but you are obviously educated person...
Majority of politicians are trained politicians or lawyers... well, they are good in talking, but they've got no real world knowledge - in comparison to you they are just red necks ;-)
There was a special amendment in american constitution banning lawyers from congress... not without good reason! (Constitution Class taught by Michael Badnarik).
This has been flagged as spam show
@bibi5027 no, because smacking is an act of violence, it doesnt matter if its a hard smack or a lite smack, its still an adult hitting a child because the kid cant do anything about it
gorillas400 1 week ago
@bibi5024 no, because smacking is an act of violence, it doesnt matter if its a hard smack or a light smack, its still an adult hitting a child because the kid cant do anything about it.
gorillas400 1 week ago
and when children is sassy,to parents its not crime? There is different between smack,and violent
bibi5027 2 months ago
300,000 move towards protecting their right to smack children, and you can bet not one of those who signed the petition would step up to protect a child who was getting smacked around.
HackHunters 1 year ago
@HackHunters Actually 1.5 million voted in 2009 that a smack shouldn't be illegal. Your inability to tell the difference between a corrective smack and "getting smacked around" tells more about you than anything else.
SteveWrathall 1 year ago 2
@SteveWrathall who's says i can't tell the difference? but to correct you i must admit i was generalizing which isn't fair to those who would stand up for a child. still, as an adult I opt for finding the right words than the impatience and disrespect a smack embodies.
HackHunters 1 year ago
Comment removed
1Thompsonmusic 1 year ago
A smack does not do any 'psychological' harm to children what so ever. It teaches respect and discipline. The idea that smacking damages children is a myth invented by the PC brigade. No one I knew as a kid had any problem with it. I didn't have a problem. I hardly ever got smacked any way. It doesn't even hurt. It's when parents hit their child for no reason, so much that it's actually a punch, but this and discipline are seperate. Anyone who says otherwise need a smack themselves
1Thompsonmusic 1 year ago
@1Thompsonmusic your violent , your advocating violence to people who disagree with you as well as defenceless children , and the funny thing is you don't think being hit as a child damaged you , you jus showed us how it has ... i REST MY CASE
iwcbonkz 3 months ago
@1Thompsonmusic YOUR VIOLENT ,you think that people who don't agree with you should be assulted as well as advocating smacking defenceless children . you think that you being hit has a child hasn't damaged you . you have just shown us it has ...i rest my case
iwcbonkz 3 months ago
Criminal? No not IMO....
Cowardly? YES, very much so....u all stop when the child is big enough to hit u back anyway...
supahdupahguy81 1 year ago 2
@supahdupahguy81 You are welcome to morally judge parents who physically correct their children if you want. However plaster saints such as you have gone beyond this . You realise your moral persuasion has failed and are using the gun of the state.
SteveWrathall 1 year ago
@SteveWrathall
To be perfectly honest, the only reason why i wouldn't want smackers criminalized is b'coz i don't really like the thought of state interference in my child's upbringing....other than that i find smacking kids in most circumstances VERY difficult to justify.....just how i feel about it, that's all...
supahdupahguy81 1 year ago
@supahdupahguy81 test
SteveWrathall 1 year ago
@SteveWrathall However it is a much better idea to focus on those at-risk kids. Normally always where there is drug abuse, a solo mother with a succession of men drifting in and out of "care" of her childen, and welfare dependancy. Solving those problems will do vastly more to protect children than criminalising good parents.
SteveWrathall 1 year ago
@supahdupahguy81 I see you're from the UK, where they haven't (yet?) criminalised smacking? Yes, youre absolutely right to be afraid about state interference in your child's upbringing. However i presume that your aversion to some instances of child beating you have seen impells you to react the way you do. Fine. We are in agreement. You don't need to tell a NZer there are abusive parents out there.
SteveWrathall 1 year ago
@SteveWrathall
Yeah, they haven't criminalised it YET but over here there are lots of "think tanks" & "quango's" who are paid to think of new ways to interfere in ppl's lives so it's probably only a matter of time...
one of the few instances i could justify smacking is say for instance, the child is running about on a busy road or something, a parent could smack out of fear which is understandable, i remember getting hit for the same reason when i was young & my mum really wasn't a smacker.
supahdupahguy81 1 year ago
@rolopolo34 The same reason an adult can't choose the school, food, residence etc of another adult. The Parent/child relationship us unique and defies analogies.
SteveWrathall 1 year ago
i have been brought up in a working class family in England in a tough military orientated background where smacking was considered essential. I too until a few weeks ago was the biggest fan of smacking on the planet with two kids of my own. i have recently started watching a programme with Jo Frost supernanny. After implementing some of her techniques along side the "occasional" smack my good kids most of the time turned to angels all the time. i cannot remember the last time i smacked them.
lainelladave 2 years ago
@lainelladave I fully respect your right to choose whether or not you smack your kids Can you respect the same right in others?
SteveWrathall 2 years ago
@SteveWrathall of course, as parents there are no instruction manuals, you just have to doo what you think is the best. As long as it is not abuse or bullying then i absolutely respect what any parent decides to do. The only parent i have absolutely no respect for is the parent that does absolutely nothing to discipline their children smacking or no smacking.
lainelladave 2 years ago
@lainelladave
Her techniques as you call them are rubbish.
1Thompsonmusic 1 year ago
smacking children is absolutely essential for enforcing boundaries and gives the child important lessons in consequences for wrongful behaviour, something that todays teenages lack due to not being smacked.
this has resulted in the " blameless society " where todays youth are incapable of accepting the consequences for there actions. physically disciplining a child for misconduct is a " natural " response that all animals exhibit towards there young to maintain social order.
imanglo 2 years ago
PS- Why do you advocate buttock-battering for children only? Why aren't you advocating for it to be brought back into the military or the prisons where is once was?
PhDeverit 2 years ago
I am not advocating "battering" anyone.
In reply to your question about adult punishments. I can't send you to your room, dock your pay, make you eat your veges or choose your clothes. The adult-chils relationship is totally different.
SteveWrathall 2 years ago
People who choose child buttock-battering over legitimate discipline really have to grasp at straws don't they?
People in Singapore, where adult corporal punishment is legal would disagree with you.
People of previous centuries when "spanking" prisoners, military trainees, and community members was legal, also would disagree.
PhDeverit 2 years ago
Most compelling of all reasons to abandon this worst of all bad habits is the fact that buttock-battering can be unintentional sexual abuse for some children. There is an abundance of educational resources, testimony, documentation, etc available on the subject that can easily be found by doing a little research with the recommended reads-visit the website of Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education.
PhDeverit 2 years ago
Just a handful of those helping to raise awareness of why child bottom-slapping isn't a good idea:
American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
Center For Effective Discipline,
PsycHealth Ltd Behavioral Health Professionals,
Churches' Network For Non-Violence,
Nobel Peace Prize recipient Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
Parenting In Jesus' Footsteps,
Global Initiative To End All Corporal Punishment of Children,
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
PhDeverit 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Child buttock-battering vs. DISCIPLINE:
Child buttock-battering for the purpose of gaining compliance is nothing more than an inherited bad habit.
Its a good idea for people to take a look at what they are doing, and learn how to DISCIPLINE instead of hit.
Here are some good, quick reads recommended by professionals:
Plain Talk About Spanking
by Jordan Riak,
The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
by Tom Johnson,
NO VITAL ORGANS THERE, So They Say
by Lesli Taylor M.D. and Adah Maurer Ph.D.
PhDeverit 2 years ago
It's very sad that words such as "battering" are cheapened and devalued by your sort of dishonest misuse. To the point that real complaints of battery may not receive the required attention. Nonetheless, such abuse of the English language runs right through your list of thinkalike organisations that you post as a weak attempt at argument by authority.
SteveWrathall 2 years ago
Do you not have access to a dictionary? Please consult your dictionary for a definition of the term "battering". The inherited bad habit of hitting a child repeatedly on a part of their anatomy that would be classified as a sexual offense if done to a person over the age of 18 years is what you are arguing for.
Not sure why you prefer this behavior over learning how to discipline. Do you have more parenting experience or education than those whom I've listed above?
PhDeverit 2 years ago
Please post links to opponents of the anti-smacking law who have advocated "repeatedly battering" anyone. Pathetic misrepresentations of practices of good parenting such as yours illustrate why 87% of NZers reject this law.
SteveWrathall 2 years ago
"Spanking", "slippering", "swatting", "whopping","switching", "belting","paddling", "caning", "smacking", "tawsing" .
All euphemisms for CHILD BUTTOCK-BATTERING.
The fact that the majority of people where you live choose child bottom-slapping over DISCIPLINE, (it is, after all easier to hit than to take the time to DISCIPLINE) is saddening, but it does not make it any healthier.
PhDeverit 2 years ago
Again, the opponents of this law repeatedly stated that use of weapons was wrong. They even offered an ammendment to this effect that the anti-smackers rejected.
SteveWrathall 2 years ago
PS- There are several organizations for battered women who support the abolition of hitting children. You may wish to get your facts straight before exposing such errors of judgment in the future.
Perhaps you should provide a picture or video demonstration of the "right way" to batter your child's buttocks, with an explanation of why you prefer this over learning how to DISCIPLINE.
PhDeverit 2 years ago
"...improve their comprehension skills." Heh! Good stuff, Steve!
And, yes, coddling is the essence of Socialist and Statist appeal. "You're not weak, stupid or lazy. Other people are just evil cheaters! You need us to keep them in line! And, besides, you have a Right to free [whatever] at taxpayer expense."
Joemantler 2 years ago
24 Aug 09 UPDATE: Referendum turnout:54%.
NO: 88%
Yes: 12%
SteveWrathall 2 years ago
Glad to hear it! Now if only us Yanks can stop Gov't Health Care and Cap & Trade here. Wish us luck!
Joemantler 2 years ago
Too soon to celebrate. The Referendum was only indicative. The Govt still says it won't change the law.
SteveWrathall 2 years ago
whatever you think about the right or wrong of smacking is not the issue. the right to a referendum is not disputed. however, the way the referendum has been worded is blatantly biased. that's not democracy. that's propaganda.
kewlklutzklan 2 years ago
If th opponents of smacking are unhappy with the question then they should have gone out and collected 300 000 signatures for their preferred motion then sought a mandate, before they changed the law.
As for the wording, if the qualifier "...as part of good parental correction..." had not been added then it would be even easier for the anti smackers to argue that they are opposing those who want to "bash" their kids.
SteveWrathall 2 years ago
au contraire. if the question had read 'should a smack as part of parental correction be a criminal offence' then the question would then be relatively neutral.
as it stands the question is blatantly leading and the response by key politicians simply confirms this. according to your logic skewing the question in favor of one side is justified because a neutral description will be interpreted as favoring the opposing position. such pre-emptive moral relativism is somewhat hypocritical.
kewlklutzklan 2 years ago
The anti smackers would still oppose the question as you word it. In their dogma, any physical consequences have no part in parental "correction".
SteveWrathall 2 years ago
i think the problem with the question is the word "good". define "good" parental correction. I agree with kewlklutzklan, leaving out the 'good' in the question would have made it more neutral.
Sazamassive 2 years ago
Hello. I am a spammer. I post comments on people's videos that have nothing to do with the topic touched upon in the video! Please don't HIT ME!
Today I would like to invite Steve and friends to learn about ...the heliosphere, an "envelop" or "bubble" surrounding the entire solar system!
When the Sun's irradiance is high LESS COSMIC PARTICLES pass through the Earth's atmosphere! Yes! Its TRUE!
It can dramatically affect our climate and make some parents short tempered : (
opchidexio 2 years ago
We need a climate where the thrashing of spammers is celebrated.
SteveWrathall 2 years ago
just like in Sweden........... where children can blackmail their parents because parents are assumed to be offenders. In the street or a shop nobody would risk to say anything about somebody else's child's behaviour - they are scared. But in Sweden adults are treated like children - they've got half prohibition on alcohol.
grraadd 2 years ago
The infantilisation of adults is a hallmark of all socialist agendas.
SteveWrathall 2 years ago
right
you are the voice of reason, but you are obviously educated person...
Majority of politicians are trained politicians or lawyers... well, they are good in talking, but they've got no real world knowledge - in comparison to you they are just red necks ;-)
There was a special amendment in american constitution banning lawyers from congress... not without good reason! (Constitution Class taught by Michael Badnarik).
grraadd 2 years ago