Butosai wrote: I guess what I'm saying is either way, being too harsh or too easy both has negative side affects on children, and I've definitely have seen both. It's all about inforcing discipline correctly.Exactly.Each child and each situation requires a different aproach.

Killer666 wrote: DarkCrow wrote: maiden's virus wrote: DarkCrow wrote: Hey, my dad used to beat the living shit outta me. Chipped a rib, gashed my face, and has even given me a few good black eyes. I never deserved it to that degree, and no one does. However, that punishment did put me in line, and made me break my old habits.
wtf, if my dad ever punshed me a black eye i would fuckin beat him up when i was old enough to take him on.
no one has the right to beat a kid so hard.
Well, now I do hit him back.

You also must understand, he's big, and is VERY strong. He knows how to hurt a person badly, he used to be a pro collegiate wrestler.

Of course not. No one should be beat at that extent. It worked on me, of course but at a high price.I would never hit my dad back.I respect him too much.He used to dare me to hit him back.Well back then I would have been stupid to.He could have broken me in half.If I had hit him when I got older it would have crossed a line that can never be uncrossed.Hitting your parent is probably the biggest act of disrespect ever.
I do agree with this.

I just hit him as an act to get him off me.

Demogorgon wrote: WastedOnTheWay wrote: Here's a photo-blog from a protest on this issue --> http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00507.htm

I find it funny how retarded some of the conservatives, old testament loving christians and libertarianz look. "We got thrashed as kids and we turned out okay" What is it with New Zealand and these wackos? You don't really get that lot in Australia so why is New Zealand full of Bible thumpers and the liks of the ACT Liberals?

Some of them would probably want parents to be allowed to do anything they like to their children. After all they are their property...

I wouldn't say we're full of bible thumpers and neo-liberals.

ACT only got 2.5% at the last election. And the highest polling overtly christian party got less than 1%

The Australian progressive reformers are a bit more pragmatic than ours. New South Wales passed a law saying that it was okay to smack but made sure that anything that left welts, cuts or bruises was banned and using implements was banned too. Also you can't hit a child's head. So it's pretty much the same as in Scotland.

Here, they don't want to convict people for smacking but they want to say it's illegal because they want to try to be moral and change society's view on it. Religous wackos did threaten the NSWMP who was behind the legislation over there though, so I guess they have their share as well.

I generally think that NZers and Australians have almost identical culture and traditions. The main differences seem to be that Australians are a bit less tolerent of refugees (see the Tampa incident a few years ago, the OneNation Party and the detention centres) and of the culture, welfare and rights of the indigenous people; the Aborigines. They also have a bit more of a rebel attitude and more people have strong opinions on the republican debate (on both sides). But you can't overemphasise the differences. The differences between New South Welshmen and us aren't really any bigger than the differences between Queenslanders and South Australians.

Killer666 wrote: maiden's virus wrote: Killer666 wrote: maiden's virus wrote: Killer666 wrote: maiden's virus wrote: Killer666 wrote: DarkCrow wrote: maiden's virus wrote: DarkCrow wrote: Hey, my dad used to beat the living shit outta me. Chipped a rib, gashed my face, and has even given me a few good black eyes. I never deserved it to that degree, and no one does. However, that punishment did put me in line, and made me break my old habits.
wtf, if my dad ever punshed me a black eye i would fuckin beat him up when i was old enough to take him on.
no one has the right to beat a kid so hard.
Well, now I do hit him back.

You also must understand, he's big, and is VERY strong. He knows how to hurt a person badly, he used to be a pro collegiate wrestler.

Of course not. No one should be beat at that extent. It worked on me, of course but at a high price.I would never hit my dad back.I respect him too much.He used to dare me to hit him back.Well back then I would have been stupid to.He could have broken me in half.If I had hit him when I got older it would have crossed a line that can never be uncrossed.Hitting your parent is probably the biggest act of disrespect ever.hitting a defenseless child is a way bigger form of disrespect in my book.It depends on the situation.DarkCrow had it rough with his father breaking ribs and so forth,He should have called the authorities.Me and you come from two totally different perspectives(times,culture and countries). I strongly disagree with raising a hand to a parent.It's not child's place to dicipline a parent.
like i said, if my dad would have hit me like that, i wouldn't even consider him my father, he would be dead to me, and i would kick his ass to make him remember what it feels like.I can understand that if you are hitting him back at the time when he is hitting you.I mean you have to defend yourself.Waiting to get bigger to hit him for hitting you when you were younger is another story though.
a 10 year old or even a 15 year old for that matter cannot defend himself.
i would have no mercy with him and would patiently wait for my time to come.If a man is beating a child so bad that he is breaking bones and giving bruises he should be removed from the home.If you wait 5-10 years to exact your revenge you're really not much better then him.
oh but you know as well as i that no kid in that position dares to go to the authorities.
offcourse that would be the best way, but if that would fail i wouldn' have mercy with him, then leave and never go back again.

Gatocamera wrote: Killer nailed it. America and Belgium are two entirely different cultures. What is right in one culture isn't neccesarily acceptable in another.
beating a kid till he looks like a smurf should be unaaceptable in every culture.
don't get me wrong i think a smack on the ass can be allowed in extreme situations as a shock effect to tell the kid he really has done something wrong, followed by a explanation why he/she cannot do that.

NOMORE BUSH LIES!!! wrote: I think spanking dosent work but I dont think banning it would solve anything.

I agree. A criminal conviction for light smacking would outweigh the crime and be a waste of police resources. I'd feel the same way if someone pushed someone's arm or shoulder while moving through a crowd. Techinically it is assault but it's a waste of police/court time to follow it up. I'd like it if there was no smacking, but making it illegal won't stop people doing it. That would require a change in the culture which takes years, sometimes a generation or more.

Well, if you want it from a psychological standpoint, yes, spanking does work, when used correctly. It should only be used to end a speciffic incident at the time it occurs. It will not automatically lead to extinction, though, it must also be coupled with strong conditioning to teach the kid what wrong has been done.

I disagree that there should be absolutely no smacking. As Maiden's Virus said, it's good to use as shock therapy. You know all those kids that are whining in stores because they don't get what they want and their parents don't do a damn thing? Well if I was with my kid in a store and he/she was whining the first thing I would do is give him a quick pinch or smack as a warning. It has its positive outcomes when it's used in the right way.

Banning physical discipline or making it completely illegal is just stupid however.

There should be no laws about anything whatsoever.


Because 'If they are determined enough they will do it anyway...'

Demogorgon wrote: Speaking of New Zealand BTW, how on earth did scum like Roer Douglas and Richard prebble start out in the Labour Party?

Good question. I'm not totally sure.

Maybe they were too socially liberal for National.

The country was in a desperate economic situation in 1984 so some free market reforms were necessary. These two went totally over the top though and continue to be on the extreme right economically. Maybe they actually believed in the 'trickle down effect' but that wouldn't explain why they continue to have these beliefs after the results of their reforms have become evident.

It turns out that child abuse was introduced into New Zealand in the 19th century by punkass crackers.

Quote: Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said on TV One's Marae programme that the party remained firm in its position and blamed the arrival of Christianity in New Zealand and colonisation for introducing the concept of smacking children to Maori.

"Our people did not hit their tamariki. That only came about through colonisation and through Christianity, actually," she said.

Quote: Turia's comments brought a swift response from the Anglican Church, which said it was wrong to blame Christianity.

"She is right that there is pretty clear historical evidence to show that missionaries were noting with great approval some of the non-violent ways they saw Maori disciplining their children," Dancer said.

"It is possible that what happened is that mission schools introduced the cane because they were coming from a Victorian culture that frequently used the cane in education in Britain.

"But by far and away the most significant part of the influence would have come through the colonisation process in general ... To blame Christianity is really quite inappropriate."

Good one Alex999, Demogorgon, et al. :...:

link --> http://www.stuff.co.nz/4044523a11.html

WastedOnTheWay wrote: It turns out that child abuse was introduced into New Zealand in the 19th century by punkass crackers.

Quote: Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said on TV One's Marae programme that the party remained firm in its position and blamed the arrival of Christianity in New Zealand and colonisation for introducing the concept of smacking children to Maori.

"Our people did not hit their tamariki. That only came about through colonisation and through Christianity, actually," she said.

Quote: Turia's comments brought a swift response from the Anglican Church, which said it was wrong to blame Christianity.

"She is right that there is pretty clear historical evidence to show that missionaries were noting with great approval some of the non-violent ways they saw Maori disciplining their children," Dancer said.

"It is possible that what happened is that mission schools introduced the cane because they were coming from a Victorian culture that frequently used the cane in education in Britain.

"But by far and away the most significant part of the influence would have come through the colonisation process in general ... To blame Christianity is really quite inappropriate."

Good one Alex999, Demogorgon, et al. :...:

link --> http://www.stuff.co.nz/4044523a11.html

Are you a non-white?