Child beaters, round two

[davebullet]

Smacks are useful to very young children (ie. toddlers) when they are having an out of control tantrum and they pose a danger to themselves. For example - they are pulling away from you next to a busy road. It's happened once to me as a parent and I smacked him (controlled - not angry). The shock of the smack (which I rarely administered - it's a last resort) turned his anger into tears which allowed a cuddle and calmed him down. This was next to a busy road.

[NDORFN]

Smacks are useful to very young children (ie. toddlers) when they are having an out of control tantrum and they pose a danger to themselves. For example - they are pulling away from you next to a busy road. It's happened once to me as a parent and I smacked him (controlled - not angry). The shock of the smack (which I rarely administered - it's a last resort) turned his anger into tears which allowed a cuddle and calmed him down. This was next to a busy road.

It's also good for smacking the arrogance out of them, which can pose a danger to themselves later in life ie. getting smart to a guy with a knife.

[discotex]

Smacks are useful to very young children (ie. toddlers) when they are having an out of control tantrum and they pose a danger to themselves. For example - they are pulling away from you next to a busy road. It's happened once to me as a parent and I smacked him (controlled - not angry). The shock of the smack (which I rarely administered - it's a last resort) turned his anger into tears which allowed a cuddle and calmed him down. This was next to a busy road.

Are you saying this is why the law change was bad or just a justification for smacking?

If it's the former you should read the law as quoted above. If it's the latter it may be one of the rare cases where a smack is justified.

It's pretty simple IMO. If you smack your child more than 10 times in their life you're probably doing it wrong. If you smack your child monthly you're doing it extremely wrong.

[RantyDave]

"Don't touch the fire - it will burn you - it will hurt - you'll need to go to the hospital" etc for a 2 year old may not actually mean that much other than "Dad doesn't want me to touch it", but if they're in that mood... and they don't call 'em the "terrible two's" by accident... they'll keep going.

My two year old, who's muuuuucccchhh slower than his sister ... we let him have little accidents so he can get the idea of what the bigger ones would be like. A marginally hot oven instead of a really hot one, a cup of tea instead of a kettle. We've also run the rule with both of them that if they can climb on it, they can fall off - a couple of solid clonks onto the (wooden) floor off the back of the sofa seems to teach them what altitude is all about.

Anyone that's had a two year old will attest to the fact it is impossible to watch them 24x7

Too right.

It's difficult because as much as I want to discourage violence, smacking is clearly vastly superior to no parenting at all, and it is also clear that there are good parents who do smack. But I'm convinced it's not the best way and the current campaign.... that there are 300,000 willing to campaign for children to have fewer legal protections than adults??? You're kidding me, right?

Dave

[Skyryder]

do you have children ?? what do you do for a living??

Yes two who have grown up and are now in the workforce, so you could say I'm an 'experianced' parent. What I do for a living is not relevant.

Skyryder

[puddytat]

Youre not allowed to smack your partner under existing law.....why then your kids?

[Skyryder]

Are you equating smacking to hitting a child - it's unclear from the post above. My interpretation is that hitting would involve a weapon or closed fist - more of an injurious impact than a smack (i.e. you don't see people smacking each other when they fight, but the certainly hit each other)

I see it as one of the last resorts personally -but I do see it as a valid resort. Especially with the little ones where they have no concept of consequences.

"Don't touch the fire - it will burn you - it will hurt - you'll need to go to the hospital" etc for a 2 year old may not actually mean that much other than "Dad doesn't want me to touch it", but if they're in that mood... and they don't call 'em the "terrible two's" by accident... they'll keep going.

If someone was to walk up to you and say that they were going to give you a 'smack' around the head you would equate that as hitting.

The word smack is derived more from the sound of the blow.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary: Smack: a sharp slap or blow esp. with the palm of the hand or a flat object. Notice that a blow is used as one defination and also from an object.

A smack is allowed under the legislation where safety of the child becomes paramount as in the scenario that you have described.

There are better ways for a parent to 'correct' behavour than inflicting pain.

It's just that it takes more time but the outcomes for both are far better; no pain for the child and more satisfaction for the parent.


Skyryder

[EYNON13]

1: You'd have been ok if he was just smacking ya.
2: You could've charged him with... wait for it... ASSAULT!

yeah posibly but when ya get ya cyps recored and and find they knew all along wat was happening but couldnt do anything about it until the law was changed for them 17 yrs ago i was well out of the system for them to help me all they could do was recomend that i go 2 these health camps over summer to get me out of that enviroment and for the other 1 saying that you grow up to be a abuser wat a crock my old man did drugs was a alky and beat all us kids and mum well guess wat i havent hit my wife i dont do drugs and i drink a few social ones with mates its up 2 the individual wat they do with there life so stop trying to tell me that i couldve charged him with assault there was a lot less laws back then for kids to receve the help they needed

[Skyryder]

The debate may turn out to be an expensive waste of effort for both sides, with Mr Key saying yesterday that he had no intention of changing the law regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
"I think it's important that governments listen to the public, but the test I've had is that if I don't think the law is working I will change it," he said. "To date I have not seen any evidence that it is not working."
The question being asked in the referendum was ambiguous as it did not directly call for the law to be changed or repealed. The issue was of significant public concern two years ago but had died away, he said.

From http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...on-t-alter-law


Ten million down the tube from our Prime Minister and this in a recession.

Key did not hesitate to renege of his tax policy saying that now we can not afford tax cuts when before he was saying that tax cuts will improve the economy but now he's going with this referendum that is going to cost us ten million dollars................of importance

Skyryder

[Lissa]

My two year old, who's muuuuucccchhh slower than his sister ... we let him have little accidents so he can get the idea of what the bigger ones would be like. A marginally hot oven instead of a really hot one, a cup of tea instead of a kettle. We've also run the rule with both of them that if they can climb on it, they can fall off - a couple of solid clonks onto the (wooden) floor off the back of the sofa seems to teach them what altitude is all about.
Dave

Hmm I see where you are going but instead of letting my children know what the pain of touching a hot oven is like I smacked my childrens hands when they went near an oven, and said the word HOT so they got it... Pain if you touch the oven. (Useful for young toddlers)

As for letting him touch a cup of hot tea instead of a kettle, I dont think kids attach a cup with how hot a kettle can be , my nephew at the age of one pulled the Jug Cord which just happened to be attached to a freshly boiled jug and has serious burns to whole of his arm which he still lives with today 18 years later (lucky missed his face). A smack on the hand to save a life time of pain is well worth it. The same could be said for kids near open flames and wearing pj's, I am not going to let my kids get a little burnt to teach them a lesson.

So to me a smack on the hand to avoid accidents in young on the move curious toddlers is okay to me.

[MisterD]

Youre not allowed to smack your partner under existing law.....why then your kids?

You're legally responsible for your partner then?

[puddytat]

importance[/U]

Skyryder

You know the answer to that as well as anyone....to keep people wound up & adgitated about a load of bullshit, which'll keep people occupied over a moral & emotive issue while they, can get on doing the bidding of thier masters....
Fuck we're guillable.

[MisterD]

Ten million down the tube from our Prime Minister and this in a recession.

Key did not hesitate to renege of his tax policy saying that now we can not afford tax cuts when before he was saying that tax cuts will improve the economy but now he's going with this referendum that is going to cost us ten million dollars................of importance

How is it JK's fault? The call for a referendum got the required signatures, it has to happen. It could have cost about 10% as much if it hadn't been for (y)our Dear ex-leader opting not to include the question with the general election...blame our UN trough-snuffler.

[puddytat]

You're legally responsible for your partner then?

So I understand....no more smackin' em upside da head when they get lippy.

There has been one or 2 other issues that got the required signatures,but we're still waitng on them.

[RantyDave]

Ten million down the tube from our Prime Minister and this in a recession.

It was a "Citizens Initiated Referendum" - the law says we have to have one if 10% of the electorate sign a petition saying they do. That's about 300,000 people so if each of those 300,000 dumbcunts would like to pony up $30/head then we'll go ahead and run this thing-that-is-like-a-facebook-poll-but-orange OK?

Dave