You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
https://news.utexas.edu/2016/04/25/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confirmed-by-researchers/
I didn't read the whole thing either, like I said, just the summary.
I don't think they are saying that slapping your child's wrist once is going to have lasting effects. See the quote in my last post.
I would suggest that a one off slap probably doesn't have any long lasting negative effects. However, people seem to be saying that slapping their kids once caused a permanent change in their behaviour so I could be wrong. Maybe it does cause a long term issues. If you are sure that risking long term issues is worth it to change their behaviour then crack on.
You are highly unlikely to be prosecuted for slapping your child's wrist once in your life.
The more children are spanked, the more likely they are to defy their parents and experience increased anti-social behavior and other difficulties, according to a new meta-analysis of 50 years of research
Just read the title ....
1) If you spank children habitually it can lead to "defy their parents and experience increased anti-social behavior and other difficulties"
This isn't news.... I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested children should be spanked on principle ... every sunday night?
2) This is a meta-data analysis...
I didn’t read the whole thing either, like I said, just the summary.
Errr! Ok.
Is the linked article not clear in it's conclusions?
FFS, find some evidence to back up your point of view or stop trolling.
I haven't bothered to find peer reviewed articles that aren't behind a paywall because, tbh it's a pain in the arse and there is no reference to the opposing POV to make it worthwhile.
Find reference to a study that shows there is any benefit or go try arguing in favour of Brexit with the same level of 'but I feel like it's true' whining and see how you get on.
I’ve no idea as it’s a summary so can’t see how they gathered their evidence to reach a conclusion. Surely you can see the issue with just using a selected quote without know how they reached that theory.
No one is saying beating kids doesn’t cause issues but you’ve provided no evidence that one off slap is equally as bad.
Post some evidence to support your POV, anything, and I'll try present a study on a plate for you to dissect.
If you can't even find a reference to a study that shows smacking is beneficial then just accept you're wrong and move on.
steve – the evidence on hitting children is clear – and the only way to have a workable line is to make it a clear one ie no hitting children.
Your argument about the nordic countries is nonsense – at least two generations have grown up since the 70s!
Yes its harsh that it penalises people in your position – but greater good of the greater number and all that?
I've lived and worked in Norway and Denmark and although there is a LOT to admire there is also a lot brushed under the carpet.
I could probably write an essay of the good, bad and ugly... but it's really not a simple good/bad and living there (especially Norway) is probably not what most people would expect.
What is mainly swept under the table seems to be a complete denial of any negatives...
I'll just give one example ... a Church set up a needle exchange in Oslo which got closed down by the council. The official reason given wasn't what you'd expect... perhaps medical concerns or whatever it was very clearly stated that no Norwegian takes drugs ... just a statement.
No one is saying beating kids doesn’t cause issues but you’ve provided no evidence that one off slap is equally as bad.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE QUOTE SAID! If you're not even reading what I'm posting here what chance have you got of absorbing an entire study.
It’s what I asked and what people have been asking on here.
“We as a society think of spanking and physical abuse as distinct behaviors,” she says. “Yet our research shows that spanking is linked with the same negative child outcomes as abuse, just to a slightly lesser degree.”
It's not as bad. It's still bad.
Still waiting for your evidence.
I'm done.
No one is saying beating kids doesn’t cause issues but you’ve provided no evidence that one off slap is equally as bad.
More the the point the sub-title say's entirely the opposite.
The more children are spanked, the more likely they are to defy their parents and experience increased anti-social behavior and other difficulties
What is doesn't do is show a threshold or even mention one.
Is twice in 18 years proven to be worse than once? How much does that extra once mean they will defy parents, have increased anti-social behaviour or become axe murderers or how this data is recorded?
Umm… because they are children?
What next allow 3yr olds to drive on the roads?
What a surprise, another straw man.
The more children are spanked, the more likely they are to defy their parents and experience increased anti-social behavior and other difficulties
What is doesn’t do is show a threshold or even mention one.
Is one more than zero?
It’s not as bad. It’s still bad.
Still waiting for your evidence.
unfortunately as you are advocating for a change in the law the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate an occasional smack is harmful enough to have it banned.
Can just ask, this law only effects children, yes? And it is still allowed between 2 consenting adults???
I am just checking for a friend whos a bit tied up just now and not able ask themselves.
he had a habit of removing safety devices from plugs and then trying to stick objects in.
Tangent, but those "safety devices" are the opposite. At best they give no extra protection from one of the most over-engineered designs on the planet, at worst they provide a handy mechanism for bypassing one BS1363's inherent safety features (turn it upside-down, wedge the conveniently earth-pin-shaped prong back in the socket, hey presto unfettered access to the live socket). If you have these things in your house you'd be well advised to throw them in the bin immediately.
Can just ask, this law only effects children, yes? And it is still allowed between 2 consenting adults???
It's a different law but no, it's not allowed. In English law one cannot legally consent to bodily harm.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM_and_the_law#United_Kingdom
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 apparently, though it has its roots in 1980s homophobia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner
Tangent, but those “safety devices” are the opposite.
Ah .... absolutely.
But of course these are just one of those devices that new parents are "pressured" into buying or we fail our parenting.
philjunior
Is one more than zero?
Totally irrelevant question.
The relevant question is what were the thresholds used in the study.
Simple example:
I drink alcohol very occasionally, certainly not weekly and will quite often go a month without drinking. I can't remember the last time I had more than 4 units.
Studies show that consumption of alcohol is bad in multiple ways.
Pick any ... whichever you like and show how my 2-3 units/month has such a devastating affect on my health that drinking alcohol should be made illegal.
tjagain
steve – the evidence on hitting children is clear – and the only way to have a workable line is to make it a clear one ie no hitting children.
It's not clear ... but that's a different story.
It requires a bit more clarity..
I don't for example agree that Cougar hitting the bully was a bad thing or that evidence shows that it is... if you mean parents beating the shit out of children then I can wholeheartedly agree
I'm being a pedant on this for the next part... not simply to disagree.
Yes its harsh that it penalises people in your position – but greater good of the greater number and all that?
No because this makes an assumption that the majority of parents who smack their kids are beating them.
It also lacks or perhaps changes specificity and is open to a whole load of abuse... in any case authorities are obliged to press for a prosecution regardless.
The current situation as described by the BBC link...
"This is because a person accused of assaulting of a child can claim a defence of "reasonable chastisement" or "justifiable assault" when they have used physical force as a form of discipline on children under the age of 16.
When deciding whether the chastisement was reasonable, the courts take into account factors such as the nature of the punishment, its duration and frequency, the age of the child and the effect - both physical and mental - it had on them."
No steve its perfectly clear unless you want to delibertaly conflate things that are irrelevant. The law is not assuming all parents are beating children. Its clearly states that hitting children as a punishment is illegal.
I don’t for example agree that Cougar hitting the bully was a bad thing
Are you seriously argueing that an adult should be allowed to hit a child as punishment?- its clearly illegal in scotland and whats more so under English law and adult hitting a child that is not theirs would also be illegal if done out of temper or as punishment
Of course a child can still hit a child so you can still teach your children to fight back.
You can also still restrain a child
You can intervene in a fight between children or between a group of bullies and victim child using minimal and proportionate force - and dependent on situation that could include punching, kicking, using a weapon so long as it was proportionate
You seem determined to try to justify hitting children by creating weird outlandish situations and by completely distorting what the law says
No steve its perfectly clear unless you want to delibertaly conflate things that are irrelevant. The law is not assuming all parents are beating children. Its clearly states that hitting children as a punishment is illegal.
Are you seriously argueing that an adult should be allowed to hit a child as punishment?- its clearly illegal in scotland and whats more so under English law and adult hitting a child that is not theirs would also be illegal if done out of temper or as punishment
Define "hit" ...
The problem I see is that this is being worded in such a manner that conflates and that anyone against the act is supporting hitting or beating children.
and the backdrop is that "this isn't teaching children that violence is always wrong" is again conflated with anyone saying otherwise being told they are saying that violence is a default answer to everything.
When did you stop beating your children TJ?