Study Finds Spanked Children Are More Likely To Have Developmental Delays

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
i don't "hate" your posts. It's just that so many of them are so long, i lose my will to live about 2/3rds of the way through.

The medium is the message.


then why aint you dead yet??????????????????


All lie-beral policy is failing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And a firm spanking might be beneficial..........................


For some of the unemployed and over grown children .........................


Currently blocking roads and rail lines in canad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11


this protest crap is way out of hand.....................................


And it is going to end badly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

AnnaE

Time Out
Jan 31, 2020
968
0
16
Violence is for people that have not the intelligence to deal with issues in other ways.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Its actually called assault here in N.Z. if one strikes a child.
We still get children dying at the hands of their parent(s).


Study finds that a kid having no discipline from parents end up like this:


Spanking isn't violence. A belt or broom handle would be violence.


No stern words as triggering will soon be found to be violence... no sneers either - that\s extra violent
 

AnnaE

Time Out
Jan 31, 2020
968
0
16
Spanking isn't violence. A belt or broom handle would be violence.
Merriam-Webster:
Definition of violence
1a: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy
b: an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE
3a: intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force
the violence of the storm
b: vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR
also : an instance of such action or feeling
c: a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE
4: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)


Oxford:
https://www.oed.com/oed2/00277885

Not calling violence "violence" and calling it spanking is rationalising violence.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Merriam-Webster:
Definition of violence
1a: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy
b: an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE
3a: intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force
the violence of the storm
b: vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR
also : an instance of such action or feeling
c: a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE
4: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)


Oxford:
https://www.oed.com/oed2/00277885

Not calling violence "violence" and calling it spanking is rationalising violence.


Intent to injure seems to be a common factor in the above definition, so exactly how do we define "injure"?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,483
14,318
113
Low Earth Orbit
Any thing less than what causes bruising is a non-violent spanking.

Damage free going by Oxford's definition.
 

AnnaE

Time Out
Jan 31, 2020
968
0
16
Any thing less than what causes bruising is a non-violent spanking.

Damage free going by Oxford's definition.
I guess you never heard of psychological damage (which is what the topic of the thread is about), poor coward.
 

NZDoug

Council Member
Jul 18, 2017
1,894
31
48
Big Bay, Awhitu, New Zealand
NZ outlawed smacking kids in 2007.
Here is an article from 2018.
..................................
As the UK debates whether anti-smacking laws will criminalise ‘good’ parents, Lucy Corry asks whether the 2009 New Zealand ban changed Kiwi families.
If her two pre-schoolers are naughty, Maria* uses a kind of three-step process to sort them out. "We go from saying 'no', to putting them in time out, to smacking them on the hand," the Dunedin stay-at-home mother says. "If my 2-year-old is hitting his brother, or doing something dangerous, smacking is the only way to make him understand."
Maria, 30, is matter-of-fact about her attitude to physical discipline. Her husband and other family members are also pro-smacking, as are most of her friends with kids.
Spend a bit of time on internet parenting forums and you'll find plenty of mums and dads who share her views, which seems shocking in a country where parents lost the right to physically discipline their children 11 years ago, reports The Wireless.
"I don't believe that putting children in time out is enough for some kids," Maria says firmly. "It's not enough of a deterrent to stop them doing something wrong again. Smacking helps them learn."
After all, she says, it didn't harm her: "Of course I remember being smacked. If you did something really naughty back then you knew what was coming. Some people say it creates fear of the parent but that's rubbish. I was scared of being smacked, but I never felt my parents wanted to hurt me."
Even so, Maria didn't want her real name used in this story. She's not afraid of smacking her kids, but she avoids doing it in public because she doesn't want to be a social pariah. "Some people are just ridiculous over it and I don't want them to call the police on me," she sighs.
"I don't think they were right to ban smacking," she says. "Parents need a bit more leeway. I honestly don't consider a smack on the hand or the bottom to be child abuse."
'A THIRD OF NZ PARENTS STILL SMACK'
Smacking - or using "reasonable force" to discipline a child - has been outlawed in New Zealand since 2007. The repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, championed by former Green MP Sue Bradford, caused a massive furore at the time with many claiming that it would criminalise 'good parents'.
Many misunderstood the intent of the legislative change, which was designed to remove the defence of "reasonable force" in cases where parents and caregivers were being prosecuted for assault on children. In other words, if you were in court for savagely beating your child, you could no longer claim that they deserved it because they'd been naughty.
A 2009 review conducted by clinical psychologist Nigel Latta, then-police commissioner Howard Broad and Ministry of Social Development chief executive Peter Hughes found that agencies were not hunting down smackers and that the fabric of family life was not deteriorating because parents had become too frightened to discipline their kids. Then prime minister John Key said the review showed that light smacking was "acceptable" and that parents were free to choose whether they did it or not."
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12085272