what utter rubbish
Researchers say smacking kids lowers their IQ, researchers need a smack.
- Thread starter BananaDunka
- Start date
what utter rubbish
Soldato
Well my opinion is that if you need to hit your child then you are punishing them for your own shortcomings as a parent.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
agreed, is it a surprise that with the rise of the nanny state we have become swamped by kids who are unruly, all seem to have a learning disability, they do not acknowledge their elders, they assume we need to earn their respect and not the other way round and they refuse to do anything they don't want to.
Soldato
'Smack my kids up'
Soldato
I sincerely hope there is a lot of sarcasm around here.
I agree completely, it is very lazy parenting.
My parents never beat me but found other ways to discipline me - I was beaten at school and see that as weakness on the part of the teachers. Beatings certainly didn't make me behave, if anything they had the opposite impact.
Associate
I'll only make one comment.
"correlation doesn't imply causation." Stats 101.
"correlation doesn't imply causation." Stats 101.
Caporegime
Haha, some classics in this thread. Its rubbish saying that you are a bad parent if you smack your child. I never lived in fear of being hit even though I was smacked occasionally. If you beat your child badly then yes it is not good for them in the same way that having your head kicked in on a saturday evening isnt good for you, but if someone slapped you then I very much doubt that would scare you into not going out any more . That isnt smacking though, that is beating which is very different.
Smacking in my opinion refers to the act of slapping a child a few times without the intention of causing damage.
If Mr Jack could explain how this is a scientific study as well that would be great. It is not fact unless you can take the same child and magically smack them for years whilst at the same time not smack them for the same period. You cant take different children and compare them. Thats a little like taking 5 boys and 5 girls, IQ testing them and then declaring that you have determined that one gender is smarter than the other.
Smacking in my opinion refers to the act of slapping a child a few times without the intention of causing damage.
If Mr Jack could explain how this is a scientific study as well that would be great. It is not fact unless you can take the same child and magically smack them for years whilst at the same time not smack them for the same period. You cant take different children and compare them. Thats a little like taking 5 boys and 5 girls, IQ testing them and then declaring that you have determined that one gender is smarter than the other.
Last edited:
Soldato
what utter nonsense there are plenty of things in life that will have a much much greater impact on a childs understanding of the world, the news shows us every night that violence and killing is the answer to the worlds problems.
So 30-40 years ago there were no good parents? Pull the other one it has bells on, the occasional use of restrained physical punishment has consistently been shown to have no adverse effect on a child.
Caporegime
Since it's not been published, I can't comment on this particular study.
And, yes, you're silly example would be a rather silly. Fortunately the methodology of science is rather better advanced which is why we're in the fortunate position of being able to identify things like, say, the risks associated with smoking without deliberately exposing people to harmful gases.
It works like this: you need to identify two well matched populations. That is you need to control for factors like the socioeconomic class, employment, etc. of the parents as well as factors like which schools they go to. It doesn't matter, much, for a study such as this what these particular influences are only that they're the same in both groups looked at. Providing you've done your matching well, and properly identified the confounding variables, you can then ascribe the differences to the dependent variable (that is, in this case, whether you're smacking or not) and using appropriate statistical analysis determine whether the result is a random artefact or whether it's actually a property of what you're studying.
It's called a 'between participants study' and it's one of the mainstays of modern science. Most human research uses this approach because - for blindingly obvious reasons - it's pretty much impossible to take human subjects and subject them to whatever you feel like subjecting them to. The notion that not doing that doesn't make it science is simple ignorance.
Soldato
Your comments dont make any sense, if you bring your child up correctly then there will be no need to smack them, I was hit quite often by my Dad and it didnt do anything other than cause resentment. As a parent now I wouldnt dream of smacking my child, ever.
Caporegime
Well, it depends what you mean by 'occasional', doesn't it? If you smack a kid once or twice in their life it's not going to make much difference. If you use physical violence - or the threat thereof - as part of your normal scheme of discipline then that's another matter.
There's plenty of research now linking smacking to such charming outcomes as whether or not you're likely to hit your wife, and be involved in street violence. Which is hardly surprising given that you're teaching them that hitting people is an entirely reasonable way of enforcing your will.
I have Aspergers Syndrome and i got at least 20 with the belt if i did something wrong when i was young. I dont see why it would be used as an excuse for bad behaviour, as people who have it often have a very ridged sence of right and wrong and moral justice. Some people who have it misunderstand instructions or rules because of their inclination to take things literally, it is then that they would need someone to explain that situation rather then punishment.
Soldato
nope, my brother has very thin morals, and was constantly stealing from family, getting in trouble for bad behavious at school etc and as he is my brother and we are complete polar opposites, it's just that he has aspergers that gets the explanation, anything you told him to do, he'd do the complete opposite, at the time, he was just seen as a disobedient little **** with an attitude problem
Soldato
Yea, I done research on aspergers when he was diagnosed, and understand the issues with it, being a higher functioning level of autism it's understandable, and things need to be clarified and pointed out, and aspergers patients can be quite obsessive/ border OCD on some things.
but he's a lazy slob who, now he's got a reason, uses it as an excuse for his shortcomings/moronic behaviour lol.
he got slapped as a child because of his bad behaviour, but never learnt from it, I got slapped a couple of times round the back of the legs, learned from it, and all his mistakes
Soldato
Why do parents call it Smacking? when really they are hitting their child
Soldato
Which bit makes no sense?
30-40 years ago 99% of parents would have used smacking as part of there childs dicipline and most schools used some form of physical punishment. So what people in this thread who state that a good parent would never need to smack a child are saying is that 30-40 years ago there were virtually no good parents and that all our grandparents were terrible parents who raised a generation of social degenerates in the form of our parents. Looks the other way round to me if you look at the ills of modern society.
When you get the most authoritative figure in your life physically attacking you over something you did wrong, it tends to simply affirm what you see on the news and television, etc. How are young children supposed to work out for themselves that they are being smacked as a 'disciplinary' procedure and not out of the perception that violence is actually normal and the answer to problems?
All too often, people smack children out of frustration. If they really wanted to give them a lesson, they would tell the child why whatever they did was wrong, and closely monitor the situation to see it doesn't happen again. If it does, there's a million better ways of giving them consequences. Do people really think a good old wallop around the head or the arse help?
Off the record, I don't think smacking should be banned, but only because this government should keep its nose out of affairs it has no business with!