i think there's 2 reasons for this, and both of them are correct.
1. Smacking a child doesn't work.

2. Allowing parents the right to beat their kids into a pulp means that some parents beat their kids into a pulp.

It's like drink driving - probably most people could drive perfectly sensibly on half a bottle of wine, but you legislate for the tools who can't.
(username failed moderation, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 14:13, 7 replies)

1) I know, but it makes a satisfying slapping sound.
2) The downside to this is?



(Yes, I am doing it on purpose now, I actually agree with you).
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 14:15, closed)

1 Yes it fucking does.
Now sit down and shut the fuck up.
( stuj (^(^;;^)^) GO TEAM SPIDERS!(^(^;;^)^), Mon 5 Mar 2012, 14:39, closed)

Seems to have
done you no harm.
(username failed moderation, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 14:47, closed)

It didn't.
And as for your second statement up there, do you honestly believe that "not being allowed to beat children to a pulp" has in fact stopped anyone that was going to do that from doing it?
Because if you do I've got a nice bridge in London coming up for sale, wanna buy it?
( stuj (^(^;;^)^) GO TEAM SPIDERS!(^(^;;^)^), Mon 5 Mar 2012, 14:54, closed)

Are you really as angry
as you sound?

Or as stupid?
(username failed moderation, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 10:14, closed)

So you're unable to come up with an actual argument to what I've said then.

( stuj (^(^;;^)^) GO TEAM SPIDERS!(^(^;;^)^), Tue 6 Mar 2012, 10:41, closed)

Um, well no
not really.

What is it you said again?
(username failed moderation, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 14:37, closed)

^
Give them something to fucking cry for
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 14:55, closed)

Not with you there......
big difference between a short sharp clip compared to "beating to a pulp".
With younger kids a light smack in a timely fashion is quite effective, particularly if you know that they are feeling the "boundaries".
(M61A1 CUPID- STUNTS, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 14:56, closed)

Damn right.
These do-gooding cunts are the first to whine when their car gets nicked by some little scrote though, always bemoaning the problem of "Feral Children" that their bedwetting liberal hand-wringing sensibilities created.
( stuj (^(^;;^)^) GO TEAM SPIDERS!(^(^;;^)^), Mon 5 Mar 2012, 14:59, closed)

It's effective
in the sense that "it has an effect". Since that effect is "shows them that larger, stronger people can use physical violence rather than rational explanation" with a side order of "the person hitting me is too stupid to offer a rational explanation" the overall result may not be quite what was intended.
(ubergeekian, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 17:32, closed)

Yes, because what a 4 year old needs is a rational explanation.
(jono_h, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 18:33, closed)

so you'd only hit children when they're too young to understand the rationale
that'll end well.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Mon 5 Mar 2012, 20:09, closed)

don't be silly! the child learns that violence is the best reaction.

( mark morrisons prison shoes I love Willie, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 20:16, closed)

Just pointing out that rationally explaining to young Jimmy that putting marbles up his nose is silly because he will have to go to hospital to have them pulled out, is unlikely to be effective.

It can be equally pointless trying to rationally explain things to teenagers.
(jono_h, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 21:06, closed)

Marbles up the nose?
at least you didn't do the usual knitting needle in the plug socket or hand in the fire that proponents of violence against children usually wheel out.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Mon 5 Mar 2012, 21:12, closed)

Four year olds are perfectly capable of rational thought
as long as you appreciate that they don't know as much as older people and that their rational thought is therefore rather more simplistic than ours.

"Don't do that because I say so" is just as logical an explanation to them as "Don't do that because otherwise I will hit you"
(ubergeekian, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 22:52, closed)

No it isn't.
Because their tiny unformed minds are not capable of understanding actions and consequences without physical reinforcement.
( stuj (^(^;;^)^) GO TEAM SPIDERS!(^(^;;^)^), Tue 6 Mar 2012, 8:20, closed)

It's effective
because done properly, it's an instantaneous negative re-enforcement and easily associated with the behaviour that caused it. Simply cause and effect without any longwinded shit....... works on anything with a short attention span. Usually does not need to be repeated for the same issue.
(M61A1 CUPID- STUNTS, Thu 8 Mar 2012, 0:48, closed)

In the UK parents do have the right to smack their children, don't they?

( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:03, closed)

"reasonable chastisement" apparently
anything hard enough to leave a mark is illegal
( h3donist tryin' to play me out as if my name is Sega.., Mon 5 Mar 2012, 20:00, closed)

black babies are best
( enoughblueskyforsailorstrousers, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 9:21, closed)

1) In my experience, yes it does
A bollocking off a parent was one thing, knowing that could be backed up with a smack off my Dad was enough to stop me doing it again.
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 15:18, closed)

As others have pointed out but I wanted to add my voice to
If you can't distinguish between a short slap appropriate to their size, and beating them to a pulp, you should have your kids taken off you and you should be shot.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Mon 5 Mar 2012, 19:43, closed)

it works
Look at me. I'm balanced, well rounded and probably not brain damaged from being beaten.
(The Archduke of South London I'm in your Girlfriend eating her organs, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 11:26, closed)

It's because it works that the bedwetters hate it.
Psychological mumbo jumbo aside, countless generations of parents gave their kids a slap to keep them in line, not because it's "An outmoded abhorrent ingrained behaviour that they learned from their own misguided parents" but BECAUSE IT WORKS. Children are NOT miniature versions of adults. Frankly these modern-parent cunts need a slap even more than their ghastly offspring do.
( stuj (^(^;;^)^) GO TEAM SPIDERS!(^(^;;^)^), Tue 6 Mar 2012, 11:34, closed)

And we're not talking cricket bats with spikes in for discipline...
When I look back on my life and I think about the time I got a smack because I stole my mum's car at 13 and crashed into a tree I have to admit I probably deserved that. Likewise the time at school where I was caught shoving someone in a rubbish bin and then sitting on the lid for a few mins while my mates kicked the bin.

In both cases I only committed those mistakes twice. I could have been a career criminal ,but the light beatings probably helped me on the right track.

Also, I'm not religious, but the bible advocates a good beating. I hate to argue with religious zealots because you never win...

"He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24)

"Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)
(The Archduke of South London I'm in your Girlfriend eating her organs, Tue 6 Mar 2012, 15:08, closed)