Frank's cousin

Think you have misinterpreted what I have said here or used my one example etc... Of course kids do things that are wrong - If they are still naive about why this is wrong, they need to be told and hopefully they learn form this.. this is what I mean by that point. If they repeat what is wrong after having been told, eg not learnt that lesson, then punsihment is often needed. My argument is that this punishment needs to be inforced with the rational message, and also does not need to involve smacking as other forms are available. Hope that clears it up. Yes kids do learn from punishment, when reinforced with explanation... but this the punishment does not need to involve smacking. The cut the hand off example was illustrative of the concept of how societies attitudes change to what is considered acceptable to 'teach a lesson' Sorry Pap, but please read the other posts as it will give a better idea as to where i am coming from, and acknowledgement that this type of debate is always potential fractious as opinion from my perspective is always going to be seen as some sort of moral critique of those that smack their kids. Its not, I am just advocating the fact that alternatives do exist, and as they do, why is it still necessary to smack?

Think you have misinterpreted what I have said here or used my one example etc... Of course kids do things that are wrong - If they are still naive about why this is wrong, they need to be told and hopefully they learn form this.. this is what I mean by that point. If they repeat what is wrong after having been told, eg not learnt that lesson, then punsihment is often needed. My argument is that this punishment needs to be inforced with the rational message, and also does not need to involve smacking as other forms are available. Hope that clears it up. Yes kids do learn from punishment, when reinforced with explanation... but this the punishment does not need to involve smacking. The cut the hand off example was illustrative of the concept of how societies attitudes change to what is considered acceptable to 'teach a lesson' Sorry Pap, but please read the other posts as it will give a better idea as to where i am coming from, and acknowledgement that this type of debate is always potential fractious as opinion from my perspective is always going to be seen as some sort of moral critique of those that smack their kids. Its not, I am just advocating the fact that alternatives do exist, and as they do, why is it still necessary to smack?

Sorry Pap, but not sure I get your point here. 'any punishment is barbaric' - of course not, punishment is not barbaric - but it was used to illustrate how societies become more civilised and less accepting of violent punishment' Of course its necessary to reinforce positive behaviours through appropriate 'punishments' - just suggesting that there are appropriate punishments that dont involve smacking, that's all.

Sorry Pap, but not sure I get your point here. 'any punishment is barbaric' - of course not, punishment is not barbaric - but it was used to illustrate how societies become more civilised and less accepting of violent punishment' Of course its necessary to reinforce positive behaviours through appropriate 'punishments' - just suggesting that there are appropriate punishments that dont involve smacking, that's all.

Uhm. not offended, but need to disagree. There are undoubtedly many who will point to current youth behaviour and link this directly to the reduction in 'discipline' in the home. And lack of discipline is naturally a contributor, but discipline done not need to involve corporal punsihment. The current situation is an amalgum of social change and I am sure social historians and anthrapologists would be able to identify where it 'all went wrong' - my personal perspective is the whole post 70s rapid change that left whole communitees destroyed and broken, but thats another issue. Naturrally, this whole debate always becomes heated as its impossible to hold my opinion without it coming across as acusational that those who smack their kids are bad parents... or that its somehow someone elses business how you bring up your kids. I guess we need to focus on it from a societal perspective and ask the questions as to whether we believe that its necessary. My point would be: Is it possible to bring up kids properly, teaching them right from wrong, respect etc, the necessary boundaries and discipline without smacking them? In my opinion yes. I dont believe thsoe that smack their kids are suddenly all bad parents or worse, afterall I love mine and they smacked me and I like to think did an OK job, but I do ask the question as to whether its necessary given that there are workable alternatives.

Uhm. not offended, but need to disagree. There are undoubtedly many who will point to current youth behaviour and link this directly to the reduction in 'discipline' in the home. And lack of discipline is naturally a contributor, but discipline done not need to involve corporal punsihment. The current situation is an amalgum of social change and I am sure social historians and anthrapologists would be able to identify where it 'all went wrong' - my personal perspective is the whole post 70s rapid change that left whole communitees destroyed and broken, but thats another issue. Naturrally, this whole debate always becomes heated as its impossible to hold my opinion without it coming across as acusational that those who smack their kids are bad parents... or that its somehow someone elses business how you bring up your kids. I guess we need to focus on it from a societal perspective and ask the questions as to whether we believe that its necessary. My point would be: Is it possible to bring up kids properly, teaching them right from wrong, respect etc, the necessary boundaries and discipline without smacking them? In my opinion yes. I dont believe thsoe that smack their kids are suddenly all bad parents or worse, afterall I love mine and they smacked me and I like to think did an OK job, but I do ask the question as to whether its necessary given that there are workable alternatives.

...

...

... they used to cut of kids hands for stealing an apple because they were hungry... we know recognise this as barbaric. Socienty evolves and violence becomes LESS acceptable the more civilised it becomes - just seems odd, that some still feel its fine to smack kids - whose only crime is lack of knowledge.

... they used to cut of kids hands for stealing an apple because they were hungry... we know recognise this as barbaric. Socienty evolves and violence becomes LESS acceptable the more civilised it becomes - just seems odd, that some still feel its fine to smack kids - whose only crime is lack of knowledge.

eh... you are suggesting a causal link between victorian dicipline in those public schools and the evolution of society? sorry but totally without any foundation. That evolution was natural consequence of the the post industrial revoltion. To use your analogy you could argue we must have been really backward as why did we not pioneer all those things centuries earlier when 'dicipline' was even morre 'robust'?

eh... you are suggesting a causal link between victorian dicipline in those public schools and the evolution of society? sorry but totally without any foundation. That evolution was natural consequence of the the post industrial revoltion. To use your analogy you could argue we must have been really backward as why did we not pioneer all those things centuries earlier when 'dicipline' was even morre 'robust'?

Uhm know what you are trying to say, but would a slap around the face to a spouce be acceptable? It does all depend on you definition of abuse - which given that it can also be psychological - eg fear of violence rather than violence itself, is teaching kids whats right and wrong based on 'fear' of a future smack the best solution for the child? Or is the unspoken truth that its simply easier for us parents to deal with it in that way? Its quicker afterall, and they can go cry in their rooms to think about what they have done wrong leaving us free to do what we want to do?

No Turkish, We are all aware you try and pick one or two isolated subquotes and use this to make a subsequent provocative statement designed often to wind up the poster, but I agree this can contribute to a debate as it stimultaes a response.... BUT you are missing several points. Abuse v light slap - yep there is a big difference in terms of damage or harm caused, but legislation is designed to protect kids from extremes and often what you would consider drachonian is the only way to ensure that kids dont slip thorugh the net Its interesting to see that 99.9% of those who claim that a smack is not harmful, tend to include 'well it never did me any harm' - would be interested if there are any out there that do smack their kids who were NOT smacked themselves... doubt there would be many. Its accepted that this is a cycle. Also its simply not necessary. Yes young children will not comprehend a detailed discussion about rights and wrongs, but they pick up alot more form tone of voice and what we say than we give them credit for. Yes a smack will work, no doubt, but the child is then responding to fear, or the fear of potential pain. If a child runs into the road, our anger is usually really at our selves because like all parents it is impossible to be totally in control of them 100% despite the fact we know we should be - and the child has not done anything wrong in that case anyway, it simply did not know any better - so punishment seems the wrong way to deal with this anyway. Smacking IMHO, is simply a way of quickening up the learning process to suit our own timescale - because it does work to a degree. But as said its simply not necessary, if you have patience - an essential of any parent. So given the choice of large adult a smacking small child or threatening small child with smack versus acknowledging small kids do wrong things and having the patience to repeatedly talk to them about right and wrong as they grow up and learn to reason, I know which I prefer. I was smacked as a child, as well as 'clips' around the ear and on even caned at school - despite the lack of 'harm' caused, it did not teach me anything... that came from being told what I had done wrong and why it was wrong.

There was and is conclusive scientific evidence with respect to DDT... but that aside your opinion on this suggests that 'anything should be done to save human life, at whatever environmental cost' ? - I would disagree, not out of some beardy green philosophy, but precisely because such actions are often lacking in any acccurate knowledge of the long term outcomes, especially in how they will impact on human life. Would you still argue for the inclusion of lead in petrol for example? Human health is effected by many of the pollutants that are accepted as causal/contributory to the current trends - COPD incidence levels in Far Eastern industrial cities is an obvious one (and yes this is also due to high smoking levels, but not exclusively). From a philosophical perspective, it also only holds true, if you believe humans have a right to do what ever is necessary to their environment, regardless of the ecological impact, if it means human survival - yet what most have been talking about here, is that as a species we seem happy with a risk of 'catastrophe' or even a negative shift, happy to exploit our environment/ecosystems ... for nothing other than greed/economic gain. Yes 'cleaner' alternatives adequate fitration systems, wiser use of natural resources, means increased financial cost, but is cleaner air, more sensible use of limited resources etc really such a bad thing? Millions die each year as a result of starvation. In the First World economies we have the resources to address this but not the political will. Had Maleria been a Western disease, we would have eliminated it by now (assuming, as often happens, the species of Mosquito, did not simply adapt to whatever pesticides were being slung at it) Also your Jaws analogy could be equally effective if used the other way around.... say, the beach had been left open, but there was a shark... how many lives is too many before you close the beach?

... LOL at the previous rumours causing much pant peeing..

It creates a sense of fear in the child - until they are old enough hit back... is that really what you want for your kids? In the past we did not know any better, but have moved on. And how can you compare ploice control of violent criminals with smacking kids is beyond me, that anology is simply way off.

Best example reallly is how many kids who are abused (in the extreme) go on to abuse others - not all obviously but there is an established link - how much harm a smack does or not is IMHO irrelevent - especially as there are other non violent ways of diciplining children. Time change and things evolve, we learn new ways of doing things that are less draconian and society improves. It is just as easy to install respect, a sense of right and wrong in children, without smacking. Yes, there are times (all children do wrong, or scare the living daylights out of us by running into the road etc) when our own emotions, especially if we were smacked as kids, make us feel justified in a similar response, but it does not make it right. When I see my 7 year old look frightened just because I have shouted (which I hate doin, but we are human afterall) - I immediately regret it, Would hate to think how scared she would be if she knew I would hit her - will never happen in my household. It is ultimately, whatever some say a bullying tactic - we would be using something intended to cause pain (albeit in most cases minor) as a method of control, and for me that is the definition of bullying.

Ironically, its the ambiguity of the scientific evidence that is most dangerous of all. Because as we can see, if provides a rational for those whose self interest demands doing nothing to change things, and politicizes the issue.... There IS evidence that since the industrial revolution we have chnaged the composition of the atmosphere and there has been a small rise in temperature. What is less clear is what kind of impact this will have and over what time scale if it continues. This is where we have scientists with different models predicting various degrees of change, and this is natural with all science when generating hypotheses. The problem here is, it impossible to create realistic experiments to test which is right... we will only see an accurate set of results by observing any actual change - over a significant period of time. That is why it then becomes a moral/philosophical argument based on several key considerations that will impact on your opinion; 1. Some maintain that as we will never know the true impact until its observed, we should not be taking any further risks, because IF the impact is negative, it will be too late to change it - a fair perspective in my opinion 2. Some models predict major issues with global food production, given the potential dessertification of temperate grain belts etc. Which given that we do currently have sufficient food to feed the whole planet, but dont have the politcal will to distribute it appropriately, would possibly see a shift in attitude... 3. Self interest - as others have pointed out, many in positions of power, have gained wealth or are supported by the very industries thet would need to change dramatically and thus this becomes a political game 4. Some would suggest that in geological time, the changes are insignificant - afterall the atmosphere and temperature of the planet have changed significantly over its 4500 million years - a period of time that is difficult for us to comprehend, and makes our 2 million years, let alone the last 300 a drop of proverbial **** in the ocean. If we create a toxic environment, and humans die out, some other species will become dominant that is better adapted and the world goes on... so what's the problem? 5. Ironically, some of the wierdest christian fundemental, creationists in the US, who believe the workd is only 7000 years old (so you would think they would be scared ****less about the impact we have had in 300 years) ...also tend to be those exact same industrialists who dont want to change their working practices and the ambiguity around the potential impact of global warming, allows them to remain 'credible' in their opinion.... IMHO, 1. We have changed the planet in the last 300 years 2. We do not know what that means if anything short, medium or long term 3. Currently most seem to find this and acceptable risk to continue as we always have done (certainly given the pressure from the industrial might on politicians) 4. Some do not find it an acceptable level of risk.

100% - strangely having modelled his online avatar as the bastard son of Oswald Mosley and Enoch Powell.... If not a WUM, then he its pretty scary.

At the start I was like ...'WTF'? Expecting Bilbo Baggins to come out of 'hill', sheep, cows and geese... grazing in Hobbiton. The ring forging was pretty cool, although after Hobbiton, was half expecting Sauron to turn up, but we got Voldemort instead. NHS beds? what all that about? The child catcher? Mary Poppins? all we needed was **** Van Dyke doing Cockney and we would have had the complete set..... then the celebration of texting... and just when I though I could relax, Frankie said I could. By this time the cynic in me was beginnning to imagine international response.... But to 'get it' I guess you have to realise that we were never going to do a Beijing, impossible to out do their precison timed robotic, if spectacular show. To get it, you needed to embrace what we are about - quirky humour, a great history of industry, culture, and social justice... with a slight feel of organized chaos, but without letting this get all totally up its own arse... Not a Royalist, but hats off to the The Queen for the cameo with Bond, nice touch. The Cauldron thing? Probably in my opinion the best ever... Kids lighting the flame? Why not, its part of the theme of the games.....just a shame they went an ruined it all with Macca at the end but at least he avoided 'Mull of Kintyre' Not bad... Now onto Cavendish and a first Gold today. PS as 1885 said, Nazi salutes are with teh right hand, suspect he was doing a wave that had an unfortunate similarity.... so Boris creaming himself probably says more about him than the German rep.

Twas no aimed at you, but at our esteemed OP. How you doing by the way? Hope all is well

I'm not really surprized that those who so often profess to be so ''patriotic'' and proud of our country are so eager to bore us to tears with their naysaying and moaning.... speaks volumes

... and yes, if it was us, I would want nothing more to do with the 'official club' and would support a pheonix one.

The media (and those still holding onto the emotive reigns as its 'football') need to start by dropping the whole sentimental clap trap simply because we are talking about a football club... they need to stop looking at who is to blame and the fans/media/ignorant fricken morons feeling sorry for the club and fans need to fricken wake up and recognise the simple facts: 2009 - 135m of debt - go bust due to excessive transfer and wage spending to gain promotion and win a cup 2010 - new co pays NOTHING Back to creditors even though they agreed to pay 20%, instead spends money on squad it can still not afford resulting in..... 2012 - going bust with debts of 58mil, and still having not paid a penny to any unsecureded creditor from the previous administration.... That is all there is too it. The ONLY fair and rational/moral and ethical way to deal with a club like that is to liquidate and let the fans start a new 'clean' club that they can have pride in. Anything else is simply bowing to sentimentality and ignoring the simple fact that over 100 mil of non secured creditors money has in effect been paid to those who always get paid, in chasing top flight status and cup dreams... NOTHING else matters except these facts. IF the fans want to use the owners past and present as the reason for the criminal mess, then they should be walking away from the criminal legacy and starting again... otherwise they will be tainted with the same corrupt festuring stench.