pap

Well, that completely scotches the dune = Turkish theory

Is that genuinely his real first name?

Well that was a complete waste of time. I came on here to educate and you were just toying with me, saintbletch. Toying! Yep, knew exactly what he was doing - and I took the bait on more than one occasion. Don't get the impression he believes everything he posts, so I think we're probably safe on ye olde First English Reich front.

P!sstaker? I never minded dune that much. You knew what you were getting.

Still haven't answered my question about how you discipline your kids, hypo I think I know why.

You could always have another meltdown to test the theory. Barring that, we could also ask the mods.

You're only one stupid thing away from a permanent ban, aren't you? Or has that one been scrubbed?

They are taking this "two bans and it's permanent" thing rather seriously.

TuneIn Radio - streaming radio Tapatalk - this site ( and other participating sites ) in a phone-friendly format. Kindle ( if you have a Kindle - great for late night reading without chucking a light on ) Netflix Spotify Definitely get AppShopper too. It tracks price drops, allows you to set up a wish list and informs you whenever the price drops.

I have two problems with this post. First, I didn't think of it myself. Second, it's inspired yet more input from me For those that teach your kids that "hitting is wrong", how do you reconcile the day-to-day violence that your kids see? Stuff like boxing and MMA is fairly obvious, but there are loads of films in which super-heroes knock the crap out of each other. Do you pause the film whenever someone lands a blow, just to tell your kids that "hitting is wrong"? What about the armed forces, surely the ultimate "hitters"? What do you tell your kids about them?

If you can get Virgin Media on fibre ( lots of places in Southampton have it ), that'd be my recommendation. I have 50Mbs coming into my place in Liverpool. I have a separate 30Mbs line at my mum's place in Southampton. The latter costs me £30 a month. Absolutely no problem streaming / downloading / etc on that.

Is it really important that you 'get' my opinion on it? I've explained myself plenty. Do I really have to answer hypothetical questions on how I'd feel if I were born in Norway to sate your curiosity? One thing that I can answer is whether I teach my kids that hitting is wrong. Answer: not really. First off, it would make me more of a hypocrite than I already am. Second, if any other kids try slapping mine around, and they defended themselves, I wouldn't consider that wrong either.

. Story of my life, particularly bad when working for Government.

Hang on Alps, Cameron bottled the EU decision all on his own.

I was very careful to stick in a "not just you" qualifier to my post. I'm more than happy to concede that compared to some of the other lines of debate, your comments don't get anywhere near the vilest of them. Still, there's little point taking offence to my tone when this is what I have to work on. Apologies if you feel I've misrepresented your position, but the problem with these quick-fire responses is that they leave too much open to interpretation. No-one is saying that physical punishment is the best or only way to manage children, mate - and having seen a longer, more considered version of your position, there's little to disagree with apart from that chief assumption.

If it were illegal in this country, I would consider it unlawful. There are plenty of laws that I believe are wrong or unnecessary, so no, my idea of right and wrong doesn't mirror the current state of the statute books. I note that you still haven't answered my question about your chosen method of discipline. How do you discipline your kids, hypo? Do you do what you do here - ask questions yet provide no answers?

Not entirely sure any of those assumptions are valid. I gave examples of people charged with giving out corporal punishment. We've also seen accounts of those who admit to disciplining their child. Fans of wanton rage walked away in utter disappointment. I accept that there is a link between anger and violence. I don't accept your assumption that all corporal punishment is linked to anger. I've seen enough examples of it bring administered by various people to discount your claim. The earlier point about things being black and white was spot on. Despite wanting to stay within the framework of legal corporal punishment, you're making massive generalisations about the characters of those that think differently to you. They must be angry. They must be insecure. You're ascribing traits to them in order to discredit them, thus validating your argument. Textbook straw man, really. The moralising and judgment from your side of the argument (not just you) has been immense, which only really works if you turn everything up to 11. Mild discipline becomes abuse, or perhaps more colourfully, beating the sh!t out of a kid. The funny thing is, I'm not even against your position. You have every right to raise your kids as you see fit, and if you've managed to raise them right without mild discipline, my hat is genuinely off to you. While I respect your position, I think the way that posters on here have represented it has been vile. You had a chance to give your tips for slap-free parenting. Several chose to attack and pass judgment instead. Is this the sort of thing you teach your kids when you're not slapping them?

I don't blame them for entering the coalition, but they were nuts to stay in it after their true role was revealed.

Why do you assume anger is a part of this, BadgerBadger? It's been a fairly common point that has been made throughout the thread. It's dangerous to link the two, and in many cases, demonstrably untrue. I never thought of my headmaster as an angry man, yet he was expected to dish out corporal punishment when it was warranted. Similarly, my late grandmother, who couldn't get about much, and one of the least angry people I've known, routinely called her kids to her rocking chair after they were naughty, claiming "if you don't come here and take a slap now, you'll get one later". What is the evidence that the discipline we're talking about is borne of parental anger and loss of control?

Apologies for the shameless self-promotion, but I did a piece on the Lib Dems in May 2011. http://frigsociety.com/2011/05/10/where-next-for-the-liberal-democrats/ On some levels, I do feel sorry for the Lib Dems. They are not a small party. If our Parliament was decided by popular vote, they'd have over 150 seats. They have around 50 under FPTP.

Would you get someone arrested if they assaulted you without leaving a mark? I'm just illustrating that in order for a comparison to be relevant, feasibility helps.

Frank's Cousin. First of all, thanks for debating this in a reasonable way. You're right - the "mark" distinction doesn't exist for adults. I know you're trying to make the point that adults have better protections than children, and on a very technical and theoretical level, you're right - but no more. In order to prove this, let's consider this theoretical case which keeps on getting posited - the assault of an adult that leaves no mark or lasting damage. First of all, what evidence would the prosecution have? The OB can't rely on physical evidence on the body, because there is none. I suppose you might be able to call witnesses if they saw it. Next, what about the CPS? Do you think it'd be worth their time and trouble to bring an assault case to court in which no-one was seriously harmed? Even if we get a result on the evidence and "actually prosecuting" front, what adult in their right mind would even bother to press charges for an "assault" so light that it doesn't leave a mark? People emerge from horseplay in more damaged states. The adult-child "mark/no-mark" comparison is ultimately empty, because it is extremely unlikely that the adult "assault" would ever reach court. It may be a technical judicial standard, but practically, it's nonsense when partnered with the tiniest bit of common sense.

None taken, Bearsy. I'm just the mug sticking his head above the parapet. Too many posters have equated legal disciplining of children with some other pretty horrible activities, some of which I have personal experience of. I'm not having it. There are plenty of decent parents who discipline their children within the law. They should not be rolled in with wife beaters and child abusers.