Is it abusive to smack children?

Originally Posted by Lysis

why does Oxford get to decide what the "actual" definition of a word is? I'm sorry, but that's just not how language works.

I would assume that it is because they are the oldest English-speaking educational institution and because they are more experienced in these matters. I'm sure the real reason is out there somewhere, if I have not specified it already. Also, when you say "that's just not how language works", you are making a claim that attempts to forcibly project your mind onto our reality. I do not think this is a good way to debate.

Oxford defines "hit" as:

"bring one’s hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully"

and "strike" as:

"hit forcibly and deliberately with one’s hand or a weapon or other implement".

generally, when you hit someone quickly, forcefully, and deliberately, it causes pain.

Firstly, did you not just attempt to discredit Oxford? Do you intend to use them as a source or not? Please specify.

Second - yes, of course it would cause pain. I am sure that you remember, however, that the dictionary also outlined how violence is intentional. Just because something can cause pain does not mean it was intentional. I think a distinction should be made, to be fair.

Originally Posted by Morgan

I'd trust Webster and Merriam before dictionary.com. I don't even know if their definitions are official.

Originally Posted by Tallgeese

I would assume that it is because they are the oldest English-speaking educational institution and because they are more experienced in these matters. I'm sure the real reason is out there somewhere, if I have not specified it already. Also, when you say "that's just not how language works", you are making a claim that attempts to forcibly project your mind onto our reality. I do not think this is a good way to debate.

Firstly, did you not just attempt to discredit Oxford? Do you intend to use them as a source or not? Please specify.

okay, let's get this out of the way first, because obviously neither of you understand how language and definitions work. There's no such thing as "official" or "actual" definitions of words. The English language is not mandated by any official source. Dictionaries provide common definitions of words based on usage and understanding by the people who speak the language.

dictionaries don't make up or decide definitions. The people who use the language do. It's the dictionary's job to figure out how a word is usually used and understood by native speakers of the language, not to tell people how to use and understand it. No dictionary has the right to decide how a word should be defined—language isn't controlled like that. There's no official source that gets to tell people how to speak their language.

language is the art of communication and communication is the conveyance of information. Using language correctly means conveying the information you intend to convey—it means being understood. In a debate like this, it is important that we understand each other and correctly convey the information we intend to convey. That is why I provide definitions for important terms.

it wouldn't do if we all were using different definitions for the same terminology, else we wouldn't be able to understand each other and our debating would be a vain act of futility. It doesn't matter where the definitions come from, whether it be Dictionary.com, the Oxford English Dictionary, or just a simple definition you make up yourself. The goal is to make sure everybody understands what you're saying and that's really all that matters.

so when I provide definitions for things such as "physical violence," the point I'm trying to make is that I do not support any action which deliberately inflicts pain, harm, or suffering on another person. Rather than having to type up the entire definition every time I say it, it just makes sense to wrap it up in a couple of words which are easily understood by native speakers of the English language, so we can spend less time typing and more time debating.

now really guys, let's get back on topic. I didn't come here to argue semantics and linguistics.

Originally Posted by Morgan

From Merriam:

Says nothing about pain.

do you honestly not know what it means to strike something sharply? If you strike a person, you will cause them pain—that's what a strike is. A sharp, forceful, physical blow.

Second - yes, of course it would cause pain. I am sure that you remember, however, that the dictionary also outlined how violence is intentional. Just because something can cause pain does not mean it was intentional. I think a distinction should be made, to be fair.

the Oxford English Dictionary defines a slap as a strike, and it defines a strike as a deliberate action.

but in any case, I already made that distinction in the definition that I gave earlier. Did you not read it? Obviously if you cause someone pain accidentally then it cannot be deemed violence.

Originally Posted by Lysis

but in any case, I already made that distinction in the definition that I gave earlier. Did you not read it? Obviously if you cause someone pain accidentally then it cannot be deemed violence.

So your definition is, any pain inflicted, as long as it was an intentional strike/spank/smack or what have you, is abuse?

Originally Posted by Lysis

okay, let's get this out of the way first, because obviously neither of you understand how language and definitions work. There's no such thing as "official" or "actual" definitions of words. The English language is not mandated by any official source. Dictionaries provide common definitions of words based on usage and understanding by the people who speak the language.

I require a source for this, as this suggests that language changes on the whim of the population. Is "nahmean" really a word? I can't find it in the Oxford dictionary. Also, this literally changes nothing. The fact that words are defined through common usage does not discredit Oxford as a viable source for a definition. It is, in fact, a very good source to find the current common usage for a word. You are clueless, Lysis. Stop trying to mind project. Stop trying to project the reality in your mind unto ours. It's not welcome here.

dictionaries don't make up or decide definitions. The people who use the language do. It's the dictionary's job to figure out how a word is usually used and understood by native speakers of the language, not to tell people how to use and understand it. No dictionary has the right to decide how a word should be defined—language isn't controlled like that. There's no official source that gets to tell people how to speak their language.

Source required. Also, I never said that the dictionary has the right to define words. However, it does represent the most commonly used definition of the word (which remains the same for a very long period of time), as you said. This means that your definition stacks against that of the rest of the population. I choose them.

I would also like to point out that pretty much every you say in this post argues that dictionaries are not the authority on words and definitions, and that they represent the common definition of words. That changes nothing. You're still using your lone definition against the combined definition of that of the rest of the English-speaking population. This whole "I'm free to use my own definition as that is what the basis of definitions in dictionaries are!" argument really means nothing, as not enough people use your definition. For that reason, it is irrelevant.

language is the art of communication and communication is the conveyance of information. Using language correctly means conveying the information you intend to convey—it means being understood. In a debate like this, it is important that we understand each other and correctly convey the information we intend to convey. That is why I provide definitions for important terms.

it wouldn't do if we all were using different definitions for the same terminology, else we wouldn't be able to understand each other and our debating would be a vain act of futility. It doesn't matter where the definitions come from, whether it be Dictionary.com, the Oxford English Dictionary, or just a simple definition you make up yourself. The goal is to make sure everybody understands what you're saying and that's really all that matters.

There are absolutes and relatives for everything. Do not assume everything to be relative. A lot of language is absolute, otherwise nobody would be able to understand each other.

Frankly, I just don't understand why you need to use your own definitions when widely accepted ones are just as available. I was not trying to discredit you, as you could have said the same thing in a slightly different manner with dictionary definitions.

so when I provide definitions for things such as "physical violence," the point I'm trying to make is that I do not support any action which deliberately inflicts pain, harm, or suffering on another person. Rather than having to type up the entire definition every time I say it, it just makes sense to wrap it up on a couple of words which are easily understood by native speakers of the English language.

Fair enough.

now really guys, let's get back on topic. I didn't come here to argue semantics and linguistics.

Agreed. Heck, forget the sources. Let's just get back to the main issue.

Originally Posted by Bartimaeus

So your definition is, any pain inflicted, as long as it was an intentional strike/spank/smack or what have you, is abuse?

what I said was that intentionally causing physical pain is physical violence.

but yes, I would consider physical violence abusive.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Tallgeese

I require a source for this, as this suggests that language changes on the whim of the population. Is "nahmean" really a word? I can't find it in the Oxford dictionary.

language does change on the whim of the population. Words change over time and new words are created, merely by the popular usage of the native speakers of the language. Where do you think our language came from? You think somebody just sat down one day, wrote a dictionary, and said "this is our language now, everybody speak it just like this"?

here's a word that was created in the 1940s:

Definition for gobbledygook - Oxford Dictionaries Online (US English)

here's a word infamous for meaning something entirely different from what it used to mean due to popular usage:

Definition for gay - Oxford Dictionaries Online (US English)

Source required. Also, I never said that the dictionary has the right to define words. However, it does represent the most commonly used definition of the word (which remains the same for a very long period of time), as you said. This means that your definition stacks against that of the rest of the population. I choose them.

source required for what now? The function of a dictionary? I don't see why I need a source, seeing as you seem to agree with me that a dictionary is a collection of definitions based on common usage.

and of course, you are free to use whatever definitions you choose, just as long as you aren't stubbornly refusing to understand me when I use different definitions. Again, the point is just to come to a common understanding.

There are absolutes and relatives for everything. Do not assume everything to be relative. A lot of language is absolute, otherwise nobody would be able to understand each other.

you're making some broad assumptions here. First of all, I never said everything or anything was relative. Second of all, how does it follow that language must be absolute for people to understand each other? All that is required is for people to share common definitions, which is what language is.

language is a group of otherwise meaningless sounds which a common group of people give meaning to by understanding them in the same way. Language is based entirely on this understanding. If this group of people were to understand a word in a different way then that word would change its meaning, because meaning is wholly derived from understanding.

Frankly, I just don't understand why you need to use your own definitions when widely accepted ones are just as available. I was not trying to discredit you, as you could have said the same thing in a slightly different manner with dictionary definitions.

I was asked what I consider violence to be and so I said what I understand violence to be.

I'm not a fan of physical punishments. I've been very active in helping raise two small children and they never "deserved" to be hit at all, ever. And they were both very well behaved, happy kids.

I'd never hit or smack for bad behavior, but if they did something that nearly gets them killed or is seriously dangerous then yes there may be a smack to get their attention, and then explain things to them, which is the most important part. Yelling at them won't get through to a young child. Gaining their attention with a mild smack would. I don't find it wrong by any means.

The nature of language would make a great topic for a separate thread, but while we're in this one let's stick to the subject. ^_^

Originally Posted by Tonch

If that causes pain, then you're doing it wrong.

If forcing the child to turn and look at you doesn't cause some sort of physical discomfort to the child, then either

-the child is not being totally un-cooperative (which makes your argument pointless, since at that point the child wouldn't deserve a "hard tap" either), or
-you're doing it wrong

Moreover, if the "hard tap" causes significant physical pain, then you're doing it wrong.

Oh no, parenting requires effort!

*facepalm*

Parenting requires effort.

Gathering your child's immediate attention does not need to.

More intimidating than physical pain? Forgive me if I strongly doubt that.

Definitely more intimidating than a "hard tap", since, pardon the obvious comment, it involves more force.

Again, oh no, effort!

Telling a kid they'll get their Nintendo taken away is just as immediately available as hitting them.

That particular part of my post was not about effort though. You can tell them you'll take away their Nintendo, but the child will in all likeliness not feel the immediate effects of those words and may not react immediately. This may be more true for younger children who are less capable of judgment than adults.

Again, as a kid, if my parents said they'd take my nintendo away, I'd scoff and start laughing. Seriously.

And at least the situations I'm talking about, taking Nintendo away wouldn't do anything.

Originally Posted by Morgan

Again, as a kid, if my parents said they'd take my nintendo away, I'd scoff and start laughing. Seriously.

And at least the situations I'm talking about, taking Nintendo away wouldn't do anything.

Every kid is different though.

I got pretty ♥♥♥♥ing upset whenever my parents took away my pacifier or teddy bear for being naughty.

It was a good lesson for me to learn to "behave".

Only by the child's parents. I had it and I turned out fine! It also gave me as a young child a good idea of right or wrong because I didn't grow up in the best part of England and people I grew up with have turned to drugs and stuff. I think being smacked on the bum when I was being a little bugger did me a world of good. Not sure if I would do it to my children though but that's simply because I hate seeing pain inflicted.

Originally Posted by Eternal Legend

Every kid is different

Isn't this an argument FOR rather than AGAINST "hard tapping"? Every kid is different, and some won't respond immediately to the revocation of privileges.

Originally Posted by Double penetrAtion

Isn't this an argument FOR rather than AGAINST "hard tapping"? Every kid is different, and some won't respond immediately to the revocation of privileges.

If you read and understood the rest of my post, I am AGAINST smacking kids.

I believe it is if the kids need it. on the butt and occasionally across the face. I was tutoring a kid. he is 13 years old and he was bragging to me how much dip he could put in his lip. As a responsible tutor i told his mom, she took away his ability to watch t.v. by himself in his room. He is blatantly disrespectful and needs a smack to learn respect to his parents. If grounding is effective, ground them. If not more drastic measures are in order

Originally Posted by Eternal Legend

If you read and understood the rest of my post, I am AGAINST smacking kids.

You are AGAINST it, but you acknowledged that it might work for some kids and implied that it should be permissible in some (rare) circumstances.

Originally Posted by Dexhayn

I believe it is if the kids need it. on the butt and occasionally across the face.

For the record, I oppose the idea of predetermined locations for delivering a slap for the sake of punishment.

"No, not at all".

It is violence no matter how you're trying to twist and turn it. And fortunately, it's been illegal in Sweden since 1979.
If a parent has to use violence to educate then he/she really should ask him/herself if he/she is suitable as a parent. I say: not.

I agree with Raxit and think that hitting children is a horrifying thought. I suppose it depends on how the parents want to discipline there child, but I don't think it should be done. And it certainly shouldn't happen at school.

It seems to me that apparently you can either not smack your child in any way shape or form or else your relationship is automatically like this.

That's a false dichotomy. Smacking a child occasionally doesn't make you an abuser, just like having an argument with your wife is not automatically domestic violence.

I'm a believer in Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development. Children are at best in the per-conventional stage of morality. Thus:

In Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished. "The last time I did that I got spanked so I will not do it again." The worse the punishment for the act is, the more "bad" the act is perceived to be. This can give rise to an inference that even innocent victims are guilty in proportion to their suffering. It is "egocentric", lacking recognition that others' points of view are different from one's own. There is "deference to superior power or prestige".[

Smacking a child is necessary for that child to empathize with future violence. At least, that's what I thought, until scientific literature said otherwise.

The physical punishment of children -- Elliman and Lynch 83 (3): 196 -- Archives of Disease in Childhood