Good idea

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Phil the Paver, Jun 7, 2014.

  1. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select

    Are you a politician, never answer a question with a straight answer.
  2. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select

  3. I'll say this just once more, Phil (and Harry); simply making a claim - especially a throw-away, ridiculously over-the-top, poorly-judged ones like the ones I've highlighted above - without backing it up with any evidence, and then settling back with a 'prove it ain't so' is not the same as making a valid point.

    Anyone can do that. Many people do.

    That article is - at last - getting closer to backing up your point. But have you read it to the end?
  4. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select

    What was it, Michael Jackson sung, o yer, "I'm looking at the man in the mirror".

    As I've said, evidence, it's not happening.
  5. Harry Stottle

    Harry Stottle Screwfix Select

    Fascinating how this topic is being batted around among people with fairly diverse opinions, On the one hand we have DA bravely defending modernistic theory and Phil and I defending tried and tested methods. I'm sure there are many people who side with you DA and many who agree with Phil and I.
    In our debating society at school we learned that a good way to destroy ones own arguments was to make rude remarks about the opposition. Our well respected and liked English master, Mr Robson, who ran the after school debating society used to say "He who loses his rag loses the day". Lets try to continue the discussion if we want to without using gutter language.
  6. You'd like to think I'm losing my rag. Because, like your modus operandi of 'making a claim' and backing it up with "prove it ain't so, then", you can try and pretend that's enough to win an argument.

    It ain't.

    Have you re-read this whole thread? I have given you examples of how youngsters react to a proper approach. I have given you examples that show me very clearly how the worst kids I've come across are ones where corporal punishment was rife in their homes. And these kids expect nothing different at school or in society.

    I admit I am frustrated when you simply make assertions - and think that is enough. It ain't.

    How about we sum up our differences, then, and leave it at that?

    You (and Phil) would like a return to corporal punishment in school because you think it would work, and I think that would be uncivilised, counter-productive and inhuman.

    Does that sum it up?
  7. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select

    I think both side of this coin agree that bad behavior is wrong, now we have a different approach as too how's best to deal with it, one side being tough the other a softly softly approach, one side says the old way did'nt work, the other side knows the new way isn't working, that's evident for all to see, if we don't walk about with blinkered eyes, so given that both ways are or have not worked, what is the answer??.
  8. plumberboy

    plumberboy Well-Known Member

    Come on guys this thread needs to stop,or I'll have to give the three of you a harsh talking to.
    Well I'll give DA a harsh talking to and whack you other two across the @rse with a big stick.:)
  9. Bagsy me have the whack across t'****... :oops:

    Phil, you are still putting two and two together to make the answer you want, but it ain't 4. 'There is bad behaviour today + they stopped belting school kids over 20 years ago = they behave badly 'cos they stopped belting them'.

    That simply doesn't add up.

    Parenting skills have certainly not improved as they should have, but it ain't the lack of skelps across the ear that's causing the problems.

    Yes, of course there is shocking behaviour from some children in our society, and because some of these kids shout "What's you gonna do about it - you can't touch me!" does not mean that society is helpless or failing.

    And 'my side' is not 'softly softly' as you'd like to think - that is an insult to all those cracking teachers, social workers, EWOs etc etc who do manage to help these kids when all else has failed. It is showing these dysfunctional children that there is a better way to behave. And if you were to lift your hand or raise your voice, you'd lose them. They will go on to have their own children, and they will shout at them and raise their hands - just as it happened to them. The cycle will repeat.

    It needs to be broken. You do that by demonstrating there is an alternative way of behaving to what they have been used to all their lives.

    It ain't softly softly - it's bludy hard.

    Raising your hand is a lot easier - that's why ignorant parents do it; they simply do not know any better. It is utterly heartbreaking.

    Stopped at a pedestrian crossing in Barnstaple a few months back. Fat chavvy mum with push-chair crossing road with astonishing delightful (considering what her genes must be like) smiling child following her on foot, clutching 'teddy'. Child dropped teddy and stopped to pick it up. Mum snarls at her child because she has to take 5 steps back to encourage her across, grabs her delightful child by the shoulder, pushes her, barks at her 'GET A MOVE ON!' and finally drags her very roughly to the side of the road.

    Jaw-droppingly tragic. And that was a teeny, tiny incident that barely stood out on that day.

    Poor fuffing child.
  10. plumberboy

    plumberboy Well-Known Member

    Right that's it,BEND OVER!!!!:D
  11. Right that's it,BEND OVER!!!!

    You wanna me squeal like a piggie too...?
  12. plumberboy

    plumberboy Well-Known Member

    No you scare me...:eek:
  13. Harry Stottle

    Harry Stottle Screwfix Select

    Pontificating over whether or not corporal punishment is the right or wrong way to deal with children when they do something wrong can go on for ever. Phil and I advocate tried and tested methods and DA advocates trendy ideas, but what's important is the end result and there's no doubt that children and teenagers were better behaved in the "corporal punishment era" than in the present "softly softly era."
  14. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select

    The problem is, DA seems not to be able to distinguish between bullying and out and out violence against children as opposed to discipline.

    Let me tell you a story about a young boy, his brother and sister, their father was a violent thug who would beat them for the silliest of reasons, the young boy in question was being beaten so badly one day that his mother had to smash a dinning room chair over his father's back to stop him, this resulted in his mother getting a whack, this went on until the boy was 16, then when his father tried to beat him he retaliated and offered his father outside to have a proper fight to sort it out once and for all, from that day forwards there were no more beating, the bully had been beaten to the point when the young boy went on to have children of his own, his father was a brilliant grandfather.

    The boy in the story above is me, at school we still had the cane, I received it only once, for what some would say was a minor incident, I went to the local shops at lunch time, even though we were not allowed to leave the school grounds, getting the cane taught me that if I did it again I got what I deserved, as a punishment.

    The difference between the two stories is, discipline and out and out violence, even I who was involved in both worlds, can distinguish between the two.

    Just out of interest I have 5 children, I have never hit any of them, I haven't had the need too.
  15. "...there's no doubt that children and teenagers were better behaved in the "corporal punishment era" than in the present "softly softly era."

    There is doubt. Huge doubt. That is simply another of your glib statements. You like to call 'my' method the 'softly softly' way 'cos that suits your argument.

    I remember kids in that corporal punishment era too - on a wee Island in the Ooter Hebrides. Y'know what? We had our fair share of thugs and delinquents - more than I see around Bideford today (and Bideford is a very deprived area).

    The main difference I see between yobs today and yobs of yesteryear is that I 'knew' the yobs of yesteryear and just considered them normal - and avoided them if needed.

    When I see yobs today, my gut reaction - which I have to fight - is that they are a bunch of stinking, a**ole loosers who'd threaten you as easy as they look at you. But that just ain't true - most of them are just the same as they were in my youth.

    What's changed? I'm older - and more naturally suspicious and cynical.

    JJ, "Just out of interest I have 5 children, I have never hit any of them, I haven't had the need too." Amen to that, JJ - you've broken the cycle. :).

    Good parenting isn't, really isn't, down to instilling discipline with the threat of a slap to make it 'hit home' - "It's for yer ain gud...!"

    It's leading by example, and encouraging and explaining what respect is from day one. And, yes, being prepared to give measured sanctions should the kid be stubborn - explaining all the while why they 'cannot do what they did'.

    And - sticking by it. However long it takes.

Share This Page