Friday, October 26, 2007

The violence of not smacking?

If "three and four-year-olds are more physically aggressive than most adults", is the children's commissioner right when he calls for a total ban on smacking!?!

"Those [children] who do not [learn to regulate their use of violence] are more likely to become aggressive adults."

At least we will know who to blame in a decade when the violent crime rate soars!

4 comments:

Bag said...

In a decade! It's been that long since smacking has been a no no. Esther Rantzen (or whatever) has enabledmany children to threaten their parents with success. These people are now 20 or so. And violence is rising. I think we have our data right there and the blame.

Snafu said...

Bags, I'd just like to know how such people manage to find such high paid jobs when they are totally clueless!!

cramerj said...

Oddly enough as a child in the 1940-45 era I and friends were not hit/smacked hardly at all. (men away in the army had something to do with it) and yet we delighted in battering each other.
Odd really and then settled down at age 15 or so.

Bag said...

Snafu, It's because all the other clueless idiots are in positions of power and scum tends to stick together.

Cramer, Back in the 40-50s you were aware that a clip around the ear was an option. Usually by the time you got to the age to think about it you were already beyond the requirement to need one the morals were in place. Now of course no punishment is allowed and kids are aware of that. Sadly the morals are not in place and it shows.