Sometimes we find that parents use violence against their children and this violence may be aggravated by more people
"Violence begot Violence". I am not in support in use violence on students
Not at all! Violence is good to relieve the anger of the parents. It never helps the child. They are soon not able to understand why they are treated with violence.Children only know how it hurts and they start questioning how mad their parents are and if they are still loved or if they are loved at all.
Vilemar Magalhães
Violence is so bad behavior against children because its not solute and control their wrongs , its only make children hate their parents and teachers and not respect them plus they tend to repeat the wrongs as a part of their chalenge against those who managed them in house or school Best regards ,,, Jawad Ali
In some cases it is necessary to promote, not violence in the sense
Violence is absolutely unacceptable, but punishing the child is sometimes necessary. Setting the clear boundaries is by expressing any reaction that the child feels he has done wrong and does not wait for him to repeat his act. It is possible to punish him by limiting his movement slightly, note that these steps are often useful.
ًWhatever the reasons were the situations,I refuse all kinds of violence against children.
Against the use of violence in all its forms against children and others, is not a civilized way of education
Violence with children resulted in adverse results than parents wish ,and on children growth style . It support the development of Psyco-complex among youth student,s which may be led many of them to be terrorists in the future in order to revenge from the society .
It is not healthy line of action for any parents & also for the family for children of every parents of the world . Violence with children means either parents or teacher or anybody are moving towards adverse nature of action & who so ever the action of violence it means they are spoiling the progress of the children .
This is my personal opinion
Thankfully, in the UK violence against children is a crime.
Children are not our possession, they are temporarily in our custody dependent on our sense of responsibility and maturity.
I think the question is a kind of adventure
If you ask this question to the researcher and tell her whether you accept violence against your children
I think she will answer negatively
However, violence against children is totally unacceptable
Non violence should be answered by non violence. When the child is violent some sort of force is required, but under control and restraint. In the past violent punishment against students was usually done and for small reasons or none at all, sometimes as a sport, more often as a threat to the other students.
No violence. Violence causes a child to feel pain, fear, sadness, and anger. A child mainly gets harmful messages and learns inappropriate behavioural pattern.
Children who witness domestic violence in the home often believe that they are to blame, live in a constant state of fear and are 15 times more likely to be victims of child abuse.
No, Violence is so bad behavior. we in 2018, There are useful educational methods with children
Dear, No for violence with children. It is unacceptable.
Regards,
Janusheva
Dear Sir
I do prefer, Love and affection with children can win their heart. Violence in any form should not be recommended.
Regards,
Jahangir
A few thoughts of mine: Children are not always nice and kind. They have to be guided and taught to be kind and responsible. Many actually 'natural' behaviors are not 'good' or ethical to most people of today. Violence is one of the most obvious of these behaviors. Depending on how we define 'violence' some violent activities against children in certain situations might be considered to be ethical if applied with control. For example would the use-of-force, especially if restricted to restraining techniques, likely be accepted by most people, if the purpose is to intervene in ongoing violent assaults to protect others. (This unless the violent child unlawful use lethal weapons against others.) Also restraining might be needed to protect children that may risk to harm themselves, i.e. if they run over railway tracks and they continue in spite of warnings or other verbal ques. To use violence as a conscious calculated after action punishment would, as you all seems to agree upon, to be perceived as primitive and objectively mostly even be counter productive, due to several different factors from neurological to psychological and social. This apart from the obvious 'golden rule' and 'not to inflict harm/pain to other beings' as a simple reasonable philosophical baseline. However, due to our inherited and evolved biological limitations (and strengths) we still must consider the following problem: A father or mother that sees his or her child run out in front of a speeding car, and by an inch is able to pull his or her child out of harms way, might in the mental state of high stress experience a moment of lack of control and slap the child. This while screaming in terror and agony to the child not to do that ever again. That father or mother, we must accept, may be any one of us. Even if we never ever before that moment, would think that we had it in us to hit our own child. The decision processes are different and often subconscious during high stress situations. To make the dilemma even more hard to judge: The slap might actually protect the child from dying in a future similar incident due to common classical conditioning. (This of course also depending on the specific circumstances, the age of the child and how the child perceived the incident.) In Sweden the slap would still be illegal. Any thoughts?
Certainly not.
First, violence tends to leads to violence and retaliation.
Second, there is´a lot of evidence that shows that to use violence with children has not the benefficial effects that it is supposed to to have by those who use it to control children's behavior. namely their misdeeds.
Third, and more importantlty, violence is immoral and unaceptable from a moral point of view. It is much better to use dialogue and persuasion than violence. To use dialogue and persuasion requires imagination; to use violence only requires only brute force.
Best regards,
Orlando
Agree with Orlando. To clarify. If a child is hurting another child and does not stop when told to, he or she needs to be stopped or hindered physically with a grab or simply by blocking the blows. That is the only moral thing to do and, of course, more force than necessary to stop the activity should not be used. Adults that are present and interfere immediately (against both physical as well as verbal abuse) are one of the major factors to effectively decrease violence and mobbing in schools. This according to a meta study on all international empirical studies available on the subject that was made a few years ago by the Swedish National Crime Preventing Council.
https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/09_03_2.pdf
https://www.counseling.org/docs/disaster-and-trauma_sexual-abuse/domestic-violence-and-children.pdf?sfvrsn=2
https://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Families/Children.pdf
http://earlytraumagrief.anu.edu.au/files/ImpactofDVonChildren.pdf
No, of course, because that negatively affects the personality of the child, and there are other ways of punishment if the child abuse literature
No, violence against children affects their social development, health status and education level.
- Badges
- Science topic