Oh alright then Hasbeen, so it a tree branch, in effect?
Oh well, that's ok then...

I think you blokes have run this thread into the ground. Time to move on although I will close with the thought that a clip around the ears or a boot in the bum never hurt anyone.

You are still all at it?!
Time to move on people.
For those of you who are concerned for Platypus's children, they are adults now and are no longer likely to be caned, and if they are I am sure that they are old enough to defend themselves if need be. So turn your attentions to some CHILDREN in need of help NOW, not years ago.
Platypus and Co, turn you time to writing letters to those who are seeking to change the laws if you are against them been changed. Get together a petition or something.

In case there are those who don't want me to stick my nose in without giving you the chance to chop it off I will give you my opion.

I think a light smack on the backside with a open palm or the ends of fingers across the back of the hand is fine, as long as it is the last form of discipline on a large list of alternates. And you are sure to explain the wrong doing to the child. This is what they are trying to outlaw now.
A "caning" is using a weapon and is not only now illegal but in my eyes completely wrong, especially on the hand where there are a lot of fine bones, ligaments and joints that could sustain damage. Neither is hitting across the head, or clipping over the ear. I was smacked as a child, smacks where fine and well deserved but I still resent the few backhanders I received across the mouth and side of the head (which has resulted in permanent dental and ear damage). I received them for asking why I should do something which was seen as "disrespecting my elders".

Thank you Bec, for restoring some perspective to this rather arid discussion. Let's move on.

Joe

Thanks Bec and Loudmouth,

However, if some of us wish to discuss the principles behind platypus' contention "in the opening post" of this thread that he caned his very young children - then we will please ourselves when we've discussed it to our satisfaction.

It's not up to you two to dictate which parts of his opening post should be central to the discussion.

Thanks, Poirot... I had understood those categories. I was responding to the reply declaiming "soiling nappies" which I had not mentioned.

There does seem to be a disconnect for some as to the distinction between 'discipline' and 'punishment'. To me, caning is punishment not discipline. Whereas Bec's "light smack on the backside with a open palm..." I regard as acceptable discipline and not at issue.

My comparison was: that the justification for caning presented was for people who could not be reasoned with equally applies to many with dementia, often sadly our parents.

In my defence, though infrequently strapped (with the legally approved Victorian Governement Education Department specification model at the time), and not always for any infringement on my part, by my father I did not take the opportunity for corporal punishment revenge during my time caring for him.

Any ability at reason disappeared long before any loss of beligerant and compulsive behaviours.

(My Dad's, that is, not mine!)