< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Smacking is Violence


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Smacking is Violence


Whip out the old dictionary.
Smack (vb) : 1. to strike or slap smartly, with or as if with an open hand.

Violence (n). 1. the exercise or an instance of physical force, usually effecting or intending to effect injuries, destruction, etc.
Therefore smacking cannot be violence. It is not possible to "effect injuries, destruction, etc" using an open hand if smacking is restricted to the hand or bottom.

Do people not watch those movies where they have the girly slapping fighting? Effective? Not.

Posted by Lucia Maria | 6/16/2005 04:23:00 pm


Blogger Murray said...

But what about the the injury to the emotional state of the victim??? And the destruction of inocence????


Please note: I was taking the piss. Hard to tell the difference these days.

6/16/2005 07:11:00 pm  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Oh, you say you are taking the piss, but I see the subtext. There can only be one state in New Zealand, Helen State.

Any parent moving children illegally across the border from Helen to emotion is seditious. They are also child trafficking. They are exporting our future. Bring them back! If we ban smacking, children will remain in Helen State.

Quick, transport your child to a recongised safe haven from a state of emotional conflict. Put them in a dusk til dawn creche. Now, with daily stories of the wonderful State of Helen, your children will become well adjusted automatons ready to vote Labour by their 18th birthday.

They can drink a toast to Helen when they are 20.

They can pay off their tax by age 64.

They can retire on the Cullen Pension by age 65.

They can enter a vegetative state by age 66. Quick Maude, pass the sherry, I feel a change of state coming on!

6/16/2005 07:43:00 pm  
Blogger Murray said...

Damn that was a lot of subtext.

I am good!

6/16/2005 08:55:00 pm  
Blogger Paul said...

Yeah look I'm so over this pre-election smoke-screen. A change to the Crimes Act WILL NOT stop child abusers. It will only criminalise ordinary folk. It no different to speed cameras focused on those of us who might do 111 km/hr yet ignores the dangerous ones who drive at 100km/hr.

It will make no difference in the household hallways of Flaxmere or Otara or Ford Block Rotorua. Those villans don't care about the law, what does Labour not understand about that?

6/16/2005 11:55:00 pm  
Blogger noizy said...

to strike or slap smartly

the exercise or an instance of physical force

how is that not the same thing? surely the definition of slap you've chosen would easily slip into the 'exercise of an instance of physical force' definition (as well as the "usually effecting or intending to effect injuries, destruction, etc." usually and etc being the key words there).

6/17/2005 12:32:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Just for you, James:

usual adj: 1. of the most normal, frequent or regular type. 2. ordinary or commonplace events. - usually adv.

A slap usually is not a violent force. Use it in a fight and you'll get laughed at.

6/17/2005 01:21:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Furthermore, clapping is a non-destructive, non-injurious force applied to both hands in the same way that a smack is. Are you going to tell me that clapping is violent?

6/17/2005 01:34:00 pm  
Blogger noizy said...

are you going to tell me I can randomly slap people in the face down Lambton Quay and only expect to get laughed at?

6/17/2005 02:25:00 pm  
Blogger noizy said...

or, more specific to the argument at hand (so to speak), smack people on the backside with no repercussions?

6/17/2005 02:28:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

James, you have to read all the words to get the meaning.

Use it in a fight and you'll get laughed at.

Note the word: fight.

6/17/2005 02:41:00 pm  
Blogger noizy said...

I apologies for my poor reading comprehension skills.

Anyway, your argument hinges on the definition of violence, does it not? It's not hard to find definitions where smacking does fall within its realm. How about...

1. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.

2. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing

3. Power used to overcome resistance

4. An act of aggression

6/17/2005 04:21:00 pm  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Oh my goodness, you came back. Didn't notice before.

No, a smack is not violating, damaging, abusing, abusive, unjust or an act of aggression.

The only one that comes close is No 3. power to overcome resistance. No 3. could also be applied to physically removing a child from a situation.

Still doesn't making smacking equate to violence. It's a perversion of language and meaning. We have thousands of words that mean different things for the reason that subtleties of meaning are important.

6/19/2005 10:42:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home