Taamar wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Furthermore, "you are not permitted to hit the cat because you are mad" may or may not be the situation observed in the video. Like most videos that appear around here, this one lacks a lot of information. Why is the kid mad? Did the cat do something to him already? Is he allergic to the cat or afraid of it? Maybe an older sibling knew that, and thought it would be funny to put the cat there to frighten or annoy him and film it, not realizing what would happen. Older siblings do tease, and do not always think through their actions completely. We simply don't know and we cannot simply assume the kid simply hauled off and smacked the cat out of anger. We also cannot go off "only what we see in the video" because obviously the child is upset for some reason.
None of these excuse hitting a cat who is not in the act of attacking.
Uh, yes actually all of them
do excuse hitting a cat who is "not actually attacking". The first one, the most strongly; if the cat has already attacked even a young child can understand it is likely to attack again.
The others would not be good reasons for an older child to do so, but they are certainly excusable for a 4-year-old, especially one who is frightened.
Quote:
I would not punish an animal for defending itself in a brief non-damaging way. Teaching a cat that it may not retaliate is teaching the child that cats can be whacked with impunity as long as no one is watching, and that there are only consequences if you get caught.
This is hardly the case. You teach a child that it is not acceptable to hit the cat because it is wrong, not because there are consequences. This is how you teach children to do the right thing in
any situation. A kid who only cares about getting caught will be that way for all actions he shouldn't be doing; it won't be a matter of a special exception where cats are concerned. More importantly, if this were true it wouldn't be possible to teach him to avoid
any wrong action where there isn't some immediate physical consequence, such as shoplifting. Nothing jumps up and bites your hand for stealing, so by this reasoning it is only possible to teach a kid not to get caught stealing.
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that you can teach a kid not to hit the cat at 4 years old does not make it some unpardonable sin if he does so. 4 years old is still extremely lacking in impulse control, especially when upset, and if the kid has been provoked in some way it's far from entirely his fault.
Yet you expect that more than that from a cat, which isn't reasonable or rational unless you honestly believe the cat is brighter than the child.
I don't expect more from the cat at all, until it's been taught. I fully expect the cat to be a cat. That's why you have to punish it when it does so.
In fact, this really has nothing to do with expectations of the cat; it has to do with what's going to be tolerated from a cat. I really
do not care what should be expected from the cat. All that is, is a baseline from which its behavior must be modified.
Quote:
Also, as a parent of 3, doesn't that kids body language looks to you more like 'angry and looking to lash out' than 'fearful' or 'upset'? That's the look I remember my brother having when he took a hammer to the VCR because his mother wouldn't give him another cookie.
Not really, no. I'd say that the body language of a child that age is rarely, if ever, specific enough that it can be read that exactly, especially for a kid we are not personally familiar with. Furthermore, none of those emotions are mutually exclusive.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
