Wiltin

Up-vote good, down-vote bad. Me want up-vote, me conform. Me no want down-vote, me no disagree. Even if the psycho-analysis was on point in my case which I'm going to claim it isn't since I'm very controlled and I don't act out in my day to day life, my criticism of the reputation system remains. Torture works, beating slaves works, spanking works. Violence does work. Spanking doesn't is not a means of creating well adjusted adults and I've made my position on that very clear in my posts, but it does create obedience in children when performed consistently. I'm starting to get a very unpleasant impression of this community, I'll articulate it more later when I've had a chance to think about it.

The thread title is "Objectivity about violence", I don't know what you were expecting to find, I'm not making a moral argument. "Purpose" is a subjective term, "the" is a definitive objective term, preceding a subjective term with an definitive term is misleading and nonsensical in philosophical conversation. (Parallel: The purpose of a hammer is to break things.) There is no "the purpose" of philosophy, there's "a purpose". Philosophy is a tool.

Well that is convenient! Way to stick the knife in while simultaneously avoiding my actual criticism regarding incentives. I'm surprised to find myself actually a little stung by this. If I am completely wrong about the effectiveness of violence, I'd hope that people would be interested in helping me see why. "So what?" is the overall message I got back, along with a the negative reputation. All the down-votes I accrued created in me an incentive to censor myself and try to make up for it by posting platitudes in other threads. I resisted that incentive and instead made this thread to discuss the incentive itself because I see that as a problem. Kevin, please re-read my OP. My criticism is specific in regard to the incentives the reputation system provides. I'm quite happy to accept the consequences of the reputation system if it is intended that way. I felt the incentive to post platitudes and overtly positive things to try and make up for my reputation loss, which I think is a problem, that is why I posted this thread. There are no threads on this topic on the first page of the feedback forum, but wouldn't the fact that you say it comes up so often give you a little pause? MarkIX has received down-votes for giving an honest and relevant opinion on the topic. I'm really scratching my head here trying to figure out why on earth anyone would want to discourage that kind of post. Sure most of you may not agree with him but he isn't trolling or derailing.I've received a private message of support from a long time poster who no longer participates on the forum because of a similar complaint. Am I to assume there is a disgruntled mob of ex-posters lurking the forum, not participating for fear of reputation retribution?Well adjusted wizards of logic and bastions of self-knowledge that you are, none of you are addressing the OBVIOUS INCENTIVE in the reputation system.

Certainly it may be a problem, which RTR could help me with. Be that as it may, I wonder if you find the incentives the reputation system brings with it appropriate for open and honest discussion.

That was my first such post. I've looked over Real Time Relationships and I'm not sure how it applies to my criticism of the reputation system. Do you have any comment on the incentive that down-votes provide for people to agree with commonly held views?

So what? So just let it be, that's what. Why the need to throw everything but the kitchen sink at me to try and obfuscate and avoid a simple truth?

I checked the front page of the feedback forum for any similar criticism and didn't find any. I'm sorry if you find the way in which I expressed my view inappropriate, I didn't realize making this thread would create this kind of blowback. You've gotten under my skin and plenty of choice words come to mind, suffice to say I find you to be extremely belligerent and downright unfriendly.

What exactly do you think my 'ideas' are? Violence can be used to get children to obey. Please, for goodness sake, if you disagree with that, provide some reasoning. Everything else you are bringing up is beside the point of this thread. I find your attempt to undermine me by suggesting I'm not 'out there fighting the good fight' really insulting. I have discussed spanking with my brother who has children and several friends and coworkers with positive results. I'm a bus driver and I've intervened on a child's behalf on two occasions by bringing a child to sit at the front with me when I've had a parent raise their voice and threaten their children on my bus. I'm not here trying to push an agenda, I am poking a soft spot because this community seems far too reactionary and I'd like to see a little more objectivity on this issue.

I like to discuss controversial topics, play devil's advocate at times, and represent views counter to those widely held in all the forum communities I frequent. I find topics that are most inflammatory to be some of the most informative and helpful. My reputation here is suffering, perhaps this is by design and maybe it is well deserved, I'm not suggesting there is injustice here. However, I think that this system serves to exacerbate a confirmation bias within the community and I'm not sure that it is healthy. Those people who support widely held views are up-voted, while those who take positions that are unpopular get down-voted. I see this as an incentive to conform, agree, confirm, and supplicate to positions that one thinks the community will like. I think that the reputation system therefore detracts from the overall quality of discussion here.

Again, I'm not suggesting that Stefan's method doesn't work or that I have a better way. If a parent is to the point where they are emotionally receptive to the damage they are doing by spanking then there is no need to make any intellectual concessions, an emotional argument is going to do the job. I think for any parent to stop spanking the final necessary step is to emotionally connect in that way, I'm not trying to take away from this. Still, my point remains, even if it is just an exercise in intellectual honesty. They may be few but there are parents who would argue on an intellectual level that spanking works, and while you could argue they are beyond help, an intellectual debate does require an objective approach.

Whoa, back up the truck, you've missed the point entirely. This kind of over the top reaction to my simple statement is the problem I am trying to address. Of course I don't need to prove scientifically that violence works, it is a basic reality that we are all painfully aware of whether we like to admit it or not.

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to this but I'll have a crack. I'm not criticizing FDR's methods or suggesting anything negative in the way Stefan or anyone else here approaches this issue. I am looking for agreement on what I consider to be an elementary fact about the effectiveness of violence, and by extension spanking. There is a lot of resistance here and that I why I think it is worth exploring. A lot of us have had bad experiences with spanking and I don't think we should allow that to affect our objectivity, otherwise those we argue with will recognize a strong bias in us. Number 1 is true. Spanking creates obedience in children, just like violence makes slaves work, and torture makes prisoners talk. To me it seems rudimentary, I know it deductively, I know it from observation, and I know it from personal experience. If you really don't think that violence can be used to make a child obey you, I'd like to see your reasoning.

I don't think spanking 'works' in the most broad sense, I was careful to define what I meant and I'm using the word 'work' correctly. If a parent says that spanking works for them, they aren't necessarily talking about creating well adjusted, high functioning adults at all. A pro-spanker in debate might use it that way, but I'm talking about run of the mill spanking parents who haven't given it much thought. They are looking at short term results and speaking to the obedience and perceived good behavior of their children at the time, which is what I'm getting at. If you want, replace the word 'works' with 'produces short term results'. I am not talking about a foggy notion of obedience, I'm using the word by it's dictionary definition, and accurately so. If you read the thread you'll see I commented on my own history with spanking.

I think you underestimate the ignorance and social conditioning in people. Most people don't have a scientific approach to social issues or life in general. To some parents, 'research' involves looking at scripture, consulting their pastor, or getting advice from friends/relatives. Consulting scientific literature for parenting advice might be considered parallel to consulting a physicist about how to make friends. Many overweight people struggle to lose weight because they don't understand the nature of the food they are eating. I think you are right to some extent, but you're taking a one sided approach. A fat person may struggle with cravings and have cognitive dissonance about what they are actually eating, but they may also not even have a clue what is wrong with some of the food they are eating, what portion size is reasonable, or how much exercise they need. I think it is very presumptuous to assume that they therefore don't want to lose weight, of course they do.

I still think you are treating it as though it is more black and white than it is. Do you think that parents who spank (still a majority in most places) don't love their children and want them to be good people? I think ignorance and tradition account for a lot and I don't think you can correctly say that all parents spank for any one particular reason. It came up in this thread: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40196-a-disgusting-video-on-youtube-titled-how-to-discipline-our-child/ I have a bit of a fetish for controversy.