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.

Sure, except this isn't about rapists, it's about spankers. Are you suggesting that parents who spank incapable of change?

This is precisely the position that I am trying to challenge. The resistance to concede any point to an opposing view, particularly one that is ultimately wrong, is common with many ideological arguments. It is as if people feel like they have to completely destroy every aspect of the opposing position in order to win an argument. Unfortunately very few issues are that black and white.The result is dishonesty, insecurity and fanaticism in the eyes of your opposition. So I would say no, admitting the unpleasant truth about spanking while arguing against it does not diminish your case, in fact a respectable case is impossible without it. There is more I would like to add here but I'm replying from my phone, I'll revisit this later.

You're right, rape is a good example. If you were to tell a rapist that rape doesn't result in sex, they would give you a raised eyebrow. It is necessary to concede that their crime works because otherwise you have no credibility with them and any further argument is pointless.

I find the statement "you cannot have respect without fear" immediately nonsensical. Have you asked him if he respects you? If he respects you then for his statement to be true he must also fear you. Do you have to physically assault him regularly in order to maintain his respect? This can be carried over to any personal relationship; his wife, his siblings, or his friends. It can also be applied to casual acquaintances; Does your show of respect to your waiter in a restaurant mean that you fear waiters because you have been assaulted by one in the past?

Yes I agree, and this is the real challenge, getting a parent to recognize the true nature of what they are doing. I'm trying to make this point that spanking works though because it is a necessary concession to make in conversation with a consistent pro-spanking parent. Since empirically they have seen the results, the argument has to be about the nature of those results, not whether or not the results exist at all.

I commented in another thread that spanking works, which makes the argument for peaceful alternatives with people who spank their children difficult. I was surprised to find that some of the community here think that spanking doesn't work at all. Perhaps the problem was in my use of the word "work", but I think it goes deeper than that. So after netting a lot of downvotes I left the conversation alone. I think it deserves some more consideration though so I'm creating this thread to discuss it further. DISCLAIMER: I'm not encouraging, endorsing, or defending spanking! My argument is this: Spanking "works" in the sense that it causes children to obey the commands of parents. It is the most basic and primitive form of expression and control. Children from a very young age understand that physical pain is bad and will change their behavior to avoid it. Parallels can be seen in the stereotypical master/slave relationship where beatings and whippings are employed to, in effect, force slaves to work. Prisoners of war can be physically tortured into obeying their torturer and divulging military secrets. Violence is used by social animals to assert dominance over peers and establish a pecking order. The effectiveness of violence is a rudimentary fact of nature that cannot be ignored and doesn't need to be spelled out. Conceding a point to anyone who uses violence against children may leave some of you feeling dirty, but there is an unfortunate truth here. Violence can be used to manipulate obedience from a child. So when someone says that spanking has worked for them and that their children are very well behaved because of it there are many things you could say, but you cannot say that spanking does not work.

Unless you feel physically threatened, you are probably best to confront her, if not in person then at least in the phone. Just avoiding her won't send a clear enough message, and you won't properly deal with the situation in your own mind. Text messages are too easy and impersonal. If you don't feel like you can take control of the conversation on your own, maybe have a support person with you. Just my thoughts based on what you've said.

Debating theology is like arguing over who would win in a fight between batman and wolverine. This is why there are literally tens of thousands of different christian views. Don't like the way a particular doctrine feels? Try another flavor, there is something out there for everyone. Since this is all speculative and based on scripture that gets interpreted and reinterpreted constantly, there is no way to nail a point home. Figure of speech here, metaphor there, and irony everywhere in between. I tried the line of argument about freedom because it is an appeal to emotion rather than reason and evidence which atheists generally stick to. I thought a different approach might change the game up a bit, but it didn't in this case. It is still impossible to nail the most obvious point home in the mind of a believer, and in the end he just claims victory and has his faith strengthened. I think my religious debate days are over.

This is the mentality of a slave who has been broken. I used the dictionary definition. "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." Matt 25:41 Who prepared everlasting fire? Who are these super humans capable of such a feat? Not my choice, not my action, and not yours either. You are not free, sir.

How do you hope to change their minds?