In defense of spanking children ...

[cab21]

the op could have asked about the empathy of people who have not been spanked, rather than make such a prediction about the empathy of people who have not been spanked.

[alexqr1]

I agrede Cab. It would have been interesting to see how he responded to your post.

[MysterionMuffles]

OP's argument is quite convincing...FOR LESSER MINDS!!!

 

No but seriously, kudos to the inoculation analogy. Someone who isn't as well versed in the knowledge of child abuse's effects, or someone who just doesn't have basic empathy--would have been swooned by this.

 

Then you consider there are so many things you don't have to be exposed to in order to know it's dangerous. In fact, the mere act of providing the positive opposite is usually enough to teach someone the stark difference.

[Josh F]

Sure it is. I did not argue against it.My argument was that it does not really matter, it was more important to find out if he was willing to debate seriously than for him to show empathy. I think this goes beyond this forum, but fore everyone who is truly willing to philosophize and have conversations about it, the only necessary prerequisite is willingness to use reason to debate. Being in agreement is not a prerequisite.More importantly, those who want to prevent spanking should embrace the opportunity to talk to someone who is in favor of spanking and who shows no empathy, because that is precisely the people we are trying to help, again the only necessary requirement, is their willingness to use reason. Without letting him answer, we don't know if he wanted to engage in conversation or not.I don't meant to come across as someone making a big deal out of something small, but I actually don't think this is small at all. Again, I think the Socratic dialog Meno illustrates this point. In this case, the original poster was Meno, we should had been Socrates.

You're very free to do what you want to do, let me say that first of all.  My goal is to take this time to converse with you, since you're clearly empathetic and willing to learn.  This might not apply, I don't know, but in my experience a lot of the childhoods of the people on this site make them, and me, suckers for trolling behavior.  The people already on this site, struggling to develop those missing qualities are NOT helped by the constant indulging of troll behavior.  Comments like this person's can easily upset and discourage others on the path, others with a genuine interest.  What I see you doing is indulging abusive human beings, spending your time and energy on them, despite what it costs you or other good people to engage them, you're willing to play the martyr to dealing with these people.  Why?  The world has BILLIONS who need to learn, how much do you think focusing  on one insulting troll is really worth it?  And without know anything about you personally, do you not share in my fears when I engage these people that I am repeating unhealthy relationship pattern?

I agrede Cab. It would have been interesting to see how he responded to your post.

This is a little annoying, to be completely frank.  Being reasonable and empathetic makes it so easy to predict this person's response, your inability to predict it should be discerning.  He would have continues to insult you and advocated for hitting children, obviously, so obviously, again, there isn't a single doubt in my mind.  Why is there doubt in your mind?  What clues didn't you get that I am seeing jump right out at me?

[alexqr1]

The people already on this site, struggling to develop those missing qualities are NOT helped by the constant indulging of troll behavior. Comments like this person's can easily upset and discourage others on the path, others with a genuine interest. What I see you doing is indulging abusive human beings, spending your time and energy on them, despite what it costs you or other good people to engage them, you're willing to play the martyr to dealing with these people. Why?

Josh, I'm in this board to discuss subjects philosophically, not to preach to the choir or to be preached at. It is so easy to engage in conversation with someone who only slightly disagrees with us, it is a lot more challenging to do it with people who disagree on the most important issues.Now if this is a board whose primary objective is help people heal, then I understand my mistake. I thought it was primordially a philosophy board and I apologized for that if that is the case. 

This is a little annoying, to be completely frank. Being reasonable and empathetic makes it so easy to predict this person's response, your inability to predict it should be discerning. He would have continues to insult you and advocated for hitting children, obviously, so obviously, again, there isn't a single doubt in my mind.

I understand you not wanting to have a conversation with someone who continuously insults you, I am the same way. But are you saying that you would not converse with someone who continues to advocate the opposite of what you advocate?If we want to prevent more spanking in the world, then it is precisely those who think they have a good reason to spank that we need to engage in order to make a fundamental change. If we wait for those who already agree or who are looking for direction, then that is fine, but I'm sure we can do better.For example, I'd be a lot happier if I help a hard-core statist understand the evil of the state than if I help someone who is a minarchist. Now I'm not saying you should all be like that, but I just don't get how my approach annoys you. 

Why is there doubt in your mind?

In situations such as these, I try not to pretend I can predict a person's response if I have a chance to get an actual response.

[Prairie]

In situations such as these, I try not to pretend I can predict a person's response if I have a chance to get an actual response.

When is banning justified, since it's a prediction of their future response? For all you know they'll see the light on the next response and completely become respectful in the discussion.

[alexqr1]

When is banning justified, since it's a prediction of their future response?

If this is a philosophy board, then surely banning should be justified for someone who can't or is not willing to use reason in a conversation.

For all you know they'll see the light on the next response and completely become respectful in the discussion.

No, that is not what I said. I don't know how he would had reacted. The thing is that one post is not a conversation. The OP is just a presentation of the argument, then someone may respond and the reply of the original poster will let you know if he/she is in it to troll or to try to defend the original argument. Here's an example that might help explain what I've been trying to say. Imagine 2 scenarios with the same beginning:Scenario 1OP: Free markets suck because it creates homeless people and people-less homes (I got this from another recent post in the boards)Replier: Would you explain how free markets achieve that?OP: The Zeitgeist movement is the best and all you capitalists have no idea what you're talking about!Scenario 2OP: Free markets suck because it creates homeless people and people-less homes (I got this from another recent post in the boards)Replier: Would you explain how free markets achieve that?OP: By letting big corporations manage the economy and lobby government when mom and pop's store can't do it because they don't have the resources and all you heartless people have no problem with that.See what I mean? It is the reply to the reply the one that will let you know. In the 1st scenario, the OP is not willing to discuss, in the 2nd one he is wrong but there is room for a conversation even with the noise (insults). My point is that if there is room for conversation, we should take it. You never know if what you say will have an effect, either immediate or otherwise, but I am willing to take the chance because that is the revolution of ideas that I believe in.

[Prairie]

If I understand, you're saying that a first post in a discussion by someone is a one-way communication, therefore it doesn't give us any information about how the person will interact in reply (first post is not a reply). Then, once we've seen a reply, we can determine the nature of all future replies. If we infer anything about what their reply might be based on their first non-reply posting, we are being purely assumptive.

 

Playing devil's advocate, how can we infer anything about their second reply once they've made a first reply only? The first might be more of the same, but then when you say the right thing, their second reply might be one of cooperation. Therefore, we must let everyone stay in a discussion for however long they want, regardless of the effect on the discussion.

 

If I understand, you approach this like a missionary, wanting to spread the idea of liberty to anyone you encounter that is willing to engage in some form of dialog (they say something, you say something, they say something, etc.) because that is a form of engagement and therefore shows their interest in what you're saying. Further, you had hoped that this board was open to basically anyone and wouldn't ban people because that might mean the difference between someone who can be reached and someone who can't.

[alexqr1]

Playing devil's advocate, how can we infer anything about their second reply once they've made a first reply only? The first might be more of the same, but then when you say the right thing, their second reply might be one of cooperation. Therefore, we must let everyone stay in a discussion for however long they want, regardless of the effect on the discussion.

That is not what I said at all. What I said is that the OP is just a presentation of the argument, if the person is willing to engage in debate, we will know by how he answers to our rebuttal. There is clearly an argument made in the OP, a flawed one, but still an argument. We did not find out if the OP was willing to defend the argument or if he/she was only interested in trolling.

Further, you had hoped that this board was open to basically anyone and wouldn't ban people because that might mean the difference between someone who can be reached and someone who can't.

Also, not what I said at all. My previous post should clarify that. I mean, can it be more clear than this: "If this is a philosophy board, then surely banning should be justified for someone who can't or is not willing to use reason in a conversation."

[Josh F]

Josh, I'm in this board to discuss subjects philosophically, not to preach to the choir or to be preached at. It is so easy to engage in conversation with someone who only slightly disagrees with us, it is a lot more challenging to do it with people who disagree on the most important issues.Now if this is a board whose primary objective is help people heal, then I understand my mistake. I thought it was primordially a philosophy board and I apologized for that if that is the case. I understand you not wanting to have a conversation with someone who continuously insults you, I am the same way. But are you saying that you would not converse with someone who continues to advocate the opposite of what you advocate?If we want to prevent more spanking in the world, then it is precisely those who think they have a good reason to spank that we need to engage in order to make a fundamental change. If we wait for those who already agree or who are looking for direction, then that is fine, but I'm sure we can do better.For example, I'd be a lot happier if I help a hard-core statist understand the evil of the state than if I help someone who is a minarchist. Now I'm not saying you should all be like that, but I just don't get how my approach annoys you. 

The issue isn't people who disagree, but people who are unwilling to ever agree, and the skill required to notice it.  And its always in the first post, usually the first few sentences, that tell you every thing you need to know about how a person will respond.  If you don't think that this person was shouting clues at you, screaming "hey, I'm not here to learn", then are you being an empathetic listener in the first place? 

 

My understanding is a couple things:

 

1.  Unempathetic people pray on empathetic people's sympathies.

2.  Many people, including myself, in this community struggle establishing boundaries.  You're setting NO boundaries, you're saying someone can come into a situation unempathetically and that you will indulge them and waste your time on them.  Establishing boundaries is an essential skillset for being empathetic without being a victim.

3.  You are a wise human being, and this is a rare and valuable thing.  It is a complete waste of your time to engage someone like this, when there are millions who will listen and benefit from your words who have not been exposed to these ideas.  If the entire community modeled their approach to spreading this message on what you're doing, engaging people who are uninterested in learning, how far would this message spread?

 

Billions still have not been exposed to these arguments, but by all means spend your entire life debating people who aren't going to listen to you if that makes you happy.

 

In situations such as these, I try not to pretend I can predict a person's response if I have a chance to get an actual response.

 

I am not pretending.  I am basing my opinion on evidence.  But, you're trying to base your actions on a prediction that is not based on the available evidence. Why?

[amilojko]

Defending abuse is against the forum guidelines.

.

[JamesP]

Yadda, yadda. What is abuse? The way you define abuse may not be the same way other people define abuse.

I love it when non parents and young parents who have not raised their kids yet blabber about things they don't understand.

 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/29220-the-facts-about-spanking/

[Kevin Beal]

Yadda, yadda. What is abuse? The way you define abuse may not be the same way other people define abuse.

I love it when non parents and young parents who have not raised their kids yet blabber about things they don't understand.

You decided that I had no idea what I was talking about before you even knew what my definition of "abuse" was...

 

Your guilty conscience is not my problem.

[alexqr1]

Yadda, yadda. What is abuse? The way you define abuse may not be the same way other people define abuse.I love it when non parents and young parents who have not raised their kids yet blabber about things they don't understand.

How would you define abuse? Are you a parent?

[Wesley]

How would you define abuse?

abuse - To initiate violence against or treat with cruelty, especially regularly or repeatedly

[alexqr1]

abuse - [/size]

To initiate violence against or treat with cruelty, especially regularly or repeatedly[/size]

 

OK, so there is a pretty standard and I'd say accurate definition. Would you agree with it amilojko?

[st434u]

I think some posters here have misinterpreted the OP, when you say that children will experience suffering due to accidents or things of that nature. What the OP was saying is that the type of experience of having suffering inflicted on you by somebody else who does it purposefully, is very different to that of pain caused by an accident, where nobody is to blame and there is no "why", there is only a "how".

 

I have to admit that the OP's argument made me pause, as I am strongly against punishments used in parenting, both physical, emotional/verbal, and of other types.

 

Still, I think the answer is that, unless you keep your child in a bubble and they never get out and have experiences with other people, they will inevitably have the experience of somebody else purposefully inflicting suffering on them. My question is, supposing that for whatever reason they did not experience this, or did not experience it at a sufficiently young age, would the OP be right in claiming that this would diminish their ability to develop empathy? I don't know, and I am inclined to say no, but I don't think there's a way to know for sure.

 

I would say that at least it seems to me that people who are repeatedly punished in these ways tend to become overly insensitive to other people being mistreated in the same ways, rather than becoming more sensitized as the OP claims. But I guess the argument that the OP is making is that they will become more sensitized to other, more drastic kinds of mistreatment and abuses... That could be true, but it just pushes the argument one step back, because then, even milder mistreatment would sensitize against the mild mistreatment that the OP is advocating... And so on and so forth...

[Kaki]

When a child is being abused by his parents it has no other option than normalizing this behavior. For a child it would be absolutely devastating to realize that his own parents are abusive and in fact damaging it. We are biologically programmed to rely on our parents, we need this bond to survive and can not possibly dare to threaten it. As young children our parents are "good", no matter what they do, we, the children are "bad".

If we normalize abusive behaviors we make ourselves blind for them. This makes it impossible to sympathize with ourselves and our empathy with others will be diminished. If we can't have empathy for ourselves we can not possibly have empathy for anyone else.

 

A child who is being hit regularly will not be surprised or particularly worried when it sees another child being slapped. It has seen and lived this before.

This child is likely to make up stories, that the child which is being hit has been "bad", that it did something wrong, broke something etc.

 

A child which has been raised free and peacefully will be astonished and outraged seeing another child being hurt. For him it is completely out of the ordinary and not something that good people (parents) do. This child, the one which has lived free from violence, will recognize violence immediately because it is something out of the ordinary. Only if we can recognize violence we can have empathy for the victims.

 

[alexqr1]

I think some posters here have misinterpreted the OP, when you say that children will experience suffering due to accidents or things of that nature. What the OP was saying is that the type of experience of having suffering inflicted on you by somebody else who does it purposefully, is very different to that of pain caused by an accident, where nobody is to blame and there is no "why", there is only a "how".

 The OP did have an argument for sure, although I think it was a flawed one and very easy to debunk.

... don't think there's a way to know for sure.

In psychology, as in all other social sciences, prediction is only achieved through logic and not through empiricism.Empirical evidence only allows us to explain historical events in social sciences.The statement "studies show that X therefore X is true" is only valid in natural sciences, anyone who argues this way in matters involving human action is ignoring its praxeological aspect.

[Josh F]

How would you define abuse? Are you a parent?

I think your avatar should be a man beating a dead horse.  I just checked into this topic to see if you had replied to my comments directed at you.  Instead you focused on another abusive person in this conversation and tried to engage them.  I am sincerely recommending you spend some time thinking about this behavior, but its your choice.  Do you tolerate a lot of abusive people in your life?

[alexqr1]

I think your avatar should be a man beating a dead horse. I just checked into this topic to see if you had replied to my comments directed at you. Instead you focused on another abusive person in this conversation and tried to engage them. I am sincerely recommending you spend some time thinking about this behavior, but its your choice. Do you tolerate a lot of abusive people in your life?

I guess I missed your reply because I was quoted after your post again. Sorry about that. So here it is:

My understanding is a couple things:1. Unempathetic people pray on empathetic people's sympathies.

OK

2. Many people, including myself, in this community struggle establishing boundaries. You're setting NO boundaries, you're saying someone can come into a situation unempathetically and that you will indulge them and waste your time on them. Establishing boundaries is an essential skillset for being empathetic without being a victim.

Is that what I am saying?I said the OP did have an argument and I was hoping to find out if he was willing to defend it.

3. You are a wise human being, and this is a rare and valuable thing. It is a complete waste of your time to engage someone like this, when there are millions who will listen and benefit from your words who have not been exposed to these ideas. If the entire community modeled their approach to spreading this message on what you're doing, engaging people who are uninterested in learning, how far would this message spread?

A few things here:I am the judge of what is and what is not a waste of my time is. I am sure you agree with that.I don't see what is wrong about me wanting to converse with those that present the most opposition.You have not proven the OP was uninterested in learning.

Billions still have not been exposed to these arguments, but by all means spend your entire life debating people who aren't going to listen to you if that makes you happy.

You keep saying that, but it was not established that the OP was not willing to debate. You see, I find an argument in his 1st post so I replied to see if he was interested in debating. If he had come back with an answer that was relevant to my reply then we would had had a debate, if he had come back with only insults and charlatanry then would had been the end of that for me.

I am not pretending. I am basing my opinion on evidence. But, you're trying to base your actions on a prediction that is not based on the available evidence. Why?

Evidence, yes, proof, no. This is something I wrote on a different thread: “In this example, there is evidence that suggests that if I put my finger into the liquid I may expect burning, however, I have no proof for that. I can come up with many potential scenarios that would prove that evidence to be wrong. “Anecdotes are not evidence” is wrong, but “Anecdotes are no proof” is 100% right.”You ask “Do you tolerate a lot of abusive people in your life?” and that is a legitimate question, however, you base it on the “evidence” you seem to have that I tolerate abusive people in my life, which you have not established.I recommend that you think if focusing on the noise in a message is more important than focusing on the argument. I remember that debate Stefan had with Peter Joseph where Joseph had a lot of arguments and a lot of noise (back-handed insults and such) and instead of Stefan backing away from the debate, he asked Joseph to stop with the insults if he wanted to continue the debate.I'm pretty sure that if all Joseph was doing was insulting Stefan, then Stefan would had just left. But he recognized the arguments in Joseph's words and also recognized the importance of debunking them even if that meant to mute the noise or ask Joseph to stop with it.Again, the OP may had been here only to insult, but besides the insults he had an argument worth debating. All I am saying is I wanted to find out if he was willing to defend the argument or not.

[Livemike]

Are we supposed to believe that children who don't get spanked don't understand it's painful?  All children have painful experiences, for a start when they're starting to walk they fall down.  They can very easily understand what pain means and empathize.  In fact not only all young humans but all young PRIMATES can do this.  The ability to understand others pain is a evolutionary advantageous trait in social animals.   Children have been observed empathizing without any need for absurd infliction of evil for them to understand suffering.  

 

But I suspect you knew that.  I suspect you've seen children act comforting to others, without the need for you to inflict similar pain on them to make them understand.  I suspect, like most evil, your statements are designed to excuse what you have already done.  Grow up, accept that you did wrong, and resolve to do better.  Offering lame excuses will only lead to the need to offer even lamer ones, and that's a spiral that goes nowhere good.

[Livemike]

I have more respect for those who are wrong and are willing to put their ideas on the line than for those who are right without even knowing it.The original poster may have been a troll but maybe he was being honest in putting his ideas out there. Ideas which are wrong by the way and easily dismissed from a logical stand point. If he was the latter, then we would be better off trying to dismantle his illogical position and hopefully helping him learn from the interaction. The only way to honestly do that is to put our own ideas on the line when discussing the issues.Am I going to get negative reputation for this too?

 

Where is the evidence that he was being honest?  In fact the indications are exactly the opposite.  He claimed things without evidence then offered the appeal to traditional wisdom as an argument.  He made no attempt to discover whether the science supports the "old saw".  Stef mentions, every time he talks about spanking "THE EVIDENCE", "THE SCIENCE" or similar.  So either he's looked at that science and decided it was bunk, then not told us why, or he didn't look at the evidence.  The first is unlikely, if he knows something that supports his case he would inform us.  If it's the second then he's obviously dishonest about his desire to present us with the truth.  He's only pretending to care about the correct way to raise children, he really only wants to justify abuse.

 

There is a third possibility, he looked at the evidence, knows it's irrefutable but wants to contest the case anyway, so he simply ignores evidence and makes up bullshit

[alexqr1]

Livemike what you're saying is if someone supports a position that is in contrast to evidence, we should not engage them.

 

We can say the same thing about statists and yet people have no problem debating statists. Are we banning those who support the state too? I would not think so since Stefan himself engages in debates with statists, as he should if he wants to spread the message of liberty and he does a great job at that.

 

I mean you yourself had a reply for the OP, why? It seems to me that your position is contradictory.

[Wesley]

Livemike what you're saying is if someone supports a position that is in contrast to evidence, we should not engage them.We can say the same thing about statists and yet people have no problem debating statists. Are we banning those who support the state too? I would not think so since Stefan himself engages in debates with statists, as he should if he wants to spread the message of liberty and he does a great job at that.I mean you yourself had a reply for the OP, why? It seems to me that your position is contradictory.

To some extent, statists are not debated and to some extent they are.

 

Several years ago, Stefan came out with the "against me argument" with the intentional goal of bringing statism out of abstraction. People advocate the welfare state (for example) because they do not see the resulting violence that that belief holds, so the point is that you point it out to them.

 

Once they are faced with the truth of supporting violence and they come down on the side of "yes I do think you should be thrown in jail for disagreeing with me" then they are no longer debated with because they have said that any disagreement will be solved by the use of force.

 

There is no abstraction for "I think hitting kids is good". It is an obvious and blatantly supporting the use of force.

 

Once someone realizes that there is force involved and advocates that force is the solution to problems or disagreement, then they should not be debated for no meaningful debate can occur.

 

With some of the ideas in a messed up world, however, it takes a few layers of abstraction to fight through before someone will actually be faced with the implications of their beliefs. This is the amount of leeway I afford someone the opportunity to change.

[alexqr1]

Once they are faced with the truth of supporting violence and they come down on the side of "yes I do think you should be thrown in jail for disagreeing with me" then they are no longer debated with because they have said that any disagreement will be solved by the use of force. There is no abstraction for "I think hitting kids is good". It is an obvious and blatantly supporting the use of force.

Wesley, thanks for your post, I think it is a very good one.I think the difference between me and the other posters is that I do see an abstraction for "I think hitting kids is good", It is discipline. Irrationality and barbarism is constantly inflicted and engraved in the minds of individuals to the point that many believe spanking is not hitting or violence. They see a difference between spanking and hitting a child the same way they see a difference between stealing directly and using the state to take someone else's property.I also think that once someone has been faced with the reality that spanking IS in fact using violent force and they continue to support it, then it is obvious they are not willing to use reason and thus a debate is impossible. I think being wrong is not the same as being irrational, and since the OP did have an argument, it would had been positive to see how he reacted to being faced with the fact that spanking is the use of violent force against a child.

[Wesley]

 

I concede that using physical force on a defenseless child is evil. Beating them senseless will generally destroy them and turn them into the next generation of "beaters".

 

So the question becomes "Should parents visit evil upon their children?"

My view is that they should.

...

Enough to create within the child a standard of evil to which the child can compare his experiences later in life. That is, extrapolating from a decent spanking (one which causes no lasting physical damage) the child can experience empathy with others who experience a much worse evil.

...

To empathize at all with others who have tremendous evil committed upon them, we must have had some lesser evil committed upon ... us. 

Worse yet ... to understand evil ... one must commit evil oneself ... at least on a lesser scale so that the greater evil might be understood by extrapolation from the lesser.

 

If the foregoing is true, it is incumbent on the parent to dispense evil upon his children in order to inoculate them against further damage. If the parent does not do this, he relegates this responsibility to the community at large ... and ... they probably will do it  ... much worse than a caring parent ever would.

 

...

 

So, we have this Old Saw "Spare the rod, spoil the child".

 

...

"Give the kid a few whacks or he won't grow up true".

...

 

My advice to Stefan would be .... measure twice, saw once.

 

 

Wesley, thanks for your post, I think it is a very good one.I think the difference between me and the other posters is that I do see an abstraction for "I think hitting kids is good", It is discipline. Irrationality and barbarism is constantly inflicted and engraved in the minds of individuals to the point that many believe spanking is not hitting or violence. They see a difference between spanking and hitting a child the same way they see a difference between stealing directly and using the state to take someone else's property.I also think that once someone has been faced with the reality that spanking IS in fact using violent force and they continue to support it, then it is obvious they are not willing to use reason and thus a debate is impossible. I think being wrong is not the same as being irrational, and since the OP did have an argument, it would had been positive to see how he reacted to being faced with the fact that spanking is the use of violent force against a child.

I would like to highlight a few of the numerous occasions where the OP admitted spanking as evil and violent force and advocated it anyway, and then ask you to reassess your post.

[alexqr1]

I would like to highlight a few of the numerous occasions where the OP admitted spanking as evil and violent force and advocated it anyway, and then ask you to reassess your post.

I understand that in a vacuum, the sentences you highlighted would be a knockout punch to my position. However, instead of being in a vacuum, they are part of an argument. The argument (as I understand it) being:1. Spanking is evil2. Preventing a child from having a reference for evil and empathy is a greater evil3. Spanking is necessary to give children that reference4. If a parent wants to do what is best for a child, when presented with a situation when there are 2 alternatives which both imply evil, the parent should decide for the lesser of evils.

 

5. Therefore, parents should spank their children.

 

I can't state enough that I disagree with the argument, mainly because I don't buy the 3rd premise. But the argument is kinda like a minarchist saying that the state is a necessary evil, because anarchy is a greater evil than minarchy. The OP is not saying that evil is good, he is saying that spanking is the lesser of two evils.

[Wesley]

Thinking that doing evil has something to do with understanding empathy is where the logic breaks down and could only come from the victim of parents who committed terrible evil on their children while claiming to love them.

 

It is a complete projection of personal feelings about one's parents and has nothing to do with a logical argument.

 

It only has to do with justifying abuse by claiming it is a lesser evil than some arbitrary unnamed terrible evil out there.

 

What is true is that evil creates evil. That is the only way it works.

 

There is no amazing level of goodness and empathy and peace and voluntarism that you can show someone where is somehow becomes more evil than something that is actually evil.

 

The fact that you think this is a remotely sensible argument is very telling.

[Kevin Beal]

Alex,

 

If anything should be on the table to talk about in order to be considered consistent with philosophy, then that still doesn't why you would want to argue about this topic specifically: why you'd defend the defense of spanking.

 

Surely there are more important things to argue about, right? At some point it just becomes mental masturbation and I don't think anybody wants to nearby when that spunk goes flyin', haha. They might resent being your love doll :S

[alexqr1]

Thinking that doing evil has something to do with understanding empathy is where the logic breaks down and could only come from the victim of parents who committed terrible evil on their children while claiming to love them.It is a complete projection of personal feelings about one's parents and has nothing to do with a logical argument.It only has to do with justifying abuse by claiming it is a lesser evil than some arbitrary unnamed terrible evil out there.What is true is that evil creates evil. That is the only way it works.There is no amazing level of goodness and empathy and peace and voluntarism that you can show someone where is somehow becomes more evil than something that is actually evil.The fact that you think this is a remotely sensible argument is very telling.

At some point it just becomes mental masturbation and I don't think anybody wants to nearby when that spunk goes flyin', haha. They might resent being your love doll :S

The fact that you are willing to reduce your position to a straw man is very telling to me. (Wesley)I never said what I think a sensible argument is. In fact, I don't think the OP was close to having a sensible argument, but you fail to address my position. To me a sensible argument is a true and logical argument.Are we only going to address those who make sensible arguments? Now that is what I'd call mental masturbation… Mental MUTUAL masturbation if you will.Again, the argument in favor of the state is not a sensible one, and yet it is an argument worth debating and debunking. The OP had an argument and I posted it in my previous post. 

Alex,If anything should be on the table to talk about in order to be considered consistent with philosophy, then that still doesn't why you would want to argue about this topic specifically: why you'd defend the defense of spanking.Surely there are more important things to argue about, right?

Hey Kevin, glad you came back.I would not defend spanking, but I certainly defend the right of other people to defend their arguments whatever they are as long as they defend it in a rational conversation.Sure there are other important things to do, but please, do not misinterpret my position here. I think it is of most important for us to be open to debating anyone who is willing to engage in a rational debate, that is, who is willing to defend their position. When I first replied to the OP, I presented him with a counter argument to the 3rd proposition of my last post, I wanted to see what his response to that was.So there are other topics worth debating, and I am all for that too. But that does not keep me from engaging proponents of evil, for example the state or spanking.Now I'd like to know if you guys see the argument in the OP. I'm not asking if you agree with it, only if you see it. (see my last post and tell me if you agree that that is in fact an argument)

[Wesley]

No thanks, I think I am done.

[Kevin Beal]

I would not defend spanking, but I certainly defend the right of other people to defend their arguments whatever they are as long as they defend it in a rational conversation.Sure there are other important things to do, but please, do not misinterpret my position here.

I didn't misinterpret. I said "you'd defend the defense of spanking".

[MMX2010]

I would not defend spanking, but I certainly defend the right of other people to defend their arguments whatever they are as long as they defend it in a rational conversation.

 

 

Again, on what evidence do you assume that the OP was "willing to defend his argument in a rational conversation"? 

[alexqr1]

I didn't misinterpret. I said "you'd defend the defense of spanking".

Sorry, I think I was not precise. When I said "do not misinterpret my position" I was referring to your question about there being other important things to do. What I meant is I think this is an important conversation. If I did not think it was I would had stopped long ago. But my questions remain, should we only converse with those who agree completely or disagree in minor issues? Was there no argument in the OP?

Again, on what evidence do you assume that the OP was "willing to defend his argument in a rational conversation"?

Again, that is just a straw man. I never said I thought he was willing to defend his argument (which he had), I said I was hoping to find out.Someone presenting an invalid argument should be no reason to ban him. Someone not willing to use reason to defend it should. I don't know if he was willing to use reason. He presented and argument, some (including myself) objected to it and he was banned. We never found out if he had a reply to our objection.You see, it is one thing to initiate a thread with just insults and slander, it is another to do it with an invalid argument. And again, he DID have an argument in his OP, that is the part I was interested in.As much as I like chatting with most of you guys (And I do enjoy it) about issues on which we usually agree on or have minor differences, I value much more a debate with someone who disagrees with me. A debate is a beautiful thing, you never know what you can learn and you never know what you can teach.As much as I like chatting with most of you guys (And I do enjoy it) about issues on which we usually agree on or have minor differences, I value much more a debate with someone who disagrees with me. A debate is a beautiful thing, you never know what you can learn and you never know what you can teach.Also, I think it is very telling that I continue to get bad reputation for disagreeing even when we are having a civil and mostly amicable conversation. Not that I care about my reputation level, I think it is more important that people think that disagreeing is enough to put someone down. (sorry I'm not sure if that is the right phrase "put down" but I'm sure you know what I mean)Also, I think it is very telling that I continue to get bad reputation for disagreeing even when we are having a civil and mostly amicable conversation. Not that I care about my reputation level, I think it is more important that people think that disagreeing is enough to put someone down. (sorry I'm not sure if that is the right phrase "put down" but I'm sure you know what I mean)