In defense of spanking children ...

[MMX2010]

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. 

Doesn't the original post contain both an invalid argument and insults / slander?

[alexqr1]

Doesn't the original post contain both an invalid argument and insults / slander?

That question is not really relevant to what you quoted, I hope that is just a mistake on your part and not a disingenuous statement. Let me explain, Here is what you quoted“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.”To make it clearer lets substitute insults with blue candy and arguments with green candy.So we would have something like this:“You see, it is one thing for someone to bring JUST blue candy, it is another to bring green candy. And again, he did bring green candy, which is the candy I was interested in”Would you think that this answer would make sense:“Did he not bring both blue and green candy?”That question does not follow, a short reply would be: YesA longer reply would be: Yes, so what about it? The green candy is the one I was interested in.

In either case, the question does not advance the conversation.I’ve tried to say this before many times in this thread: when there is a message accompanied by noise, and the message is an invalid argument that is of paramount importance to debunk, one like spanking. And the noise is in form of insults, then I am a lot more interested in addressing the argument in order to dismantle it than I am in the insults. The issue is too important for me to focus on the noise.

[MMX2010]

Would you think that this answer would make sense:“Did he not bring both blue and green candy?”That question does not follow, a short reply would be: YesA longer reply would be: Yes, so what about it? The green candy is the one I was interested in.

In either case, the question does not advance the conversation.I’ve tried to say this before many times in this thread: when there is a message accompanied by noise, and the message is an invalid argument that is of paramount importance to debunk, one like spanking. And the noise is in form of insults, then I am a lot more interested in addressing the argument in order to dismantle it than I am in the insults. The issue is too important for me to focus on the noise.

 

In fairness, you didn't merely say, "I, personally, am merely interested in the green candy."  You, instead, implied that the entire forum was wrong / bad for focusing on the fact that the poster brought blue candy. 

[alexqr1]

In fairness, you didn't merely say, "I, personally, am merely interested in the green candy."  You, instead, implied that the entire forum was wrong / bad for focusing on the fact that the poster brought blue candy. 

 

I'm sorry if that is how I came across, I've never meant to say that people have an obligation to talk to someone else. I'm not sure how I implied that but that is certainly not what I meant.

 

My point is that IF people want to advance unpopular ideas like the ones we tend to hold, then they OUGHT to engage those with opposite points of view even (and especially) when those points of view are based on invalid arguments and even (and especially) when those arguments are regarding important issues, like spanking.

 

In the example above though, I did say that it is I who was interested in the green candy, not that it is wrong not to be interested in the green candy.

[JamesP]

If you think that the author of the OP was banned for making an invalid argument, then you don't get it.

 

The OP was full of condescension, completely lacked empathy, and was intentionally triggering. He made several choices prior to his post, all of which are indicated against in the forum guidelines. He clearly did not research the topic prior to posting. He implied that Stef ought to be spanking his daughter.

 

How much unprocessed aggression do you think this person has that he would actually advocate somebody else assault their child for his own abstract theory?

 

That is statism in its rawest brutish form.

 

I would ask you why you feel the need to defend against this fellow being removed from the conversation. I would not have a person like that in my house at a dinner party. I would ask him to leave and push him out the door if he refused.

[MMX2010]

 

My point is that IF people want to advance unpopular ideas like the ones we tend to hold, then they OUGHT to engage those with opposite points of view even (and especially) when those points of view are based on invalid arguments and even (and especially) when those arguments are regarding important issues, like spanking.

 

In the example above though, I did say that it is I who was interested in the green candy, not that it is wrong not to be interested in the green candy.

I don't think it's possible to simultaneously tell people what they ought to do and claim that you're not saying they're wrong / bad for not doing it, especially while discussing a morally sensitive issue like spanking. 

[alexqr1]

OK guys I'm done with this thread, I don't think it is going anywhere. You think I don't get it and I think you don't get it but you are not willing to address my arguments.

[EscapingProgress]

 

You can't put a child in a 'philosophical-psychological (and dare I say, experimental) bubble' and expect that child to be anything like normal.

 

 

You assume that this is a bad thing, but I do not see it that way. Currently, to be normal is to be insane.

[MysterionMuffles]

 

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.

 

That's basically what I said.