NigelW Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 Definitions: Child abuse is the physical, sexual or emotional maltreatment or neglect of a child or children. Peaceful parenting is not child abuse, therefore if the adult abuses a child they are not a peaceful parent. I am willing to accept the definition of “will” being measured by what one does and compared to the same action not taken. If someone crosses the road, they have the will to cross the road compared to someone who does not cross the road. Someone who does not cross the road does not have the will to cross the road, compared to someone who does cross the road. Strength is defined: able to withstand great force or pressure. Weak is defined: liable to break or give way under pressure. Arguments: 1) Someone who is willfully strong does what requires great force or pressure. Someone who is willfully weak breaks or gives way under pressure (does not necessarily mean that the resulting action is abuse). 2) Someone who abuses a child has the will to do so, compared to a peaceful parent. Someone who peacefully parents, does not have the will to abuse a child compared someone who does abuse a child. 3) It would seem that peaceful parents, with these definitions, are weak-willed compared to abusive parents. Abusive parents are stronger-willed than peaceful parents in child abuse. Which is a good thing, why would you want to be good at evil? 4) Someone who responds to the argument that "child abuse is evil" by no longer abusing children is stronger-willed than someone who continues to abuse children.
dsayers Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 3) It would seem that peaceful parents, with these definitions, are weak-willed compared to abusive parents. Abusive parents are stronger-willed than peaceful parents in child abuse. These two sentences are not saying the same thing. One has the qualifier of "in child abuse" while the other does not. This is important because in the absolute, the first sentence is false whereas it would be true within the context of "in child abuse." As an aside, it is unclear as to what the value in determining somebody's will is. With regards to ANY human behavior that directly impacts another person, the paramount consideration is morality as immoral actions are internally inconsistent.
NigelW Posted October 4, 2014 Author Posted October 4, 2014 These two sentences are not saying the same thing. One has the qualifier of "in child abuse" while the other does not. This is important because in the absolute, the first sentence is false whereas it would be true within the context of "in child abuse." As an aside, it is unclear as to what the value in determining somebody's will is. With regards to ANY human behavior that directly impacts another person, the paramount consideration is morality as immoral actions are internally inconsistent. An oversight, yes. I meant to say child abuse in both sentences. I recognize the value in defining moral and immoral actions but I am not talking about morality. The value in determining will comes from the fact that some people say one thing and do another. Defining "will" or chosen behavior as what someone does or doesn't do is valuable in determining their level of integrity. I cannot validly assign responsibility if I do not know the will of someone. If I derive someone's will from what they do and not what they say, I can avoid people who have little or no integrity. "You caused us to spank you as a child." This is attributing the will to the child. "We chose to spank you as a child." Attributing will or chosen behavior to the parents identifies them as the cause of their own actions. By attributing will I mean validly identifying the cause of an action.
Triangle Posted October 6, 2014 Posted October 6, 2014 So by those definitions, someone who is addicted to alcohol or World of Warcraft is very strong-willed. Someone who quits an addiction used to be strong-willed but then became weak-willed. Alternatively you could say that the act of quitting a strong addiction is an exhibition of strong will but if a negative can be strong will then everyone is strong-willed because everyone really, really doesn't want to do a great many things (i.e. there are a great many things you can fit down your throat that aren't food, there are a great many places that are far enough from your current position to make them not worth arriving at ever, etc). I don't understand the purpose of your definitions because they say basically the same things as "a person has or has had the intention of doing something" or "a person isn't suffering from learned helplessness". "You caused us to spank you as a child." This is attributing the will to the child. I think of that more as declining to take responsibility. My parents used to do that. Made their lectures on responsibility ironic.
NigelW Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 Addicted is not an action and I do not know if I can define quitting. Perhaps if someone stops playing basketball, they can say that they have quit playing. In the definition I did say "action". I think of that more as declining to take responsibility. My parents used to do that. Made their lectures on responsibility ironic. Well I don't know what your childhood was like, but I took the burden as my own.... which we don't have to get into right now.
cynicist Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Is this like a word game? I could easily reverse it and say that peaceful parents are strong for resisting the pressure of conforming to their past trauma and abusive parents are weak for giving in. 1
NigelW Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 I don't even know why I bothered to post this.
Recommended Posts