algernon Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 There is an exchange between Desp and Sparefilms, starting at post #66 on this forum - http://forum.bulletproofexec.com/index.php?/topic/4058-peaceful-parenting-stefan-molyneux/page-4- regarding spanking equaling hitting. Sparefilms makes the argument that is equivocation and ambiguous, If you have a lot of time you could read the entire thread, it's very lengthy and some people make ridiculous arguments for the justification of hitting children, but I am more focusing on the aforementioned exchange. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 These things are easy. Just substitute child with spouse, and watch people get rightly appalled in unison. Only a spouse is there by choice, relatively equal in power, and is free to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algernon Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 The argument is made that it's not right to do it your spouse because they have free will, and you have to do it to a child because they need the guidance of the parent, which is to make sure they grow up to be a productive member of society, and spanking ensures that happens. Their brain is not fully developed so they cannot understand reason, but everything understands pain, that is why spanking needs to be used sometimes. It is just another tool in the tool box, it's not always needed but in some situations it's necessary. /barf I was more interested in the grammatical discussion regarding spanking equaling hitting, and the argument that it is equivocal to say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 The argument is made that it's not right to do it your spouse because they have free will, and you have to do it to a child because they need the guidance of the parent, which is to make sure they grow up to be a productive member of society How does problem solving by way of violence lead to being a productive member of society? See, this position begs the question of whether violence is the only way to achieve that goal. But the only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself. For the record, I understand you're playing devil's advocate. My efforts are to demonstrate how easy this is to see through when not starting from their position that violence is necessary, or else the fantasy they have of their parents/society is shattered. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algernon Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 How does problem solving by way of violence lead to being a productive member of society? See, this position begs the question of whether violence is the only way to achieve that goal. But the only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself. For the record, I understand you're playing devil's advocate. My efforts are to demonstrate how easy this is to see through when not starting from their position that violence is necessary, or else the fantasy they have of their parents/society is shattered. Trust me I see your point, before having kids (thankfully) I was pro spanking, because that is how I was raised. Through my learning and understanding of the state, that government equals the initiation of force I came to the obvious conclusion that was wrong and universally applied it. If I say it's wrong for a man in a costume to initiate force against me, how can I say it's right for a parent to initiate force against a child? The position begs the question, and most people will just go in a circle refusing to answer the question. Re: Violence being the only way to achieve the goal - "It worked for me, I turned out good", "another tool in the toolbox". And the circle continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 If the argument is that the child doesn't have the capacity for reason, then inflicting pain will not result in any learning experience. A being with no reason will experience the pain as torture unrelated to any causal events. It will not understand the pain as a punishment for a bad behavior, since it lacks reason. It will simply understand it as "ok now I am suffering and I have no idea why". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 If the argument is that the child doesn't have the capacity for reason, then inflicting pain will not result in any learning experience. A being with no reason will experience the pain as torture unrelated to any causal events. It will not understand the pain as a punishment for a bad behavior, since it lacks reason. It will simply understand it as "ok now I am suffering and I have no idea why". Also f this is true, iit should be okay to hit the mentally retarded or senile old people or dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts