Originally posted by robbie carrobie I think there is a rationale but understanding what it is and what its based on is not easy. It seems to be that there are a few arguments and if we cut away the flesh and get to the bone we are left with,
1. That corporal punishment leads to other forms of physical abuse.
2. That corporal punishment teaches that violence is a solution.
There may be others but this is what i have understood so far.
Well, to get to the 'bone' of the matter, if we didn't live in a sin cursed world there wouldn't be any need for any kind of punishment at all.
The Bible is clear. Proverbs 22:15
Foolishness [is] bound in the heart of a child; [but] the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Notice it says "rod of correction" not rod of abuse. I've seen that form of discipline abused. I would no more strike my son with a rod than I would lash him with a whip. Corporal punishment should be administered with common sense and love. Never in anger.
Originally posted by josephw Well, to get to the 'bone' of the matter, if we didn't live in a sin cursed world there wouldn't be any need for any kind of punishment at all.
The Bible is clear. Proverbs 22:15
Foolishness [is] bound in the heart of a child; [but] the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Notice it says "rod of correction" not rod of abuse. I've seen that ...[text shortened]... h a whip. Corporal punishment should be administered with common sense and love. Never in anger.
yes but no one is disputes that the Bible makes for the provision of corporal punishment. I am trying to understand why it has been deemed illegal. What are the reasons for making it illegal.
Originally posted by OdBod I think MILD physical discipling of offspring may be natural, look to the animal kingdom, specifically mammals of which we are a part.
Originally posted by OdBod I'm not sure what you mean by your post? Are you equating rape to MILD physical discipline?
The 'look at the animal kingdom', argument is bordering on a fallacy - why ? because there are many aspects of animal behaviour that if practised by humans would have devastating consequences. There should be an animal equating to human behaviour logical fallacy category.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie The 'look at the animal kingdom', argument is bordering on a fallacy - why ? because there are many aspects of animal behaviour that if practised by humans would have devastating consequences. There should be an animal equating to human behaviour logical fallacy category.
I disagree totally, we are part of the animal kingdom, and our behaviours are sophisticated versions of more primitive forms.
Originally posted by OdBod I disagree totally, we are part of the animal kingdom, and our behaviours are sophisticated versions of more primitive forms.
then may i suggest you attempt cannibalism and infanticide, let me know how you get on.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie The 'look at the animal kingdom', argument is bordering on a fallacy - why ? because there are many aspects of animal behaviour that if practised by humans would have devastating consequences. There should be an animal equating to human behaviour logical fallacy category.
It's actually more than bordering on a fallacy, it IS a fallacy...
The Naturalistic Fallacy in point of fact.
You ought to know this given the number of times you have been accused
[often by me] of committing it. 😉
Originally posted by OdBod I disagree totally, we are part of the animal kingdom, and our behaviours are sophisticated versions of more primitive forms.
[and you have no idea how much I hate saying that]
the fact that a behaviour is found in the animal kingdom and/or has
been selected for by evolution is not in any way evidence or reason that it is morally
or ethically good, by any standards.
To claim otherwise is to commit the naturalistic fallacy [among other flaws].