Physically discipling children

Originally posted by googlefudge
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. 😉

are you sure you ave the right guy? i don't recall being accused of the naturalistic fallacy by you, although it is comforting to know that it does exist.

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.

It's also an assault upon another person which is something we generally
try to discourage.


My position is that I am opposed to any form of corporal punishment.

You shouldn't punish children with violence.


However, I do think that there are occasions where very small children can
loose it and need a short sharp shock to bring them back to reality and make
them start paying attention again. But this should be a very last resort, very
infrequently used, and never as punishment.

I oppose any law that would make such actions illegal.

However I am totally for a [well drafted] law that makes beating children as
punishment illegal.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I am saying that calling something 'natural' doesn't make it OK, nor does observing similar behavior in other animals.

And why the emphasis on MILD physical discipline? Severe physical discipline also exists amoungst animals.

I didn't either, and for the record rape is extremely rare amongst the mammals, excluding man of course. In fact amongst the mammals (excluding man) it is nearly always the females who are the boss. I place emphasis on the word mild because in evolutionary terms humans to a very large extent are protected from the consequences of their actions, and excessive force can go unpunished.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are you sure you ave the right guy? i don't recall being accused of the naturalistic fallacy by you, although it is comforting to know that it does exist.

Go look up just about every discussion [and I don't want to re-hash any of
them here right now] we have had about gay marriage and/or homosexuality.

You will find it there.

....

Actually, I was wrong, it's not the naturalistic fallacy, it's the appeal to nature fallacy.

Sorry, my mistake, I keep mixing those two up.

I really should have those down by now.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's also an assault upon another person which is something we generally
try to discourage.


My position is that I am opposed to any form of corporal [b]punishment.

You shouldn't punish children with violence.


However, I do think that there are occasions where very small children can
loose it and need a short sharp shock to bri ...[text shortened]... wever I am totally for a [well drafted] law that makes beating children as
punishment illegal.[/b]

I agree with your views and would add that it is a practice that should be phased out fairly quickly.

I could not see the current politicians in my country being able to to make legislation here that would recognize these finer points.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lame, soooo lame even for a scourgy windbag like you. What I have actually said and lets be clear about this so that your perverted little mind cannot distort the facts...[text shortened]... Again why you have trouble understanding this I cannot say and what is worse, i don't really care if I am, honest.

The fact that other factors may also have a bearing on the phenomenon does not mean that their study has not established a link.

Originally posted by FMF
The fact that other factors may also have a bearing on the phenomenon does not mean that their study has not established a link.

In fact, the report (it is searchable by control-f and the word control) says, numerous times, that the various other factors mentioned were 'controlled for' in the studies. I'm not sure everyone here knows what that means.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/01/12/what-does-it-mean-to-control-for-something/

or

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/a-tribute-to-regression-analysis

Originally posted by googlefudge
RC is correct, [hidden] [and you have no idea how much I hate saying that] [/hidden] 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].

EDIT: my mistake. appeal to nature fallacy.

I think morals and ethics arise as societal survival strategies, and are themselves a result of natural selection. A lower animal forerunner could be the pack dynamics of wolves or the social structure of chimps for example.

Originally posted by JS357
In fact, the report (it is searchable by control-f and the word control) says, numerous times, that the various other factors mentioned were 'controlled for' in the studies. I'm not sure everyone here knows what that means.

I think robbie doesn't want the study to be seen as providing valid evidence for his own ideological reasons and "already after the first few paragraphs" ~ before having read it ~ he was dismissing it. He went on to say "...happy couples don't engage in abuse and to link this to corporal punishment in childhood i find not a little incredulous, unless of course we are willing to say that being subject to corporal punishment causes someone to behave in a particular way". Which is like saying 'this study which provides evidence that X = Y is wrong because I personally don't think X = Y'.

Originally posted by OdBod
I didn't either,

Then what was your point, if any?

..and for the record rape is extremely rare amongst the mammals, excluding man of course.
Does that matter?

In fact amongst the mammals (excluding man) it is nearly always the females who are the boss. I place emphasis on the word mild because in evolutionary terms humans to a very large extent are protected from the consequences of their actions, and excessive force can go unpunished.
I don't understand. Please explain that again.

Abusing children is bad, m'kay. It's interesting that there are many places in the world where beating an adult or your dog is illegal, but beating a child is A-OK.

Originally posted by josephw
Corporal punishment should be administered with common sense and love.

🙄

That would mean not at all in any circumstance

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Abusing children is bad, m'kay. It's interesting that there are many places in the world where beating an adult or your dog is illegal, but beating a child is A-OK.

First of all you will need to demonstrate why its abusive, secondly you will need to say what relevance beating a dog has to administering corporal punishment. that one is legal and the other illegal? How doe that explain anything? Is it simply an attempt to put it in some kind of context?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
🙄

That would mean [b]not at all in any circumstance[/b]

what is appropriate for three boys who set the schoolteachers 'tails', on fire as he took rest?

Originally posted by JS357
In fact, the report (it is searchable by control-f and the word control) says, numerous times, that the various other factors mentioned were 'controlled for' in the studies. I'm not sure everyone here knows what that means.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/01/12/what-does-it-mean-to-control-for-something/

or

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/a-tribute-to-regression-analysis

controlled? who can control economics?