Originally posted by Rank outsiderYou've got to be messing with me.
Let me use one of your techniques and answer a question with a question.
If it is so clear that infrequent child swatting is harmful, why have the many organisations who support an outright ban never been able to provide any evidence this is the case? Many are extremely well resourced and motivated to do so.
Many supporters of an outright ban ar me thing as saying every instance of child swattting is harmful and the APA has not said it is.
What about "mild infrequent" sexual stimulation of infants?
So far as I know, organizations that support an outright ban on the sexual abuse of children have "never been able to provide any evidence" that the above is harmful even though they are "well resourced and motivated to do so".
Do you similarly draw the following conclusion?
"Many supporters of an outright ban are motivated by the fear that, if they give any ground, or send out a mixed message, parents will use this as a justification for more abusive behaviour. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile, as it were."
As for me, I'm strongly opposed to the sexual abuse of children in any and all forms for any and all reasons whether or not such evidence has been provided.
I've provided plenty of evidence that there are alternatives to the striking of children that are both effective and best for the well-being of children in the short and long term. You've chosen to dismiss it in an effort to continue to wrongheadedly advocate for the "rights" of parents to strike defenseless children. And in your effort to do so, you've made some of the most ridiculous claims that I've come across.
I know it's an extreme example, but hopefully the light will go on for you.
14 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOk if that is the level your argument has got too, I think we should draw the discussion to a close.
You've got to be messing with me.
What about "mild infrequent" sexual stimulation of infants?
So far as I know, organizations that support an outright ban on the sexual abuse of children have "never been able to provide any evidence" that the above is harmful even though they are "well resourced and motivated to do so".
Do you similarly draw th
I know it's an extreme example, but hopefully the light will go on for you.
I have seen evidence which suggests very strongly that child swatting as defined is not harmful.
You have provided none that it is harmful.
I therefore remain open to persuasion and don't rush to judgment.
You are the opposite.
There is nothing more to be said.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderYou try to pretend that you're "open to persuasion", but the content of your posts - with all the misrepresentations, ad homs, straw men, false and often preposterous assertions, etc. - betray you.
Ok if that is the level your argument has got too, I think we should draw the discussion to a close.
I have seen evidence which suggests very strongly that child swatting as defined is not harmful.
You have provided none that it is harmful.
I therefore remain open to persuasion and don't rush to judgment.
You are the opposite.
There is nothing more to be said.
The fact remains that you have no answer for the following:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason."
The fact remains that you have no answer for the evidence that shows that striking a child to change behavior is never necessary and can have harmful effects both for the child and the relationship between the child and parent. The evidence that shows that there are alternatives that are as, if not more, effective and also serve to strengthen the child/parent relationship.
Also I can only surmise that you understood the point of my example.
14 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne😴
You try to pretend that you're "open to persuasion", but the content of your posts - with all the misrepresentations, ad homs, straw men, false and often preposterous assertions, etc. - betray you.
The fact remains that you have no answer for the following:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason."
I ca ...[text shortened]... surmise that you understood the point of my example and chose to exit rather than admit it.
Reading ToO's arguments' (and recalling the farce he made of debating with me
i.e. dodging all my arguments
that lying is ALWAYS wrong (no exceptions) some time back) it is clear to see that he is irreparably tied to a black and white world.
All hail ThinkOfOne...the most wise and benevolent king of pointland :]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYeah but in this case it's fitting.
And so you choose to close it with the emoticon that so often serves as the last refuge for those who have no answers.
You have not met your burden of proof or debated reasonably or rationally.
You have gone down an emotional rabbit hole and are if not beyond reason, certainly acting like it.
You have done nothing to further your cause. Only harm it.
If you really care about this then (as I have said several times) you need to stop insulting your
opponents and actually summon up some logically sound rational arguments and evidence that
actually support your position and present that to us.
You have not done so.
At this point you are simply ranting.
You have lost the argument, if you want to change this, go away and think of a good coherent argument
and find some decent evidence to back it up.
You may or may not be right.
But insulting everyone who disagrees with you and failing to engage in reasoned debate makes you look weak,
it makes you look wrong, it makes you look like a creationist.
You have gone down in my estimation because of this thread, not because I think you are necessarily wrong, but
because you have used emotional blackmail and insults instead of reasoned arguments.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Nov 12
Originally posted by AgergOh, lying is clearly beneficial in certain circumstances...
Reading ToO's arguments' (and recalling the farce he made of debating with me[hidden]i.e. dodging all my arguments[/hidden]that lying is [b]ALWAYS wrong (no exceptions) some time back) it is clear to see that he is irreparably tied to a black and white world.
All hail ThinkOfOne...the most wise and benevolent king of pointland :][/b]
I generally subscribe to consequentialism, so it's the results of your actions (and what the
reasonably foreseeable results and consequences are) that determine morality.
From there it's fairly trivial to construct situations in which lying is the morally good, or morally
neutral option.
The obvious "lying to the SS about having Jew's in your attic" example springs immediately to mind.
14 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeJust curious, who do you believe is not being "reasonable" in the following exchange? How so?
Yeah but in this case it's fitting.
You have not met your burden of proof or debated reasonably or rationally.
You have gone down an emotional rabbit hole and are if not beyond reason, certainly acting like it.
You have done nothing to further your cause. Only harm it.
If you really care about this then (as I have said several times) you ne ...[text shortened]... ong, but
because you have used emotional blackmail and insults instead of reasoned arguments.
[quote]RO: "And if you recall I entered the debate with the statement:
I might use the type of smack you are suggesting where the situation related to something which might otherwise result in severe danger to the child. E.g. the child runs out into the road despite your constant warnings on the matter.
This, as far as I am concerned, has nothing to do with discipline. I would not use the smack to say 'if you run out in the road, you need to learn that you will be smacked'. I mean 'you have to stop that now and I can't risk you not obeying'."
ToO: "Do you seriously believe that even the parent who takes a strap or even his fists to his child believes he is saying the former rather than later? No matter how a parent thinks of it, i.e., rationalizes it, the child is being punished in order to gain compliance."
RO: "Why do I care how other parents rationalise their behaviour?"
ToO: The point was that I can't imagine any parent no matter how abusive "us[ing] the smack to say 'if you run out in the road, you need to learn that you will be smacked'". He's going to use a rationalization just as YOU did. Neither of you is in the right.
14 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeIs the following your idea of "reason"?
Yeah but in this case it's fitting.
You have not met your burden of proof or debated reasonably or rationally.
You have gone down an emotional rabbit hole and are if not beyond reason, certainly acting like it.
You have done nothing to further your cause. Only harm it.
If you really care about this then (as I have said several times) you ne ...[text shortened]... ong, but
because you have used emotional blackmail and insults instead of reasoned arguments.
Googlefudge:
What I cannot condone in any way shape or form is the use of corporal Punishment where
you beat the child (use a cane, a belt, a slipper, whatever) for 'being naughty' as a punishment.
A quick smack to bring a kid back to reality before telling them off or sending them to their room or
whatever is fine.
Using violence AS a punishment.... Very not fine.