15 Nov 12
stop, stop, STOP,STOP
I am losing respect for you guys!
New threads.
I volunteer to be arbiter in debates but maybe GF would do a better job.
(GF: Start thread if you wish to be arbiter)
TOPICS
1. Is Mild Spanking for children effective ?
2. Should the state legislate for parental discipline?
3. Is painless "swatting" a reality?
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59I am happy with this suggestion except for the concept of the arbiter. The main reason for this is that it won't work.
stop, stop, STOP,[b]STOP
I am losing respect for you guys!
New threads.
I volunteer to be arbiter in debates but maybe GF would do a better job.
(GF: Start thread if you wish to be arbiter)
TOPICS
1. Is Mild Spanking for children effective ?
2. Should the state legislate for parental discipline?
3. Is painless "swatting" a reality?[/b]
Do you think TOO is going to submit to me or googlefudge as an arbiter? And vice versa?
If you want to debate issues in an orderly and rational way, then depressing though it is, you are really on the wrong website.
Posting on RHP is like shopping in a discount clothing warehouse. You have to sift through a lot of ill-designed and shoddy cr*p to find something worthwhile.
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderOr celebrate the shoddy krapp with gleeful hipster irony.
I am happy with this suggestion except for the concept of the arbiter. The main reason for this is that it won't work.
Do you think TOO is going to submit to me or googlefudge as an arbiter? And vice versa?
If you want to debate issues in an orderly and rational way, then depressing though it is, you are really on the wrong website.
Posting ...[text shortened]... . You have to sift through a lot of ill-designed and shoddy cr*p to find something worthwhile.
15 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf you engage this ToO guy for much longer he might hit you with the ego defence mechanisms smack-down! 😲
What blatant hypocrisy???
And that rather short post contained little 'rant' and it wasn't about 'how I perceive you'.
I was categorising your arguments. (as being bad/non-existent)
You are making a claim (that it is never in any circumstances ok to hit a child).
I want you to present arguments/evidence to justify that claim.
I don't think y you need to look in the mirror.
Atm your arguing style looks like Robbies...
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=137556&page=1
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSorry to break it to you, but you're the one acting like RC
You're "playing the victim" even now.
[b]What blatant hypocrisy???
You don't see the hypocrisy in what I pointed out earlier? Seriously?
Here it is once again. The inner quote box contains YOUR words from YOUR little rant.
[quote]It seems like I should point out one example. Perhaps you can explain how the following is sensible.
[quot ...[text shortened]... ntly obvious when it comes to his actions.
You really need to get a grip, bub.[/b]
ahhh imitation , the highest form of flattery, it shall not be long before i reach the zenith
of cult hero status and googly fudge shall be offering up incense to me, rather than
Darwin and Dawkins!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by wolfgang59As I said I have no problem with another thread.
stop, stop, STOP,[b]STOP
I am losing respect for you guys!
New threads.
I volunteer to be arbiter in debates but maybe GF would do a better job.
(GF: Start thread if you wish to be arbiter)
TOPICS
1. Is Mild Spanking for children effective ?
2. Should the state legislate for parental discipline?
3. Is painless "swatting" a reality?[/b]
However I couldn't moderate it even if I wanted to.
I am/would be one of the debaters.
And I can't really moderate a debate I am in.
15 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou might have lost interest in this thread but here is my response anyway...
So you have answered in the negative, meaning, I gather, that by the action's being "performed ... to cause physical pain to some creature" you mean that some entity S does something that happens to bring about physical pain to another creature but through no actual intentionality to do so on the part of the S.
But now you it seems you are claiming t discussion about the permissibility of humans engaging in corporal punishment.
Ok, my phraseology might require a bit of work (or explaining). If I think that I "want" (or "desire" ), say, food (as I would assert many other non-human creatures would have reason to think) then this thing which is unpleasant to me (hunger), I reason quite primitively can be resolved by eating food (I remember I have eaten food in the past and doing this stopped me from feeling hungry). So for a creature X to "desire" something A in this context means little more than X perceiving that A is better than something else B - I don't think there is any requirement for sophisticated thought on the part of X here. Indeed many dogs, tigers, spiders, etc... if hungry would see that finding and eating food is preferable than, say, chasing their tail, sleeping, not constructing a web, etc... (respectively)
To put it another way, how do I account for them making steps towards solving the "is hungry" problem without saying something like "they wanted food"?
As for "choosing", if we pick on dogs for example, then for the set of all things a dog is capable of doing at a given time it makes a particular selection which I call a choice. In some cases these choices may be forced
actually as a determinist I would say that considering all variables then all our choices are forced - but that\'s another argument
, in others they might not be forced (loosely speaking); again I don't really require any sophisticated thought processes on the part of dogs to say that they choose things.
Also, I'm not so sure the cognition you say S should have is really necessary, many of the choices and strategies they follow to action them are instinctive or taught (via repetition); moreover, for all creatures that did not make such "choices" further back in the ancestry of a species they will have died out before spawning a new ceneration.
I am not aware of any commonly used definitions of CP that have morality built into them (as opposed to corollaries when we consider CP with the definitions of other concepts) perhaps you can educate me here. My claim that CP is prevalent in the animal kingdom is perhaps a claim I'll have to stand down on (though I would never make the claim animals would practice such based on any moral considerations). As for paring down definitions I often try to follow the principle of least interpretation when looking at some definition D. A typical definition of corporal punishment:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/corporal%2Bpunishment
defines it to be Physical punishment, such as caning or flogging.
This I read as anything that lies within some set of (not necessarily all) physical things one creature A may do to another creature B in response to B behaving in a manner which is counter to what A requires or "desires". Punishment & physical implies painful and a couple of examples are offered to justify that inference.
I don't see any moralistic notions here (and elsewhere) and so I don't include them in my own definition.
15 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Build it and they will come!
At least you state your position clearly!
I think this whole debate has got out of hand and shows the danger of debate by post. The time delays dont help either; I log on to find pages and pages of posts, which if I dont read in detail I risk forum ridicule!
I'd like to discuss this single point.
"greater good of causing small and transient pain i tion I agreed with 20 years ago so have some sympathy with.
Can we take it to a new thread?
(and if the doors of such are too small to allow comfortable passageway for certain people (mentioning no names) with massively inflated egos then perhaps many will eventually come)
On another matter I don't think it is only I that has stated my position clearly, it's just that my position is not as difficult to mould into your notion of what you should be arguing against. When I read what bbarr, rank outsider, googlefudge etc... have to say I understand them quite clearly (and recognise they wouldn't agree with me)
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI disagree.
[/i]C'mon. Read bbarr's initial posts. They weren't much different than yours except that he asserted that he was capable of determining whether or not a 2 year old, in fact, experienced pain. Of course, what he interprets as "shock" or "surprise" might very well be the "shock" or "surprise" of feeling "pain". It wasn't until later that he effectively bui ...[text shortened]... /quote]
It was just a cheap device to try to obfuscate the facts.
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by AgergFor those who bothered to look at the link, be sure to look at my response on page 2. Nuff said.
If you engage this ToO guy for much longer he might hit you with the ego defence mechanisms smack-down! 😲
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=137556&page=1
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeI gather that you're fully committed to the RC playbook and will refuse to admit your hypocrisy which can only be characterized as "blatant".
As I said I have no problem with another thread.
However I couldn't moderate it even if I wanted to.
I am/would be one of the debaters.
And I can't really moderate a debate I am in.