06 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt really is of no interest to me if you want to try these cheap and transparent tactics. Do you have answers to the questions raised, or will you simply continue to deflect when you are asked questions which go the heart of the issue being discussed?
Let's see, first you accused me of asking "questions which are not relevant to the point which was being discussed" as a prelude to you doing just that.
Now it seems that you've taken it upon yourself to answer those questions for me. And it seems you took the further step of drawing conclusions based on those answers and making misrepresentations of m ...[text shortened]...
Why don't you look in on my discussion with LJ? I'm thinking you'll benefit from it.
06 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAt this point I would have two comments and one question.
Actually, I was thinking a different approach is called for. From what I can tell, you've approached the text from a perspective which has lead you to a very different understanding of the pasted text than what I believe was intended by the author. I'm thinking that it would be better to give you a different perspective to consider - which is the 'bit of is seems like a good place to allow you to comment and question.
Comment 1: You say you have no reason to believe that it was not the intention of the author to mean 'violence' as "swift and intense force". But, on the contrary, you have plenty of reason to believe that this was not the intention of the author. The phrase "swift and intense force" makes no implication of intentionality, so on this reading hurricane winds and such things are "violent". Whereas, in your article, they are specifically talking about "violence" as it relates to agents and intentional creatures. It should really go without saying here that 'violence' in this context specifically relates to intentionality (for instance, the intention to cause harm, the intention to cause pain, etc, these are exactly the sorts of things at issue with this sense of the term violent). Relatedly, since your article basically seems to equivocate between violent and corporal, and between non-violent and non-corporal, the intention of the author as it relates to the term 'violent' could surely be illuminated if you would simply state how your article defines 'corporal punishment', which is precisely what I already asked for and precisely what you failed to provide.
Comment 2: You say you have no reason to believe it was not the intention of the author to mean 'spanking' as something you quote that happens to not include explicitly the intention to bring about pain. But, on the contrary, I would think you have reasons to believe that this was not the intention of the author. That's because, again, 'corporal punishment' is commonly defined to include the intention to bring about pain, and your author is clearly using spanking as a paradigmatic example of corporal punishment. Further, your author uses spanking as a paradigmatic example of a 'violent' method. If there's not even the intention to cause pain (let alone harm or physical injury), then why would there be much reason to consider it 'violent'? But, directly to the point here, the author is clearly using spanking as a paradigmatic example of corporal punishment. So, obviously, the intention of the author as to the term 'spanking' could surely be illuminated if you would simply state how your article defines 'corporal punishment', which is precisely what I already asked for and precisely what you failed to provide.
Question 1: How does the reference from which you pasted your excerpts explicitly define 'corporal punishment'?
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderLet me see if I understand this.
It really is of no interest to me if you want to try these cheap and transparent tactics. Do you have answers to the questions raised, or will you simply continue to deflect when you are asked questions which go the heart of the issue being discussed?
First you accused me of asking "questions which are not relevant to the point which was being discussed" as a prelude to you doing just that.
Then you took it upon yourself to answer those questions for me. After that you took the further step of drawing conclusions based on those answers (yours) and making misrepresentations of my position to boot.
Now you're accusing ME of "cheap and transparent tactics"?
In your last few posts, YOU've pulled about every "cheap and transparent tactic" in the book.
Seriously?
Once again, why don't you look in on my discussion with LJ? I'm thinking you'll benefit from it.
06 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI have also being doing a bit of research on Mr Murray Strauss, whose work you cite. I thought other posters might be interested to note that one definition he does provide of Corporal Punishment includes spanking, slapping, grabbing a child, shoving them over, hitting them with a hairbrush, belt or paddle. Elsewhere, he also includes hitting a child with an implement in the term spanking specifically.
Let's see, first you accused me of asking "questions which are not relevant to the point which was being discussed" as a prelude to you doing just that.
Now it seems that you've taken it upon yourself to answer those questions for me. And it seems you took the further step of drawing conclusions based on those answers and making misrepresentations of m ...[text shortened]...
Why don't you look in on my discussion with LJ? I'm thinking you'll benefit from it.
So, no, the term swatting is not a euphemism for these activities. His studies encompass a wide range of activity which every poster on this thread would abhor.
Another clue might be that one of his more famous works is called 'Beating the devil out of them' which might have given you a clue as to the level of violence which is the focus of his studies.
06 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI am watching your debate with LJ. Are you going to ignore his questions as well? I now know why you don't want to go there, but I am always interested to see how you will deflect this.
Let me see if I understand this.
First you accused me of asking "questions which are not relevant to the point which was being discussed" as a prelude to you doing just that.
Then you took it upon yourself to answer those questions for me. After that you took the further step of drawing conclusions based on those answers (yours) and making misrepre why don't you look in on my discussion with LJ? I'm thinking you'll benefit from it.
06 Nov 12
And finally, one of Murray Strauss' articles was reproduced in an journal with another arguing that it was important to grade the level of violence before reaching conclusions of the effectiveness of each type of corporal punishment.
It said that evidence, though patchy, supported the view that mild and infrequent slaps to the bottom on young children could have a beneficial effect and was certainly not harmful. However, I dont think these conclusions are necessarily contradictory, as Murray Strauss looks at corporal punishment in a much wider sense.
But it was interesting to come across an article making the exact point other posters have been making and which ThinkOfOne continues to ignore.
06 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloEvidently I needed to "set the table" better than I did. I'm trying to explain the "big picture" here as I see it. Can you possibly wait before zeroing in on comments and questions regarding portions of the picture that have yet to be painted such a the definition of CP, how CP relates to what I've painted, etc.? Unless you can wait, seems like you'll continually project YOUR picture onto mine which naturally won't jibe. The fact that they don't jibe is the reason for this discussion in the first place. I hope this makes sense and it's something you're willing to do.
At this point I would have two comments and one question.
[b]Comment 1: You say you have no reason to believe that it was not the intention of the author to mean 'violence' as "swift and intense force". But, on the contrary, you have plenty of reason to believe that this was not the intention of the author. The phrase "swift and intense force" ma ou pasted your excerpts explicitly define 'corporal punishment'?[/b]
If you agree, I'll try to address the portions of your post that don't involve the projection of your picture in my next post. Or you can rephrase if you like.
06 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo your post attempts to interpret two terms, and that is part of the big picture. He asks you to define one which is even more relevant, and you waffle on about him projecting his picture, whatever that means.
Evidently I needed to "set the table" better than I did. I'm trying to explain the "big picture" here as [b]I see it. Can you possibly wait before zeroing in on comments and questions regarding portions of the picture that have yet to be painted such a the definition of CP, how CP relates to what I've painted, etc.? Unless you can wait, seems like you ve the projection of your picture in my next post. Or you can rephrase if you like.[/b]
LJ is indeed correct that Murray Strauss does often use spanking and corporal punishment interchangeably. I personally think that is quite lazy and likely to mislead, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
So you can't start commenting on the word spanking until you have recognised that this is being used as short-hand for corporal punishment more generally, and violent forms at that. Which means you have to define corporal punishment.
Using a narrower definition of spanking from an unconnected source, rather than that provided by the author himself, just shows the level of analysis and thought you have given this.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe trouble you are in is not because you object to CP.
Evidently I needed to "set the table" better than I did. I'm trying to explain the "big picture" here as [b]I see it. Can you possibly wait before zeroing in on comments and questions regarding portions of the picture that have yet to be painted such a the definition of CP, how CP relates to what I've painted, etc.? Unless you can wait, seems like you ...[text shortened]... ve the projection of your picture in my next post. Or you can rephrase if you like.[/b]
It's because you turned up saying how 'ignorant' and 'wrong-headed' everyone was for not
agreeing with your stance which you have not yet in any way justified or backed up with
evidence.
The evidence you have supplied doesn't cover what we were discussing before you arrived.
Unless you can (and in fairly short order at this point) actually demonstrate that your position is
correct and that you can justify your assertion that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant
and wrong-headed then you probably need to apologise and walk that back.
Before making your arguments as to why you think we should change our minds.
I for one am completely open to changing my mind if presented with suitably sufficient evidence and
reasoning. I don't think that such evidence or reasons exist, or I wouldn't hold my position, but I
could also be wrong.
So if you can prove your point stop waffling and insulting me/us and do it.
If you can't, then the aforementioned apology and walk-back is probably in order.
And if this discussion seems a bit emotional and personal for you then I would point out that you
were the one who started out by insulting all those who disagreed with you.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe striking of children to change their behavior is reprehensible. Remarkable how many not only advocate, but tenaciously defend this barbaric practice. It's an ignorant and wrongheaded view. Always has been. Always will be.
The trouble you are in is not because you object to CP.
It's because you turned up saying how 'ignorant' and 'wrong-headed' everyone was for not
agreeing with your stance which you have not yet in any way justified or backed up with
evidence.
The evidence you have supplied doesn't cover what we were discussing before you arrived.
Unless yo that you
were the one who started out by insulting all those who disagreed with you.
WG is right. We're talking about hitting defenseless children. All the euphemisms and rationalizations in the world do not change this fact.
07 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnegooglefudge has it summed up nicely.
The striking of children to change their behavior is reprehensible. Remarkable how many not only advocate, but tenaciously defend this barbaric practice. It's an ignorant and wrongheaded view. Always has been. Always will be.
WG is right. We're talking about hitting defenseless children. All the euphemisms and rationalizations in the world do not change this fact.
bbar and lemonjello were there too.
The fact that you completely ignore our arguements/requests seems to me to be the same ToO who wont even say whether he sins or not. Don't know who you are, don't really care anymore.
You're a real conversation killer, you know that.
07 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou invited my comments and questions. I provided two comments, and I provided one question. You have suqsequently responded in substance to precisely none of them.
Evidently I needed to "set the table" better than I did. I'm trying to explain the "big picture" here as [b]I see it. Can you possibly wait before zeroing in on comments and questions regarding portions of the picture that have yet to be painted such a the definition of CP, how CP relates to what I've painted, etc.? Unless you can wait, seems like you ...[text shortened]... ve the projection of your picture in my next post. Or you can rephrase if you like.[/b]
My interest here is in objectively assessing (1) to what extent what you have pasted supplies argumentative fuel against what bbarr calls justifiable child-swatting and (2) to what extent what you have posted actually supports your blanket stance against all conceivable instances of child-striking. Here, (1) and (2) are interrelated because what bbarr considers justifiable child-swatting constitutes a conceivable instance of child-striking.
The best way you can help me here, as I have already said, is to state how your reference defines CP. Your importing in external references to address what the terms 'violence' and 'spanking' mean in some settings is, frankly, less than helpful because I am interested in what those terms purport to mean in the immediate context of your article and because it's quite obvious that your article is using these terms simply as either proxy for, or paradigmatic of, CP.
Either the article provides some explicit statement of its working definition of CP, or not. If so, please state what it is. If not, then I guess our job will be more difficult.
07 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloEvidently you and I are even looking at our discussion from different perspectives.
You invited my comments and questions. I provided two comments, and I provided one question. You have suqsequently responded in substance to precisely none of them.
My interest here is in objectively assessing (1) to what extent what you have pasted supplies argumentative fuel against what bbarr calls justifiable child-swatting and (2) to what extent not. If so, please state what it is. If not, then I guess our job will be more difficult.
A post of yours indicated that you were "confused" by my position.
I responded as follows:
If I had to summarize what I think is likely the source of your "confusion", I'd say that your interpretation of terminology leads you to a very different understanding of the pasted text than what I believe was intended. Couple that with the fact that you seem to be "buying" what bb is "selling" and I am not, can only result in "confusion".
I'm thinking I might have to lay quite a bit of groundwork to help you unravel things. If you're up for it, I'm willing.
You said you were up for it and then made a suggestion as to how to proceed.
I suggest an alternative as well as my reasons for the alternative.
Actually, I was thinking a different approach is called for. From what I can tell, you've approached the text from a perspective which has lead you to a very different understanding of the pasted text than what I believe was intended by the author. I'm thinking that it would be better to give you a different perspective to consider - which is the 'bit of groundwork' that I alluded to earlier. Hopefully I'll be able to convey what I see.
So now it seems you are calling 'foul' because I wanted to explain MY position in MY own way.
Does it really make sense to you that YOU should dictate how I should explain MY position? That YOU should decide how I should best convey what YOU don't understand? If you don't understand it, how can you possibly be in the best position to know how I should explain it? From what I can tell, you have no idea of where I'm coming from.
MY interest here is in explaining MY position in the interest of having you understand it since you indicated you are confused by it. From the beginning I've made it clear that I was thinking that I'd have to lay a bit of groundwork for you to understand it. If you didn't want to hear it, you shouldn't have agreed to it.
You invited my comments and questions. I provided two comments, and I provided one question. You have suqsequently responded in substance to precisely none of them.
That's because I was instead clarifying how I was proceeding in explaining my position, since you didn't seem to understand it.
07 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI don't think I need you to explain your position. Your position seems clear enough: you are blanketly against all conceivable instances of child-striking.
Evidently you and I are even looking at our discussion from different perspectives.
A post of yours indicated that you were "confused" by my position.
I responded as follows:
[quote]If I had to summarize what I think is likely the source of your "confusion", I'd say that your interpretation of terminology leads you to a very different understanding in explaining my position, since you didn't seem to understand it.
What is not clear, however, is why you think what you pasted actually supports your position. It's not clear, for example, that what you pasted has any actual argumentative force against some conceivable instances of child-striking, such as what bbarr has outlined as justifiable child-swatting.
As I keep telling you, a great first step would be to state how the article that you introduced into this discussion defines its most central term. In your article CP is in fact the central subject and the other ancillary terms (such as 'violence' and 'spanking' ) are clearly being used as proxy or as paradigmatic examples of this central term. It won't do you much good trying to deflect this very reasonable request: please just frickin' state how your article defines this very central term, CP.
07 Nov 12
6 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't think I need you to explain your position. Your position seems clear enough: you are blanketly against all conceivable instances of child-striking.
I don't think I need you to explain your position. Your position seems clear enough: you are blanketly against all conceivable instances of child-striking.
What is not clear, however, is why you think what you pasted actually supports your position. It's not clear, for example, that what you pasted has any actual argumentative force against some co request: please just frickin' state how your article defines this very central term, CP.
Given the content of my last post (my last few posts for that matter), do you honestly believe that this is what I meant by "my position"? Does it even make the least bit sense that that's what I was referring to when I was speaking of "my position"?
Are you kidding?
If this is indicative of the level at which you understand my posts, I can't say I like the chances of you ever understanding where I'm coming from.