So you say, but it's pretty ipse dixit. Do you have anything objective to point to, here?
However you now say you don't agree specifically -- you agree metaphorically. You think all kids need discipline. We agree there (and there was never any disagreement. We've all said the same thing).
I agree both metaphorically AND specifically.
it is incorrect to claim that those who defend corporal punishment are advocating unlimited violence towards children.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I agree both metaphorically AND specifically.
How does that work? What does it mean in practice? Do you agree with "spare corporal punishment and spoil the child" or not?
I really don't understand how someone could look at their child (or anyone else they love, for that matter) and think hitting them is a good idea and I've dealt with some mind-numbing kid weirdness.
Stuff gets broken.... big frikken deal.
This kid in the story is 8. My kid is 8. If he forgets to tell me something he isn't being malicious, or evil, or disobedient, he's being 8.
It means that I agree with the statement whether you choose to look at 'the rod' metaphorically or literally.
Instead, I think it speaks to the larger point that parents must not be afraid to discipline/punish their kids when necessary.
It seems to me that there are several separate statements here - do I believe that failure to discipline ruins kids? Absolutely. Do I believe that corporal punishment is from time to time an appropriate from of punishment? Yup.
So no matter how one interprets the phrase, I agree with it, unless one seeks to make it some sort of moral absolutism statement thing, which is rather ridiculous.
If you say you agree with it literally, and it literally says that failure to use corporal punishment spoils a child then it's not ridiculous at all to disagree with that "interpretation"
Maybe what you meant when you say that you agree with it "specifically" and "literally" is that you just agree with the general sentiment you get from it?
What literal agreement are you talking about if its literal meaning is "ridiculous" absolutism?
Yes, it is. It is taking the phrase to it's absolute extreme in order to further an argument, which is a ridiculous choice to make.
I agree with the phrase without agreeing that it is necessary for ALL children to be given corporal punishment; however, those children whose actions merit it, deserve it and should get it. This really isn't a difficult logical construction to figure out.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Yes, it is. It is taking the phrase to it's absolute extreme in order to further an argument, which is a ridiculous choice to make.
It's not some ridiculous extreme, it's just the literal meaning of the statement. You said you agree with it "literally" so why do you consider it extreme to be asked to defend it's literal meaning?
Quote:I agree with the phrase without agreeing that it is necessary for ALL children to be given corporal punishment; however, those children whose actions merit it, deserve it and should get it. This really isn't a difficult logical construction to figure out.
In other words, you simply don't agree with it "literally" but instead of retracting that claim you prefer to call it a ridiculous absolutism to ask you about the literal meaning you claimed to agree with.
I am in favor of spanking as a punishment/deterant. I think it should be a last resort, and only used after other methods (as have been discussed) have been employed, given time to work, and have failed.
If the child is misbehaving and all the other techniques that parents can employ have failed, spanking (or the threat of spanking) should be an option (legally) available to parents.
It's your interpretation of the 'literal meaning' of the statement. I apparently have a different interpretation of the literal meaning - that those kids who engage in bad enough behaviors should be punished using corporal punishment, not that ALL kids should, or they will be ruined.
"I am in favor of hitting people as a punishment or a deterrent, I think it should be used as a last resort, and only after other methods have been employed, given time to work, and have failed."
But this formulation (corporal punishment as an ultimate punishment if nothing else works) is still too broad for me. I think that for many children, corporal punishment would not only be ineffective as a final attempt at discipline, but would be actually counterproductive.