1
   

Physical Punishment

 
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2008 10:22 pm
@NeitherExtreme,
NeitherExtreme wrote:
data is data
data are data Very Happy
NeitherExtreme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 06:28 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
data are data Very Happy

Ooohhh, I thought we were talking about this guy.... :eek: Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Quatl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 07:55 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
data are data Very Happy


Yes but, what is the sound of one datum clapping?Wink
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 01:39 pm
@NeitherExtreme,
NeitherExtreme;9056 wrote:
As far as I can see, causing physical harm to another person (or animal!) seems to be one of the (if not the) ultimate evil in American (Western?) society. The idea of actually inflicting physical pain on someone, no matter what the crime, seems like an unimaginable barbarism.
Yes indeed, it will cause stress and trauma.

NeitherExtreme;9056 wrote:
Why would it wrong to "beat" a person for driving drunk (or whatever), make sure they'll recover fine, and send them on their way? Why would locking them in a confined area with other criminals for months on end be more fitting?
- not all law enforcers are able to control the amount of force, and will most likely resort to heavily abuse of their power. The Rodney King incident comes to mind.
To lock an offender into a confiened area will remove the person from his usual enviroment where he may find plesure and comfort, therefore the confined area is a punishment by itself.

NeitherExtreme;9056 wrote:
Why is it "ok" to send a child into timeout, thereby removing them from relationship and enjoyment, yet to give them a small (but memorable) amount of physical pain is looked down upon?
The child will not suffer any long lasting trauma by timeout punishment.
Physical punishment often gets out of hand, and inflict longlasting or in some sever cases scar the child forever, which isn't the intend of punishment.

NeitherExtreme;9056 wrote:
Why is it "ok" to kill a person for their offences, but it is wrong to do so with any physical discomfort?
The colatteral damage is relativly smaller when killing a person, than causing physical discomfort to a person, it will often lead to traumatization which again may lead to domestic violence. Inability to fully function in a society, with job and behaviour.

NeitherExtreme;9056 wrote:
Why is it at times even considered wrong for a person to attack an intruder in their own house? Isn't it the intruder who put themselves in the situation?
Sorry for my anectdote for not fitting the topic at hand, but imo it's closely related.
"a japaneese exchange student was lost and went into a farm, the farmer saw an intruder and shot him dead. Unfortunaly the exchange student actually saw the sign saying trespassers will get shot!, but could not understand it"

Here in Denmark it is illegal to use unessesary force upon an intruder. I guess it's because 1) people can't control themselfs and would cause unnessesary violence upon the intruder.
2) it would be too easy to kill, rob etc, innocent people by luring them into your home under false pretext, and thereby kill them under the pretext of defending youself and your home.
NeitherExtreme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 04:50 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;132432 wrote:

- not all law enforcers are able to control the amount of force, and will most likely resort to heavily abuse of their power. The Rodney King incident comes to mind.
To lock an offender into a confiened area will remove the person from his usual enviroment where he may find plesure and comfort, therefore the confined area is a punishment by itself.


Hi there. This sure is an old thread, I'd forgotten about it. Anyhow, I agree physical punishment can get out of hand. So can jail sentences. And both can be ruled by law, and hopefully not abused. But I can understand the feeling that physical punishment has too much potential for getting out of hand, and I tend to feel the same way. But, supposing a system could be devised to keep the punishment proportional and professional... would it still be wrong to use physical punishment in all cases at all times, and why? What is it about physical discomfort that is so sacred?

HexHammer;132432 wrote:

The child will not suffer any long lasting trauma by timeout punishment.

Are you sure about that? In all cases? Do you know that time-outs never contribute to an emotional disconnect between parent and child?
buffalobill90
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 06:17 pm
@NeitherExtreme,
NeitherExtreme;9056 wrote:
The following are some of my wonderings... I'm not actually advocating anything here, I'm just exploring an issue.

As far as I can see, causing physical harm to another person (or animal!) seems to be one of the (if not the) ultimate evil in American (Western?) society. The idea of actually inflicting physical pain on someone, no matter what the crime, seems like an unimaginable barbarism.

Why would it wrong to "beat" a person for driving drunk (or whatever), make sure they'll recover fine, and send them on their way? Why would locking them in a confined area with other criminals for months on end be more fitting?

Why is it "ok" to send a child into timeout, thereby removing them from relationship and enjoyment, yet to give them a small (but memorable) amount of physical pain is looked down upon?

Why is it "ok" to kill a person for their offences, but it is wrong to do so with any physical discomfort?

Why is it at times even considered wrong for a person to attack an intruder in their own house? Isn't it the intruder who put themselves in the situation?

What gives? I've actually been thinking on this for quite a while now, and I'm a little confused. I have a few vague ideas of my own, but I really want to hear what you all think...



It depends entirely on what you are trying to achieve by punishing transgressors.

If you just want retribution, then no doubt a physical counter-attack can be much more satisfying than other forms of revenge. It is an instinctual thing, I think, to want to reassert your dominance over your competitors.

However, if punishment is not regarded as an end in itself but as a means to deterrence or rehabilitation, then physically attacking a transgressor may be completely futile, and far less effective some kind of educational alteration. In the case of prisons, part of the reason is to confine potentially dangerous people to a manageable location. The extent to which they rehabilitate criminals depends on the justice system in question; unfortunately there is rarely much focus on redemption and more on punishment for the sake of punishment.

This will often simply result in the transgressors resenting the law even more. They will attempt to avoid justice in future, but it is unlikely that they have really learned the error of their ways. They just know that a powerful opponent will take revenge on behalf of their victims. As for deterring potential criminals, even the harshest and most brutal justice systems in the world, which incorporate corporal punishment, public humiliation and death sentences, do not deter criminals. The fact is, they just don't expect to be caught.

In the case of children, physical punishment is not going to be very effective in encouraging them to respect other people; it will simply make them fear their elders. They will associate certain actions with punishment but might not necessarily understand what they have done wrong. Punishment can be effective for children who are too young to appreciate the real consequences of their actions, but it needn't be physical and in fact corporal punishment can just be confusing and ineffective. Many child psychologists agree that it merely instils hostility and rage without actually reducing the undesirable behaviour.

---------- Post added 03-01-2010 at 12:25 AM ----------

NeitherExtreme;133646 wrote:
Are you sure about that? In all cases? Do you know that time-outs never contribute to an emotional disconnect between parent and child?



Maybe you are right. When I was a child, my parents never punished me or my siblings, physically or otherwise. This didn't make us spoilt or undisciplined; they just made us explain ourselves and told us why it was wrong to do what we did. It was rehabilitative justice rather than punitive justice, and it was very effective. Even as teenagers we were always respectful, and we didn't abuse our freedom because we genuinely felt guilty about doing that. We didn't resent our parents or try to compete with them at all, because we didn't see them as an oppressive authority that punished us.
NeitherExtreme
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 06:59 pm
@buffalobill90,
Good points all around.

I could respond to more directly to your post, but I think fairly often personal experiences are going to play a big part in how we see the subject, and debating details might be kind of pointless.

For instance, my parents main discipline- up through most of elementary school i believe- was spanking. But, they were extremely self-controlled, consistent, and fair about discipline, and I never felt abused, alienated, or "punished". One reason is that they refused to spank a child out of anger. They talked things through so we knew what we had done wrong (although we usually had been warned and knew full well what we had done). Usually the "session" ended with a hug and "I love you".

Anyway, I went through my teenage years without anger issues or outright rebellion. I also feel like my parents transitioned into relating to me as an adult better than most others I've seen, and I still have a great relationship with my parents. So I guess I'll always just have a hard time assuming that physical punishment is an inherently evil thing. Yet I can understand how someone who had been abused, or someone who had never received physical discipline at, could not imagine that loving physical discipline could exist.

Also, if you don't mind, I'd be curious to hear how your parents trained children before the moral/cognitive development stages that would allow them to interact on the higher level that you described? That sounds neat, but I'm not sure how that could apply to every stage...
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 12:28 pm
@NeitherExtreme,
NeitherExtreme;133646 wrote:
would it still be wrong to use physical punishment in all cases at all times, and why? What is it about physical discomfort that is so sacred?
Uhmmm...didn't I just answer that?


NeitherExtreme;133646 wrote:
Are you sure about that? In all cases? Do you know that time-outs never contribute to an emotional disconnect between parent and child?
If it's only 1 hour, the child has to be psycotic should it hate it's parents, or be really spoiled in the first place.

Only if time out is abused, and applied several times a day, all week, then there should be a good chance the child/parent relation will be damanged.

OR be applied unjustly, in a violent manner.
NeitherExtreme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 04:03 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;134150 wrote:
Uhmmm...didn't I just answer that?

Maybe, but I guess I didn't follow. Is it because it "will cause stress and trauma"? That seems a bit short, and all of your other responses were to over-the-top physical punishment. I don't think you actually addressed the issue of whether or not it is morally wrong to ever punish someone physically. Assume it is done in a compassionate and controlled manner, would it still be wrong?

HexHammer;134150 wrote:

If it's only 1 hour, the child has to be psycotic should it hate it's parents, or be really spoiled in the first place.

Only if time out is abused, and applied several times a day, all week, then there should be a good chance the child/parent relation will be damanged.

I understand what your saying, but I think you're using a double standard here. You're saying that time-outs used in an appropriate manner are good, and physical punishment used in uncontrolled anger is bad. That seems pretty obvious.

What I'm asking is whether there is ever an appropriate way to use physical punishment. If the only argument against it is that it can be misused, then I would ask the same of whatever punishment is preferred. Like I said at the beginning, I don't have answers, but I also don't see many people asking those particular questions. They more often seem to state the obvious, as I believe you have, ignoring these difficult questions.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 08:14 pm
@NeitherExtreme,
..rethinking my statemen
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 08:40 am
@NeitherExtreme,
NeitherExtreme;134201 wrote:
Maybe, but I guess I didn't follow. Is it because it "will cause stress and trauma"? That seems a bit short, and all of your other responses were to over-the-top physical punishment. I don't think you actually addressed the issue of whether or not it is morally wrong to ever punish someone physically. Assume it is done in a compassionate and controlled manner, would it still be wrong?
How the heck would you know what is, and what is not? Don't think you know psycology at all.

NeitherExtreme;134201 wrote:
I understand what your saying, but I think you're using a double standard here. You're saying that time-outs used in an appropriate manner are good, and physical punishment used in uncontrolled anger is bad. That seems pretty obvious.
Don't really think that you know what you are saying.

NeitherExtreme;134201 wrote:
What I'm asking is whether there is ever an appropriate way to use physical punishment. If the only argument against it is that it can be misused, then I would ask the same of whatever punishment is preferred. Like I said at the beginning, I don't have answers, but I also don't see many people asking those particular questions. They more often seem to state the obvious, as I believe you have, ignoring these difficult questions.
..seems your jsut looking for a bad excuse to molest your child.
NeitherExtreme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 12:19 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;134571 wrote:
How the heck would you know what is, and what is not? Don't think you know psycology at all.

You still haven't answered my question at all. Is it morally wrong, in all cases, at all times, with all people, to use any type of physical punishment. If so, why? If not, do you have any thoughts on what might qualify some physical punishment as appropriate or inappropriate?

HexHammer;134571 wrote:

Don't really think that you know what you are saying.

Why is that?

HexHammer;134571 wrote:

..seems your jsut looking for a bad excuse to molest your child.

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? First, I don't have a child, and if I did, I would want to do what is absolutely best for that child. That is probably one of the reasons that I'm working through these issues at all, rather than simply repeating what my parents did (which, for what it's worth, seemed to work well for me). And beyond that, my wife and I have hope that in our future we can open our home to children in the foster care system, which as I understand requires and agreement from the parents to refrain from physical punishment. And we are perfectly willing to honor that agreement.

And please remember that I am not intending this to be simply (or mostly) a discussion on child-rearing. I'm much more interested in the topic of the legality/morality physical punishment as a whole, including (especially?) adults, and why it is such a taboo in western culture.

I'd like to ask specifically that you respond directly to the bold question above, or I will probably not respond again.I don't intend to be rude, but I also don't like getting involved in personality wars or ongoing misunderstandings.

-Luke
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:30 pm
@NeitherExtreme,
NeitherExtreme
Sorry I grew fustrated repeating myself.

I need you to explain your background of asking, your culture and such, answering your questions feels like shaking x-maz presents, feels hard giving an answer to a multi directional question. It's like asking ..how does humans behave, the answer would be too great, as there are too many viables.

- is your question directed at a certain agegroup, or is it just physically violence itself?

- I really need to know, how do you know if the physical punishment is "Assume it is done in a compassionate and controlled manner, would it still be wrong?" ..this just seems farfetched.

- is the punishment for goverment use, or for civil?
NeitherExtreme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:51 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;134895 wrote:
NeitherExtreme
- is your question directed at a certain agegroup, or is it just physically violence itself?

- I really need to know, how do you know if the physical punishment is "Assume it is done in a compassionate and controlled manner, would it still be wrong?" ..this just seems farfetched.

- is the punishment for goverment use, or for civil?


- No age group necessarily, I'm asking about the way we in the west view physical punishment in general.

- That may seem far fetched to us. What I'm wondering why it seems so far fetched. (For one reason why it seems less far fetched to me, you can read one of my recent posts where I discussed my relationship with my parents.) We feel that other forms of punishment can be used appropriately, why not physical punishment as well? All forms of punishment are distasteful to the one being punished, yet we use them for (hopefully) compassionate purposes of deterring wrong behavior and reforming the individual, and we use them in controlled manners. We see this with fines, jail sentences, loss of rights/privileges, public labeling, etc. Why does physical punishment have no place among these? I'm not necessarily saying it should... but if not, then why not? What is the reason behind the Taboo?

- I would love to hear your thoughts for either use. I'm looking for opinions.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 08:58 pm
@NeitherExtreme,
NeitherExtreme

I belive I'v already answerd your questions satisfyingly. Maybe just adding the term "police brutality" and was direct cause of the "LA riot", because of the Rodney King case.

What deludes you, are the idealistic dream scenario, which can never be achived because of the human factor. I would advice you to forget it, because humans are riddled with errors and weaknesses.
0 Replies
 
NeitherExtreme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 07:04 am
@NeitherExtreme,
OK, as far as I understand you, you are saying that physical punishment should not be used in any form, at any time, because there is too much danger of things getting out of hand. I can understand that, and agree it is a good reason.

Still, I'm not sure you have really understood some of my underlying questions yet, but I'm willing to let it go.

-Luke
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 03:59 pm
@NeitherExtreme,
NeitherExtreme;135322 wrote:
Still, I'm not sure you have really understood some of my underlying questions yet
Maybe I should ask, how would you punish
- a serial killer?
- rapist?
- child molester?
- bank robber?
- speedin in car?
- money fraud in the millions?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/06/2020 at 07:33:49