Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature;
Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable.
Sure seems violent to me. Unless "deliberate infliction of pain" isn't violence under your definition?
First off, I have already stated that I don't accept your definitions, because they
also presume the conclusions that you seek. Shall I get out your "yourfallacyis" links out next?
Second, there are many forms of pain that do not require violence; so no, those are not equatible statements.
Furthermore, not all forms of corporal punishment actually involve pain.
Wikipedia is biased, eh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishmentUsing a definition is hardly an appeal to authority, especially since I did not use it "in the place of an argument," I used it as the backing for my argument, which is: Corporal punishment is violence, which, enacted upon defenseless children, is the cause of many societal ills, not least of which is the deadly idea that government force is justified, that if someone in "authority" commits, or tells you to commit, an act of violence, That's OK, because they have "authority."
as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
Where we differ, I think, is in the portion I have underlined. You claim that your intentional use of force, or the threat of same, will not cause psychological harm or maldevelopment. I contend that it does, and that the evidence of that fact is all around you.
No, our disagreement is more basic than that. I do contest the validity of your perceptions, but that is actually beside the point. My poin is 'who gets to decide'? The answer is, I do and you do not. I do, singularly; and you do not, even collectively. Could I be wrong and end up screwing up my kids' lives? That remains a possibility for which I am ever aware. The same rings true for you, however; which does ot seem to be something for which you are aware. You will be. I have met many young parents (and childless couples) who advocate for such a "zero corporeal punishment" style of parenting. However, I have met very few older parents who stuck to that method. Among those who did; one has
two boys in prison, one has one child who is a drug addict, one has a daughter who was pregnent at 15, and one has an adult son that never moved out. Obviously, these same parents also had many other children who were not so screwed up, but I'd wager that some non-neglible percentagle of their grandchildren will either 1) end up screwed up or 2) be raised without such a zero-corporel punishment theories.
Your logical fallacy is...I'm quite aware that I might fuck up in raising my kids...I worry about it every day. But I fail to see how treating them with the respect due a fellow human being could be the cause of that fuck up.
Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways. However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually. You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.
And you, by leaving those options on the table, have undermined the rest of your parenting strategy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vehigjflGHAand you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.
Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
And yet your are failing....
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white No... Are you saying that there is some third option besides "corporal punishment is abuse" and "corporal punishment is
abuse"? Because it is my position that it is, and if you are in opposition to my position, then your position must be that it is not, or this mysterious third position.
if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.
Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
I never said I would take your kid. I never even said I would lay a hand on them. I said I would tell you to stop. To which, I might add, you stated that you would reply with deadly force...