Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Texas Judge Beats Disabled Daughter on Video

12628303132

Posts

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Paladin wrote:
    Well there are several methods of justification going on here. Some are majority rule, some are personal precedent, some are a breakdown of violence into component parts, and some are analogous circumstances. They're all incompatible with a view that any violence is absoutely amoral, which is why you can't understand them and they can't understand you.

    majority rule - In other words, "most people do this, so it's okay." I reject this as a valid justification of anything.

    personal precedent - In other words, "I have done this before, so it's okay." I reject this as a valid justification of anything.

    breakdown of violence into component parts - This is analysis, not justification. We've been discussing this for 27 pages now, and yes, people have broken down the action of spanking into its specific parts but that isn't a justification. Attempting to justify those specific parts may be, but all I have seen is a lot of comparison to worse things and saying "see, spanking isn't as bad as that" which is pretty much the lamest justification I can see or "I've been spanked and turned out okay" which is irrelevant in a debate about the ethics of spanking even if the main argument is that spanking is immoral because long term damage/trauma occurs from being spanked.

    The reason I can't "understand" these people is because they haven't put forth a valid argument. I'm sorry, but if you or anyone else thinks that majority rule is a valid moral justification or that personal precedent is anything but a circular bit of bullshit, then I don't know what to say.

    Like, this "personal precedent" thing is something you've been dancing around for your last few posts and it is total nonsense. I hope you don't actually believe that you doing something justifies you doing something. Because that's what "personal precedent" means.

    Drez on
    steam_sig.png
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    I certainly don't speak for Drez, but I when I look at corporal punishment it is from a strictly pragmatic viewpoint.

    The studies show that it is not more effective than other methods. The studies show that it comes with risks which do not exist for other methods. As such, corporal punishment cannot raise better kids, but it can raise worse kids. When one option is, at best, equal with other things, but has a significant chance of being worse, you do not do that thing.

    Whether or not it is the moral or justified thing to do, it is the stupid thing to do.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    There are a few other methods, but these are the ones people use. Not just for violence, but for anything.


    As for me, I believe that it's better to be beaten than hated. That doesn't really have anything to do with moral justification or whatever but if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose getting punched. The rest of it doesn't really matter to me.

    See look at all these viewpoints. People think differently

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Incenjucar wrote:
    I certainly don't speak for Drez, but I when I look at corporal punishment it is from a strictly pragmatic viewpoint.

    The studies show that it is not more effective than other methods. The studies show that it comes with risks which do not exist for other methods. As such, corporal punishment cannot raise better kids, but it can raise worse kids. When one option is, at best, equal with other things, but has a significant chance of being worse, you do not do that thing.

    Whether or not it is the moral or justified thing to do, it is the stupid thing to do.

    The literature also makes it plainly clear that tepid swats on the butt or wraps on someone's knuckles with a ruler are the exception, not the rule. In the southern U.S. especially, we're talking about kids being pulverized by 6-8 foot planks at school by the faculty, and being either whipped with belts (as in the video) or punched / kicked at more or less full force at home by their parents.

    Arguing in favor of some 'mild' physical punishment is, essentially, arguing in favor of something that doesn't exist in the first place.

    The Ender on
    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote:
    As for me, I believe that it's better to be beaten than hated. That doesn't really have anything to do with moral justification or whatever but if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose getting punched.

    This isn't a BDSM thread, guy.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Paladin wrote:
    As for me, I believe that it's better to be beaten than hated. That doesn't really have anything to do with moral justification or whatever but if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose getting punched.

    This isn't a BDSM thread, guy.

    Isn't it, though? Isn't that what corporal punishment is all about

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote:
    There are a few other methods, but these are the ones people use. Not just for violence, but for anything.


    As for me, I believe that it's better to be beaten than hated. That doesn't really have anything to do with moral justification or whatever but if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose getting punched. The rest of it doesn't really matter to me.

    See look at all these viewpoints. People think differently

    And some viewpoints are wrong, or bad.

    Like personal precedent. I'm really curious if you think that's a valid moral outlook. "I have done X before, so X is okay to do again." You haven't denied that that's what you mean. How the hell is that a legitimate moral outlook? It's downright frightening.

    And anyway now it looks like you're saying "to each their own" as if that matters. Nope. I'm not going to "agree to disagree" or whatever just because people feel uncomfortable with having their moral perspectives called into question. You're welcome to hold whatever you beliefs you want, but if you're going to publicly communicate them in a debate and discourse thread I am not going to feel bad about communicating why I think these perspectives are not good.

    steam_sig.png
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote:
    Isn't it, though? Isn't that what corporal punishment is all about

    If you are putting your children in ball gags and smacking their asses with a riding crop someone needs to call child services.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    I certainly don't speak for Drez, but I when I look at corporal punishment it is from a strictly pragmatic viewpoint.

    The studies show that it is not more effective than other methods. The studies show that it comes with risks which do not exist for other methods. As such, corporal punishment cannot raise better kids, but it can raise worse kids. When one option is, at best, equal with other things, but has a significant chance of being worse, you do not do that thing.

    Whether or not it is the moral or justified thing to do, it is the stupid thing to do.

    The literature also makes it plainly clear that tepid swats on the butt or wraps on someone's knuckles with a ruler are the exception, not the rule. In the southern U.S. especially, we're talking about kids being pulverized by 6-8 foot planks at school by the faculty, and being either whipped with belts (as in the video) or punched / kicked at more or less full force at home by their parents.

    Arguing in favor of some 'mild' physical punishment is, essentially, arguing in favor of something that doesn't exist in the first place.

    Yes, exactly. That's another problem I've had with this thread. People keep trying to reduce spanking to the mildest form of painless contact when by and large it is nothing like that. Spanking is usually a bent-over-the-knee, pants-down, open handed slap - or thereabouts. It's not a tickle on the butt, which some people like to pretend it is and then argue that we're monsters for calling butt ticklers "abusive."

    steam_sig.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    zepherin wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    Interactions between peers is not an analog for the structure of our legal system.

    edit: I mean, we can have a discussion about that too, but that doesn't really have any place in this discussion. The fact that the state uses force and violence as a method of meting out justice does not have anything to do with people enacting violence on each other in society.
    Even though it is off topic, but one may say that is what makes a state. What makes a state is the monopoly on legitimizing violence.

    Monopoly of force is not even close to monopoly of violence. Where the hell did you even come up with the term "monopoly of violence?"

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited November 2011
    The state does and should have the monopoly on violence - that it uses it so much is fucking reprehensible.

    The monopoly on violence is, like all violence, supposed to be used strictly when doing so is absolutely required. Unfortunately, we have people who enjoy executions. Thing is, that's its own thread topic and doesn't really relate to this except where people are creepy.

    Incenjucar on
    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Drez wrote:
    Paladin wrote:
    There are a few other methods, but these are the ones people use. Not just for violence, but for anything.


    As for me, I believe that it's better to be beaten than hated. That doesn't really have anything to do with moral justification or whatever but if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose getting punched. The rest of it doesn't really matter to me.

    See look at all these viewpoints. People think differently

    And some viewpoints are wrong, or bad.

    Like personal precedent. I'm really curious if you think that's a valid moral outlook. "I have done X before, so X is okay to do again." You haven't denied that that's what you mean. How the hell is that a legitimate moral outlook? It's downright frightening.

    And anyway now it looks like you're saying "to each their own" as if that matters. Nope. I'm not going to "agree to disagree" or whatever just because people feel uncomfortable with having their moral perspectives called into question. You're welcome to hold whatever you beliefs you want, but if you're going to publicly communicate them in a debate and discourse thread I am not going to feel bad about communicating why I think these perspectives are not good.

    Personal precedent has a strong biological basis which is why I included it, and everybody uses it in a lot of cases you don't really think about. The other, more complicated methods, like the ones you would use to advise a guy who cheated on his wife who cheated on him, do have merit and are used because they're pragmatic.

    Some people employ hardcore, absolute rules, like Lying is Bad, Hitting is Bad, Drugs are Bad, and that works. But then some people go "ooops looks like I just snorted meth" and then there's a cognitive dissonance going. You're a good person, right? But you just hit a kid, which is an amoral act. Good people don't do amoral acts. Therefore, you're not a good person.

    Everyone goes through that, but then paths diverge as people try to deal with the evidence that they're bad people. If you want to understand and communicate with people who don't deal with these things in exactly your way, you've got to speak the language. If you keep doing what you're doing, you won't get anywhere. If you want to change minds, work your maxim into their narrative. Explain why violence is bad wins out in all weight classes (if it does).

    The reason why alternative viewpoints are tolerated is because they haven't brought about the destruction of society. A person can totally go on personal precedent alone for morality, and if they're given a lucky and supportive environment, they can function without committing atrocities like any other decent human being. A person who was not brought up by violence will raise their kid without violence entirely because of personal precedent. Monkey see, monkey thinks it's okay to do and will weave a narrative around monkey's personal observations.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Violence is bad because it increases the chance of the child being permanently harmed. We've already covered this. Some people don't CARE.

    And some human beings are able to learn, grow, and change so as to not pass down foolish behavior.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Paladin wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    Paladin wrote:
    There are a few other methods, but these are the ones people use. Not just for violence, but for anything.


    As for me, I believe that it's better to be beaten than hated. That doesn't really have anything to do with moral justification or whatever but if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose getting punched. The rest of it doesn't really matter to me.

    See look at all these viewpoints. People think differently

    And some viewpoints are wrong, or bad.

    Like personal precedent. I'm really curious if you think that's a valid moral outlook. "I have done X before, so X is okay to do again." You haven't denied that that's what you mean. How the hell is that a legitimate moral outlook? It's downright frightening.

    And anyway now it looks like you're saying "to each their own" as if that matters. Nope. I'm not going to "agree to disagree" or whatever just because people feel uncomfortable with having their moral perspectives called into question. You're welcome to hold whatever you beliefs you want, but if you're going to publicly communicate them in a debate and discourse thread I am not going to feel bad about communicating why I think these perspectives are not good.

    Personal precedent has a strong biological basis which is why I included it, and everybody uses it in a lot of cases you don't really think about. The other, more complicated methods, like the ones you would use to advise a guy who cheated on his wife who cheated on him, do have merit and are used because they're pragmatic.

    Some people employ hardcore, absolute rules, like Lying is Bad, Hitting is Bad, Drugs are Bad, and that works. But then some people go "ooops looks like I just snorted meth" and then there's a cognitive dissonance going. You're a good person, right? But you just hit a kid, which is an amoral act. Good people don't do amoral acts. Therefore, you're not a good person.

    Everyone goes through that, but then paths diverge as people try to deal with the evidence that they're bad people. If you want to understand and communicate with people who don't deal with these things in exactly your way, you've got to speak the language. If you keep doing what you're doing, you won't get anywhere. If you want to change minds, work your maxim into their narrative. Explain why violence is bad wins out in all weight classes (if it does).

    The reason why alternative viewpoints are tolerated is because they haven't brought about the destruction of society. A person can totally go on personal precedent alone for morality, and if they're given a lucky and supportive environment, they can function without committing atrocities like any other decent human being. A person who was not brought up by violence will raise their kid without violence entirely because of personal precedent. Monkey see, monkey thinks it's okay to do and will weave a narrative around monkey's personal observations.

    Nobody is a total paragon. We've all done harmful or bad things, I am sure, perhaps quite far in the past, perhaps yesterday, perhaps ten seconds ago, and perhaps we will do something amoral or immoral at some point in the future. Maybe it will be because we decide to, or maybe it'll be because we were ignorant or didn't weigh our options that much, or maybe it'll just be plain old laziness or selfishness. I don't know. But I'm not perfect. Nobody is perfect. And if anyone is deluded enough to think that they are perfect, then fuck them. And if anyone is deluded enough to think that they are entitled to an illusion of perfection, then fuck them. I'm not interested in buying into that and I'm definitely not interested in propagating that. That is a very harmful mindset. Society should encourage discourse on morality because that is how people learn and evolve. Throwing our hands up and saying "this is what I've done so fuck it" is the laziest bullshit ever, and is not a valid moral justification for anything.

    Also, just because something has a "strong biological basis" doesn't mean it is morally justified. I agree that human beings have a very strong capacity for self-delusion, but that doesn't mean that being delusional is morally justified. "Personal precedent" as a moral framework sounds like personal delusion to me, at least from your description.

    Drez on
    steam_sig.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    General morality is very difficult and can get complicated beyond your capabilities if you're unlucky. Nobody's perfect, but well ... take a look at how recently publicized blips in morality have worked out. Pretty much nobody has got it down for everything, and it can haunt people and even end people.

    And some of that stuff you can't talk about. The only legally designated profession with a total guarantee of absolute confidentiality is the lawyer. Even doctors and psychiatrists don't have that much privilege. It's not a simple issue, and sometimes you have to work it out by yourself, because bottom line, not everybody is comfortable with "Welp, violence is unjustifiable" no matter how you spin it.

    In real life, if you gave this line to someone and they rejected it, the most likely reason is because you were judging them and people hate being judged. Are you satisfied that you've judged them, or do you actually want to change behavior? Would you be open to trying to do that without judgment?

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote:
    General morality is very difficult and can get complicated beyond your capabilities if you're unlucky. Nobody's perfect, but well ... take a look at how recently publicized blips in morality have worked out. Pretty much nobody has got it down for everything, and it can haunt people and even end people.

    And some of that stuff you can't talk about. The only legally designated profession with a total guarantee of absolute confidentiality is the lawyer. Even doctors and psychiatrists don't have that much privilege. It's not a simple issue, and sometimes you have to work it out by yourself, because bottom line, not everybody is comfortable with "Welp, violence is unjustifiable" no matter how you spin it.

    In real life, if you gave this line to someone and they rejected it, the most likely reason is because you were judging them and people hate being judged. Are you satisfied that you've judged them, or do you actually want to change behavior? Would you be open to trying to do that without judgment?

    How do you change behavior without judgment? When you aim to change someone's behavior, it's because you have judged their behavior as something that you want changed. Human beings judge each other constantly. Judgment doesn't necessarily have to be in a negative thing. Praise is the result of positive judgment.

    Anyway, I'm not really interested in catering to everyone's sensibilities, especially not if it amounts to discomfort with being called or judged on potentially harmful behaviors. People don't have an inherent right to comfort. I guess people should just get used to being judged, because it happens constantly. Usually silently. But if I witness something I disagree with, I may very well communicate my thoughts to that person. People don't have a right to just do whatever the hell they want without being judged by one another. I may not necessarily have the right to tell people what I feel, either, but it depends on the context. And in the framework of this thread, which is intellectual musing about ethics? Uh, yeah, I will gleefully judge the pants off of everyone.

    steam_sig.png
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Not everyone is comfortable with women or people who do not own land getting to vote.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Drez wrote:
    Paladin wrote:
    General morality is very difficult and can get complicated beyond your capabilities if you're unlucky. Nobody's perfect, but well ... take a look at how recently publicized blips in morality have worked out. Pretty much nobody has got it down for everything, and it can haunt people and even end people.

    And some of that stuff you can't talk about. The only legally designated profession with a total guarantee of absolute confidentiality is the lawyer. Even doctors and psychiatrists don't have that much privilege. It's not a simple issue, and sometimes you have to work it out by yourself, because bottom line, not everybody is comfortable with "Welp, violence is unjustifiable" no matter how you spin it.

    In real life, if you gave this line to someone and they rejected it, the most likely reason is because you were judging them and people hate being judged. Are you satisfied that you've judged them, or do you actually want to change behavior? Would you be open to trying to do that without judgment?

    How do you change behavior without judgment? When you aim to change someone's behavior, it's because you have judged their behavior as something that you want changed. Human beings judge each other constantly. Judgment doesn't necessarily have to be in a negative thing. Praise is the result of positive judgment.

    Anyway, I'm not really interested in catering to everyone's sensibilities, especially not if it amounts to discomfort with being called or judged on potentially harmful behaviors. People don't have an inherent right to comfort. I guess people should just get used to being judged, because it happens constantly. Usually silently. But if I witness something I disagree with, I may very well communicate my thoughts to that person. People don't have a right to just do whatever the hell they want without being judged by one another. I may not necessarily have the right to tell people what I feel, either, but it depends on the context. And in the framework of this thread, which is intellectual musing about ethics? Uh, yeah, I will gleefully judge the pants off of everyone.

    Judgment is involved, but you get people to judge themselves.

    "Smoking is bad"

    "I know you really like taking your morning jogs along the beach, but with the way your emphysema is progressing, you may not be able to continue doing that. You can prevent your lungs from getting any worse if you stop smoking."

    Not a really great example but you use something the person is familiar with as a lead in. You wouldn't tell an 87 year old dude to stop smoking because it would extend his life because he's lived enough of it already, if he's told you that. If he tells you he's concerned about how his health situation is going to affect his grandkids in his terminal years, then you pounce on that, and work within his framework there. If you go straight in and say, "look, you've got a selfish habit, your grandkids are going to see you strapped to a ventilator and too weak to even say their names, do you want that?" without knowing that he isn't Gran Torino dude he's just going to slam his brain door.

    The easiest way to change minds is to feed the ego, which then gets sleepy and allows you to lockpick the door. If you want your original question answered, which I thought was bait to allow you to convince others of your viewpoint, you've got to stoop to the levels of other minds for a while and find out how they really work.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Teaching people to fear their children isn't the best way to get them to consider their needs.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Goumindong wrote:
    zepherin wrote:
    redx wrote:
    600 people is the minimum amount of people for a study of this nature.

    What are you basing this claim on?
    60,000,000 children 14 and under. %95 interval, Confidence Interval 4. Although applying percentages to a subjective study might be fruitless, still 18 people is too small of a sample size for anything.


    The size of the population is functionally irrelevant in sample size considerations. (unless the population is sufficiently small that you are sampling a significant number of them when you sample 18 people)

    Even small sample sizes contain valuable information and while not as accurate as large samples can be aggregated just fine

    I don't think you understand what a confidence interval is if you think "applying percentages to a subjective study might be fruitless"

    Also, this was a clinical trial, not a correlation survey. Doesn't mean you don't need a decent sample size, but it is far more common and practical to get a huge sample size if you're just surveying than if you are actually performing and observing a controlled clinical trial. Anyway, the study was repeated 3 more times, with mostly the same results, though the difference in effectiveness between spanking and timeouts was insiginficant in the latter studies. The other difference in the latter three studies was that the sample consisted entirely of children diagnosed as having behavior disorders and had been referred for clinical behavior therapy. The first study was not. So, if you're looking at timeout + spanking, vs. timeout + more timeout, then in really bad kids they are about the same, and in more random kids the spanking is less effective. Note that all kids are being given timeout as the primary punishment, and over time the differences among timeout + anything shrink to insignificance. The point here was to study two persistent arguments: the 1) "maybe some kids don't need spanking, but really bad ones do," and the 2) "what if your timeout fails, then you have to spank" arguments. Four studies found no evidence of truth in these arguments, one finding the opposite to be true for #2.

    Since I've been challenged to cite, I'll grab several from the last thread. Let me know if any are broken now.

    http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/cp70mss.htm

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/nk47462t476nt234/

    http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/Gershoff-2002.pdf (like 80 studies in there, summarized)

    http://www.cmaj.ca/content/161/7/805.abstract

    http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP-Empirical.htm (26 different studies there, individually linked)

    EDIT, MOAR:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x526215441037r74/

    Yar on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Anyway, while I respect that what most here believe themselves to advocate or defend is some form of reasoned, light, infrequent spanking, there are still three very important points:

    1) As the studies I linked show, reasoned, light, infrequent spanking still carries a significant risk of harm, and
    2) No benefit of any amount of corporal punishment has ever been shown compared to other accepted non-violent forms of punishment, and

    3) This is the reality we're up against. Even if you refuse to accept the overwhelming empirical evidence and reason behind points 1 and 2, please give up your defense of corporal punishment anyway, if only as a sacrifice towards stopping the less moderate among your camp.

    Yar on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Parental Unit RemulakRegistered User regular
    Interesting how this thread quiets down once these studies have been posted. Thanks Yar.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    Bagginses wrote:
    zepherin wrote:
    Drez wrote:
    Interactions between peers is not an analog for the structure of our legal system.

    edit: I mean, we can have a discussion about that too, but that doesn't really have any place in this discussion. The fact that the state uses force and violence as a method of meting out justice does not have anything to do with people enacting violence on each other in society.
    Even though it is off topic, but one may say that is what makes a state. What makes a state is the monopoly on legitimizing violence.

    Monopoly of force is not even close to monopoly of violence. Where the hell did you even come up with the term "monopoly of violence?"
    Monopoly on legitimizing violence does not equal monopoly of violence or monopoly of force. I also do not think there is an example of the state using force in a way that does not threaten violence or is violence. Same as the way that a person cannot act violently without using force, at least practically.
    Interesting how this thread quiets down once these studies have been posted. Thanks Yar.
    Sometimes scientific evidence proves me misinformed, but saying overwhelming scientific evidence or stating there is scientific evidence without putting it forth is a logical fallacy. The evidence was put forth and I was wrong.

    zepherin on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Interesting how this thread quiets down once these studies have been posted. Thanks Yar.

    Like I said earlier, the academic literature is extremely cut-and-dry on the issue of corporal punishment. People are just stubborn.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    Judge has been suspended by the Texas Supreme Court for unspecified reasons. Not sure what that means, but better than nothing.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/23/justice/texas-beating-video/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Yar wrote:
    Studies blah blah blah

    WHAT DO THESE STUDIES KNOW ABOUT MY KIDS?

    In all seriousness, I imagine that's the defense a lot of people who use corporal punishment use. Or, "My dad beat me and look how I turned out."

    That he has been suspended is a start.

  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    Vanguard wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    Studies blah blah blah

    WHAT DO THESE STUDIES KNOW ABOUT MY KIDS?

    In all seriousness, I imagine that's the defense a lot of people who use corporal punishment use. Or, "My dad beat me and look how I turned out."

    The proper response to this is "Yeah, you turned into someone that supports beating children".

    3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | Wii U: zython
    Steam: pazython
    Lv 90 Tauren Shaman Lv 90 Pandaren Monk
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote:
    Judge has been suspended by the Texas Supreme Court for unspecified reasons. Not sure what that means, but better than nothing.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/23/justice/texas-beating-video/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

    Suspended with Pay so basically vacation. Once the story blows over he'll quietly resume doing his job horribly and probably beating the daughter who remains.

  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote:
    KalTorak wrote:
    Judge has been suspended by the Texas Supreme Court for unspecified reasons. Not sure what that means, but better than nothing.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/23/justice/texas-beating-video/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

    Suspended with Pay so basically vacation. Once the story blows over he'll quietly resume doing his job horribly and probably beating the daughter who remains.

    Not if it turns out like it did in my state with the judge who solicited sex from child prostitutes.

  • E^(i Pi)+1=0E^(i Pi)+1=0 Registered User
    It's Texas. Be glad he's beating his daughter rather than fucking her.

    Love me.
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    I'm seriously enthusiastic about the progress of this discussion. The last two times I did this debate, it was like 100 against 2 or 3, the 100 being all, "you ain't tell me no nuthin' 'bout no raisin' mah chillins 'cept if'n' I kin beat tham bloody!!!"

    EDIT: Well, except the cheap jab at Texas. No fair.

    Yar on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
  • TheOrangeTheOrange Registered User regular
    Yar wrote:
    3) This is the reality we're up against. Even if you refuse to accept the overwhelming empirical evidence and reason behind points 1 and 2, please give up your defense of corporal punishment anyway, if only as a sacrifice towards stopping the less moderate among your camp.

    GOD DAMN'T....

    I renounce my defense of corporal punishment; this is one hell of an argument.

  • ArthilArthil Henchman 21 Registered User regular
    edited November 2011
    TheOrange wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    3) This is the reality we're up against. Even if you refuse to accept the overwhelming empirical evidence and reason behind points 1 and 2, please give up your defense of corporal punishment anyway, if only as a sacrifice towards stopping the less moderate among your camp.

    GOD DAMN'T....

    I renounce my defense of corporal punishment; this is one hell of an argument.

    *Reads*

    I...

    *Reads first account again*

    I'm not really sure that light patting/spanking with the palm of one's hand is comparable to what I just read.

    Edit: Yep just finished it all, I'm gonna go find a bin and stuff my head into it.

    Arthil on
    Youtube PSN: Honishimo GW2: Akeche.4867 Steam FitocracyCwcuLUM.jpg
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    TheOrange wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    3) This is the reality we're up against. Even if you refuse to accept the overwhelming empirical evidence and reason behind points 1 and 2, please give up your defense of corporal punishment anyway, if only as a sacrifice towards stopping the less moderate among your camp.

    GOD DAMN'T....

    I renounce my defense of corporal punishment; this is one hell of an argument.
    Hitting a 6 month old? Who fucking does that. :(

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    I'm not sure how the Ethiopian couple fell for the whole thing. I've been to the country bordering Ethiopia to the south, and, while they certainly train mules and have no qualms about hurting animals, violence is not used for training, but only steering the animal and most other kinds of communication.

  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    I like the part where Pearl defended his child-abuse manual by saying he wasn't responsible for the results of its implementation.

    He also apparently doesn't know the difference between positive and negative arguments, as shown by his idiotic comparison to AA.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote:
    I'm not sure how the Ethiopian couple fell for the whole thing. I've been to the country bordering Ethiopia to the south, and, while they certainly train mules and have no qualms about hurting animals, violence is not used for training, but only steering the animal and most other kinds of communication.

    Was there an Ethiopian couple, or an Ethiopian child adopted by Americans? I thought it was the latter.

  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    It's Texas. Be glad he's beating his daughter rather than fucking her.

    To be honest, watching that video made me think he's capable of the latter, too. There was a creepy sexual vibe to some of it.

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • The_SpaniardThe_Spaniard Registered User regular
    It's Texas. Be glad he's beating his daughter rather than fucking her.

    To be honest, watching that video made me think he's capable of the latter, too. There was a creepy sexual vibe to some of it.
    Specifically the way he was practically slobbering and panting during the, "I didn't get my licks in" line.

    Xbox 360/One Gamertag: SpanWolf - PS3/PS4 Gamertag: Span_Wolf
    3DS: Span_Wolf - 4854-6434-9883/WiiU:Span_Wolf
    Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Span_Wolf/ - Origin: Span_Wolf
Sign In or Register to comment.