"Physical punishment is illegal here as well. I agree with that law."
"Here" where? It seems to me a guy without his profile enabled would afford us the courtesy as Nemesis did--despite his profile-- of telling us where in particular "here" refers to.
Needless to say, thanks to more detailed posts from other users, I gathered you are Dutch. So, do I suppose you reside at the Netherlands?
Gosh! No wonder Elledan turned out the way he did! :Q
LMAO! Of course you know I've got better sense than basing my argument on argument against the person! I'm messing with ya there, though I do think I can hold your parents responsible for your dogmatic doctrines and your demonstrated hostility toward certain religious beliefs! :Q Hehehe!
Okay, on a more serious note: I tried to avoid this thread, especially as it got longer. However, my ever thinking mind wouldn't let it rest with some despicably ridiculous arguments and claims to facts.
First off, let's get this straight: Spanking is not the same as paddling, flogging, beating or whooping. So, for anyone who really cares for a sincere progressive discussion, please take note of what the lexical definition is: [/i]
spank Pronunciation Key (spngk)
v. spanked, spank·ing, spanks
v. tr.
To slap on the buttocks with a flat object or with the open hand, as for punishment[/i]
More often than not, I witness people here make arguments based on artificial grounds failing to have an established definition of a keyword.
Now, let's look at "flog" or "paddle":
"flog Pronunciation Key (flg, flôg)
tr.v. flogged, flog·ging, flogs
To beat severely with a whip or rod.
Informal. To publicize aggressively: flogging a new book
v. pad·dled, pad·dling, pad·dles
. tr.
Nautical.
To spank or beat with a paddle, especially as a punishment.
"
Thus, it is clear from all lexical definitions that spanking is not synonymous with beating, flogging, etc. Spanking suggests a very mild form touch (i.e., with the hand as opposed to an object) with intent to punish. I think what makes spanking different from when a friend or a coach pats his student on the back is the intent. The intent of the latter usually is not punishment.
That being said, there is no law that says you cannot establish your own definition (i.e., stipulative or persuasive definition). But no one here has offered that, so we must all meet the criterion of the lexical definition to follow the other's train of thought.
Okay, let's start with Pundit: First off, what qualifies you to speak as an authority here? I mean, do you have credentials in this field or any actual experiments you made to draw the conclusions you have drawn? By all means, your response to NeoV was great:
"When I was younger, I used to be a child". You know why? With disregard to the grammatical error, it goes to show the absurdity in your argument. For as you were once a child and reached this inference, so were the rest who believe it is okay to spank. They too were once kids and they too speak from experience. Therefore, if we are to accept your premise, the logical conclusion is that the strength or weakness or the good or bad of spanking is contingent and dependent upon the individual.
Oh, dare I express my shock about such preposterous inference you drew about a child who was spanked when he (or she) attempted to touch the stove. Here's an analogy to show you the blunder in your argument: Suppose we accept the ridiculousness of your argument. Then we would accept the argument that such child fearing stoves from the spank he or she received in that regards could equally have suffered such draw back because of his (or her) past life. In other words, he (or she) is experiencing this fear because such (i.e., fire) hurt him (or her) during his (or her) previous existence. Yes, I am speaking of reincarnation. There are claims of this nature in reincarnation. Your argument is as ridiculous as that. And if you are not willing to accept such argument, then yours is not any more qualified or viable. You have presented no studies at all to prove your claim. Must you go to the extreme to make your argument against spanking?
The problem here is that as stated earlier you and others are implicitly using "spanking" and "flogging" interchangeably. Thus, your argument totally begs the questions. It's like saying abortion is wrong because murder is wrong. That sort of argument begs the question 'cuz it fails to establish how abortion is a form of murder. By no means am I giving an implied position on the matter of abortion as I am simply trying to point out a form of fallacious argument that you and others have engaged in.
The argument further begs the question with people arguing that it promotes violence. Let's see, all forms of killing must promote murder then and be murder themselves? Think of the weakness of such argument by likening it to another: Killing is bad because it promotes murder. Does not that invalidate self-defence and all other non-murderous forms of killing? Again, such argument begs the question.
By no means am I saying it is impossible to reach a conclusion that spanking is bad, but your arguments so far are simply rested upon false or weak premises and ones with which we cannot reach a conclusion without some form of fallacy.
But let's say we accepted the premise that spanking promotes violence, then would not that mean any kid who engages in self-defence physically would be morally incorrect to have done that? Would that mean you would discourage your kids from defending themselves physically if they are physically threatened?
Again, if you wish to speak about
flogging, you are more than welcome to do so. Nonetheless, it would be best if you refrained from using the two interchangeably--in an implict manner.
Okay, that being said, now I have to take an issue with Neov's comment:
"Pundit, no offense, but if you don't have kids you really can't have a fully educated voice in this discussion..not that you are right or wrong, but unless you have been there ON BOTH SIDES, then you don't really know."
I beg to differ and I'm sick and tired of hearing this line. There is no law of nature that says one cannot understand such except if one has kids. What I am willing to concede is that one without kids cannot feel the pain, trouble, joy or all that comes with it--no matter how much they claim they do. They cannot, for it is not the same. Nonetheless, I will not ever concede that one cannot understand it except if one has kids.
Personally, I think behaviour is primarily genetic. I am not about to have kids with some guy whose family has a history--despite how good he is 'cuz as far as I'm concerned it means a much bigger chance of a bad kid. At the same time, I think the environment does play a role in shaping how worse or better the people get. The environment either suppresses that person's nature significantly to the extreme or enhances it to whatever maginitude or slightly shapes it up. I don't know if that makes much sense.
When all is said and done, no Dick is gonna tell me how to raise my kid(s). You better back off as far as possible. I didn't have kids for you to lecture me on how to raise my kids. Nature gives us all the privilege to demonstrate our abilities and strength as we claim and wish (i.e., the ability to have kids), so have your own kids and use them as the guinea pigs of your theory on how to raise a kid. Don't be bringing your theories to experiment on my family. (I use "you" generically here.)