violence

[henry quirk]

The following should go elsewhere (but that elsewhere is no longer available).


You love this person...they mean as much to you as you do to yourself...the welfare, the well-being, of this person is a top priority for you.

Now, you and this person (through some chain of events) end up in a precarious situation. One of the dangers presented is a large hole in floor. The drop is large and directly beneath the hole is a sizable amount of jagged debris.

To fall through the hole means severe injury or death.

Now, this person you love (call him or her, X) is walking toward the hole, apparently oblivious to the danger. You've tried explaining the danger, cajoling X, distracting X, and any number of other strategies, and X is insistent that he or she is gonna walk up to, and into, the hole.

You would physically restrain the loved one but your legs are trapped...you can't reach the other.

Next to you is a nice chunk of sumthin' 'hard'. It occurs to you: 'I might be able to get X to stop if I clock X upside the head with this chunk'.

Certainly: clocking X upside the head with the chunk will hurt X, but the 'chunk injury' will be substantially less than what X will suffer if he or she drops through the hole.

Question: will you clock X upside the head, or, will you let X drop down the hole?

[James Markham]

I think if x is as stupid as you portray them, then x is doomed anyway. Let x go and remember them fondly.

[The Voice of Time]

What does "clock upside the head" mean? You mean throw something at their head... or?

Such situations are not really very useful to describe, because so many other factors can be at stake.

It all depends for instance upon the degree of the damage that would cause them to fall down. If we're talking very little for both situations then it doesn't really matter which one you pick and you can think more about how the person will think of your action instead of you thinking about their pain-level.

If we're talking very hard situations I guess the magnitude of the situations would cause one to try and avoid the worst outcome.

If we're in-between, then it's more difficult, because the person might not like that you do that even for your intentions, but it might save them some pain. In those situations, I guess you'll have to weigh up how much they're gonna hold you responsible for your actions and what they're gonna think of each action, and act by it.

[henry quirk]

James,

If X is a toddler should one just 'let x go and remember (him or her) fondly'?

#

Voice,

So, you acknowledge that context and intent can have a place in the application of violence, yes?

So, you rescind your blanket condemnation of the use of a spanking in child discipline, yes?

If X is a toddler (or a seven or eight or nine year old) it is permissible to inflict a pain of one level to possibly avoid a pain of a much greater magnitude, yes?

Many parents who use 'violence' do so with exactly that thought in mind: again (and more simply) a swat on the tush today to potentially avoid sumthin' more profound 'tomorrow'.


As for this, Voice: "It all depends for instance upon the degree of the damage that would cause them to fall down."

I was pretty clear with, 'To fall through the hole means severe injury or death.', and, 'clocking X upside the head with the chunk will hurt X, but the 'chunk injury' will be substantially less than what X will suffer if he or she drops through the hole.'

You inject into my scenario that which I did not, which is to say: you're overthinkin' it.

[James Markham]

If we're talking about smacking children, then I agree x should be clocked about the head. I have three children, and they've all had smacks from me, I have only one rule when it comes to disciplining children, and that is to give fair warning of consequence, I say very clearly, and if necessary loudly, "I'm going to count to three, if you don't stop by the time I say three, your going to get a smack", it seems to work well. My little girl is nine, and she's had less smacks than the number of her years, my boys are a bit braver, but I still rarely have to get to three, with my youngest, if I do get to three, I simply have to tap his hand with the force required to swat a mosquito.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Like I said, I'd clock them, if I had no other choice, saving a life is saving a life. As a matter of fact the example you give is actually a life saving technique that is taught when attempting to save a drowning victim. It is a fact that many drowning victims, drown their would be, rescuers as they panic, trying to climb on top of the rescuer, then they drown themselves after killing their only hope of survival. If a rescuer approaches one of these panicked victims they are supposed to clock them, so they can both live instead.

Of course I'd never try and save TVoT, letting such an evil young man drown me, and I surely wouldn't clock him, as then once I got him ashore, alive, he'd try and prosecute me, for being violent. No, it's Davy Jones Locker for someone like that.

Edit: typo, P.S. & P.P.S.

P.S. sorry for all the duplicates, I thought the server was having problems. I only meant to post it once! So you'll see a few whoops!

P.P.S. The only reason I hold TVoT responsible is because after being told of my sensitivity, he kept beating me to death with an unfair approximation, in his own words, indicating that winning an argument is more important than someones feelings, a very violent way to treat someone, especially after being told that it was the most emotional pain I ever suffered, such an evil young man, all for the sake of argument, about a past he could never understand!

[The Voice of Time]

If X is a toddler (or a seven or eight or nine year old) it is permissible to inflict a pain of one level to possibly avoid a pain of a much greater magnitude, yes?

The problem is not that it can't happen in any situation what so ever, anything in life even murder has its application (or else we'd never needed soldiers), but that it very much shouldn't happen. I can hardly think of a situation where it should be necessary, and those situations I can think of are almost a bit too fantastic to matter, that is, they resemble too much fiction-like bizarre events, that just doesn't happen in real life. You'd have to set so many boundaries on the situation, so many unusual or improbable or abnormally bad parameters to the situation, for it to be really truly necessary.

Normally, if you need to cause intentional pain to your kid in order to receive obedience from them, you've usually already lost your legitimacy because you simply suck as a parent; you are not capable of carrying out the tasks necessary as a parent, and therefore have to resolve to such undignified brutalistic form of behaviour.

As my first response to you would suggest, it matters a lot what the person, in this case the kid, thinks about the matter and your call, how they would feel about it, etc. For instance, if they didn't recognize the situation as bad, they wouldn't understand your action, and may not be able to think it necessary and would see you as violent. That in turn is not likely to be beneficial in the long run, and you might just let them take the pain of the fall and try to minimize whatever comes after they've fallen, and make assurances to avoid future situations like it.

But again, the situation you gave is a bit fictitious in nature, although it could happen I guess, with a person strongly sleep-walking, and who was about to walk across lots of nails you'd dropped to the floor, but then again, wouldn't you be able to restrain the person? Perhaps you looked at the person from a distance or perhaps you were very small and not really strong enough and the person was big, but then again if it was a big person then big persons tend to be able to take a lot of pain before succumbing to it, so you could easily throw something at the person without being afraid to hurt the person too much, however, from a distance, with something a bit heavy, you might hurt the person a lot if you hit wrong, like the back of the head, even if the person was big.

So, a lot of variables goes into account, and many unusual and improbable parameters have to be in case for there to be reason for it, but because of the scarcity of such situations, it would be unnatural to focus too much on it. If you ended up in such a situation, you'd just had to make the call whatever it is, certainly, walking into a tiny ocean of nails, at least if the nails points upwards, might be well too much pain to be allowed and very damaging to their feet and if they fell forwards might even seriously injure them (at worst case scenario, maybe even kill them if the nails are long and hit the right places), and the person, unless there was some problem with their mind, would certainly be able to understand your choice of act, unless you hit them so hard they ended up in the hospital with a broken neck or something, then perhaps the would complain. A kid's body is certainly very fragile so I would think very deeply before considering hitting something hard at them, I would certainly try something less hard first.

[The Voice of Time]

You inject into my scenario that which I did not, which is to say: you're overthinkin' it.

Well I thought it needed more consideration, your scenario was too simplistic, and wouldn't really make a good subject because of its one direction. I think it enriches the conversation that I added what I did, it explains the boundaries about such a scenario, and with my last long reply I gave an actual situation where it might be considerable.

I don't see why it should it be bad that I add thought to the subject, or were you not looking for thought? In a philosophy forum I'd expect thought to be desirable.

[henry quirk]

James,

You and me: on the same page.

##

Spheres,

Let it go, man.

##

Voice,

"The problem is not that it can't happen...but that it very much shouldn't happen."

Sez you.

In the real world (where I live [work and play]) violence 'is'...some of it is justified (in the heads of those involved); some of it is not.

In any case: violence 'is'...the 'oughts' and 'shoulds' and 'whatnots' fundamentally don't mean jack.

Folks 'do', and each reasons or rationalizes (often after the fact) the 'why'.

As for the (sub)topic at hand: I know for a fact (with mine), 'hitting the reset button' (as last resort, after all other options are exhausted) works (sometimes just the mention of a 'reset' works).

#

"So, a lot of variables goes into account"

Not in the scenario I outlined, no.

You say, "(my) scenario was too simplistic"...I see it as direct and unambiguous: I leave little wiggle room for (mis)interpretation (which, of course, hasn't stopped you from attempting just that).

That is: "the boundaries about such a scenario" are clearly laid out 'in' the scenario.

#

Finally: this, "you might just let them take the pain of the fall and try to minimize whatever comes after they've fallen, and make assurances to avoid future situations like it.", in light of this, 'To fall through the hole means severe injury or death.', is just about the most stupid thing I've read in a very long time.

[The Voice of Time]

Voice,

"The problem is not that it can't happen...but that it very much shouldn't happen."

Sez you.

In the real world (where I live [work and play]) violence 'is'...some of it is justified (in the heads of those involved); some of it is not.

In any case: violence 'is'...the 'oughts' and 'shoulds' and 'whatnots' fundamentally don't mean jack.

Folks 'do', and each reasons or rationalizes (often after the fact) the 'why'.

As for the (sub)topic at hand: I know for a fact (with mine), 'hitting the reset button' (as last resort, after all other options are exhausted) works (sometimes just the mention of a 'reset' works).

I don't understand the purpose of this, is this some sort of nihilistic argument?

[Arising_uk]

If we're talking about smacking children, then I agree x should be clocked about the head. I have three children, and they've all had smacks from me, I have only one rule when it comes to disciplining children, and that is to give fair warning of consequence, I say very clearly, and if necessary loudly, "I'm going to count to three, if you don't stop by the time I say three, your going to get a smack", it seems to work well. My little girl is nine, and she's had less smacks than the number of her years, my boys are a bit braver, but I still rarely have to get to three, with my youngest, if I do get to three, I simply have to tap his hand with the force required to swat a mosquito.

Had any problems with them applying the same principle at school?

[The Voice of Time]

You seem quite obsessed with putting people in jail

I don't like to see people unnecessarily in jail or spending excessive amounts of jail-time. But society cannot tolerate parents acting violently upon their children, and especially without regret or remorse. 1-2 times with a show of regret should be fined and given a warning, more than that or without regret should be jail-time, a few weeks for less and up to half a year for repeated violence without regret against their kids.

Parents who advocate it or do not care about it, should first be warned and then have their children taken away, you cannot have violently behaving parents in a little child's life. Children must be protected from bad people like you.

My importance lay in showing people like you that it is NOT and NEVER okay, in giving hope that maybe people like you will think once again over before you ever are about to do the same again, and that you might find it in your heart to apologize to your kids and give them the insurances and the comfort the need that you will never ever do it again, and that you will show it is wrong to hit others (unless some sort of game or the like is at hand), and that you will henceforth show them a minimum of respect and let their bodies be their own and not yours to cause harm.

[James Markham]

Voice, there is a diference between discipline and violence, I've actually asked my eldest if he wanted me to take his computer away for a week, or get a smack on the hand, being a ten year old who could way the options he took the smack.

It seems rather than being disciplined as a child, you was the victim of a violent father, and after our brief discussion I can sort of sympathise with him.

Oh, an I also smack my dog when she goes through the bin, how long would I serve for that?

In fact the only person I dont smack is my misses, and that's because it's not my responsibility to educate or keep her under control, where as my kids an my Rottweiler are, and if they do something wrong to someone it will be my fault.

As for people that don't do everything in their power to discipline their children, when they grow into disrespectful anarchists, I would jail their fathers beside them.

[reasonvemotion]

On the other hand what is more destructive.

Constant verbal abuse.

it is not always considered as serious as other forms of violence but the effects can be devastating,

and

Verbal abuse can leave scars

"Ultimately, it is the victim's self image and self-esteem that suffers, which can lead to physical and mental illness, and behavioural problems such as drug and alcohol abuse."

I tend to agree with this.

I think the healthiest option is a smack on the hand or the butt, rather than a constant barrage of destructive verbal abuse.

[SpheresOfBalance]

On the other hand what is more destructive.

Constant verbal abuse.

it is not always considered as serious as other forms of violence but the effects can be devastating,

and

Verbal abuse can leave scars

"Ultimately, it is the victim's self image and self-esteem that suffers, which can lead to physical and mental illness, and behavioural problems such as drug and alcohol abuse."

I tend to agree with this.

I think the healthiest option is a smack on the hand or the butt, rather than a constant barrage of destructive verbal abuse.

I agree with you, mental abuse can be severe, as it accompanied my physical abuse.