In Scandinavia, anything entailing physical violence against a minor is considered a criminal offense (not misdemeanor). Spanking a child carries the same jailtime as beating an adult half to death.
I was quite shocked to hear that spanking is not uncommon in the US, in fact it is closer to the norm (correct me if I am wildly misinformed).
Do you think spanking or any physical punishment of a child is ever acceptable?
Mind explaining why?
Also, do you also think violence against women or demented people would justifiable under any circumstance?
Sometimes a slippery slope is not a logical fallacy.
If you can defend violence against one subset of the indefensable it can be easily (in legal terms) be expanded, Men tend to think of women as childlike, there are clear definitions of 'child like behavior' (irrationality, illogicalness, needless defiance etc), and the demented are categorized as having a certain developmental age, thus not being within the scope of the fallacy.
Note that force and violence are two completely different concepts. I am not making the argument that forcing a child to go to their room and 'think about what they did' is wrong, it more applies to corporal punishment.
Men tend to think of women as childlike?
Are you asserting that I'm irrational, illogical, and expressing needless defiance?
The demented may be described in terms of developmental age, however they are not actually going through the developmental stages of a child.
What is the maximum amount of force that does not constitute violence?
Define corporal punishment.
Yes, masculinity undermines feminine values (I'm from a feminine society and it is blatantly obvious when I go to non-feminine societies such as the US, Latin America, Muslim countries). I endorse fully and wholly the positive aspects of femininity (as a moral concept) and I reject masculinity where it is unwholesome.
No. (bold, underline, cursive, font 28, whatever)
Yes, but it is used as an exuse to punish the demented: "He acted like a child so I punished him as a child."
Whatever does not leave physical or bad emotial marks. My dad sometimes lifted me by my arms and carried me to my room 'to think' when I was acting out. Occationally at the time I came to the conclusion that he (or my mom forcing him) was right. Later, I've come to the conclusion that he (or she) was indeed always right. (Note that the only times I ever got punished was when I conciously disobayed their instructions, and I realized that sometimes older people tell me what not to do as to not make mistakes.) From the age of about 6 my parents would discuss things with me as an adult, and convince me using evidence and facts. The only time they lied to me was when they told me a big effing shot after an operation wouldn't hurt and it did, and today I'm scared shitless of needles.
Corporal punishment - anything which goes beyond pulling a person away from a negative situation (I can justify pulling my drunk friend from a fight kicking and screaming, even if it entails hurting him slightly physically, but less than the hurt from a fight.)
Presumably, you are a moral relativist. You can understand hurting a child if pulling it away from a hungry bear. 13 lashes with a belt buckle for acting out in a restaurant on the other hand...
Violence for violence sake, to affirm a point, to punish. In my (and about 20 million people of the most advanced countries in the world) opinion, is completely and utterly, in any situation, unacceptable.
Justify your opinion.
Actually you have given my no motivation to justify anything. I would first like you to explain why you would think your statement about "violence for the sake of violence" above has any bearing on this matter. Where did 13 lashes with a belt buckle come into this?
I'm reticent to discuss any position I've taken on 'spanking' because you seem unable to grasp the concept in any way that doesn't include violence and rage (13 lashes with a belt buckle). Just for clarity, 13 lashes with a belt buckle has never been considered a 'spanking' in my backward country that is not nearly as advanced as yours. Such violence has always been recognized and called 'a good beating' here, and it has never gone buy without controversy - but we were talking about spankings.
So you see, you seem to have some very strong opinions that preclude you from a reasonable discussion about 'spankings' and 'corporal punishment'. You seem to have no sense of degrees of physical force and can only understand the term 'spanking' as a violent act of rage that includes a leather strap and brass buckle.
I would much rather have a discussion with you about how you came to hold these sorts of feelings. Were you seriously beaten as a child? Or perhaps is this a sign of repressed rage? From the your first reply you have been unable to engage in a single response that didn't reveal a huge prejudice on the issue and I truly don't think you are capable of having a civil discussion on this matter. I can only assume that your motivation is to instruct the morally repressed of us who live in backward primitive countries about the enlightenment that you and your 20 million peers in your most advanced countries have to offer us.
So no, I will not justify my opinion to you until you justify your prejudices to me.
You seem quite hung up in one statement taken out of context. If not 13, then 1? If not a belt buckle then a unclinched fist? The point is the same, it's violence for the sake of violence. Correction through violence is the lowest form of correction for an emereging human. Dostojevsksy deals with this.
No, i was never seriously beaten. My incidents with violence involves getting pushed onto a pile of metal sheets at the age of 19, being shot at at the age of 20, and getting a punch to the face at age 29. I do not have any unsolved issues with rage, I have never resorted to an unecessary level of violence to get my point across, I have never even punched another person in anger.
Of course I have a prejudice against violence! Is that the best critizism you can come up with? And of course I am attempting to challenge your assumptions, why else would I post something like this here where I know there will most likely be a number of people disagreeing with me? Posting something like this on scandinavian.childrearing.blog would not incite a debate. I believe that is the point of a forum...
What about justifying violence against children, which is something you do not object to as per your previous statement, instead of ad hominem attacs which I have graciously answered?
You know, I stopped reading at "violence for the sake of violence"
We both agree that that is wrong and so I guess we can just end in agreement.
Not until you explain a bit further "Yes - though rarely very useful."
Responding to someone's post without reading it is concidered quite rude and against netiquette :)
Pile on rational arguments for any type of physical punishment of children.
Don't respond to what you perceive as slippery slope arguments if you do not feel like it. However, you have made a statement which requires elaboration in my opinion.
If you intend to participate in a discussion you need to clarify your opinion or else delete your responses."Yes" is not an acceptable explanation and thus far it is your only argument.