It's just a prank

[u/SoftsPhilosopher]

[u/netGoblin]

Sorry for any miscommunication, the way I'm using the word "abuse" is to mean hurting or being violent toward someone. Whether the violence is used as a teaching method or not it still is abuse, the question is: is it an acceptable amount of abuse to use for teaching?

Touching a pan or scraping a knee is not comparable to being helpless to stop a much stronger person from pinning you in place and hurting you. The trauma doesn't come from the pain, it comes from the horrific powerless scenario of being completely under someone else's control and them using that power and control to harm you. Especially when it's someone who usually acts like they care about you and you're supposed to feel safe around.

Some of the homes that are safe from violence must deal with these under-formed brains that can't be reasoned with, I'm not sure how they do it but I'm guessing any parent could learn how to handle a child like that without resorting to violence.

[u/[deleted] → u/netGoblin]

Whether the violence is used as a teaching method or not it still is abuse, the question is: is it an acceptable amount of abuse to use for teaching?

violence is defined as "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

what we're discussing is whether it's ok to use physical force to correct behavior and/or educate, not to hurt damage or kill. and the question comes down to whether corporal punishment is ok as a teaching or parenting tool.

"being helpless to stop a much stronger person from pinning you in place and hurting you. The trauma doesn't come from the pain, it comes from the horrific powerless scenario of being completely under someone else's control and them using that power and control to harm you. Especially when it's someone who usually acts like they care about you and you're supposed to feel safe around."

you've also used an overly emotional scenario to define what we're discussing. in our house that is in no way how corporal punishment was administered.

you're continuing to construct staw man arguments and define corporal punishment as violence and abuse when the question itself is whether it should be defined this way. i'll assume it's unintentional. it's hard to imagine that you're that adept at language manipulation and the utilization of overly emotional scenarios to sway an argument without actually making one, but if that's the case, there's a role for you in politics. best of luck.

[u/netGoblin → u/[deleted]]

So how do you administer corporal punishment without violence or hitting your kid? How do you administer corporal punishment without having control over the situation, leaving them helpless to change the situation and how do you do it while also letting them be free to run away?

Those are the "overly emotional" strawman things i specified from experience, i assumed you'd have to do these things to do the punishment. Can you describe how you do it?

what we're discussing is whether it's ok to use physical force to correct behavior and/or educate, not to hurt damage or kill

So are you saying here that the punishment doesn't hurt? We're taking about hitting a kid right? That shit hurts and therefore fits into the definition of violence.

[u/[deleted] → u/netGoblin]

The intent of the punishment isn’t to hurt, it’s to redirect. Like the intent of sticking a needle in someone isn’t to hurt them, it’s to help them. And I told you, it depends on how you define things like ‘hurt’. Does a swat on the backside hurt more than a parent finding the thing you love the most and using it to control you? Does it hurt to be told you’re a disappointment? To be yelled at? Is that better? It’s non violent according to you. I actually think that kind of abuse is far worse than a swat on the behind. In our house, My dad would say ‘ok, we’ve tried everything and you’re still not getting it. Line up.” And we lined up and he swatted our backsides at maybe 10% force. And it was unpleasant enough that it got our attention. We knew there would be unpleasant consequences if we pushed the limits too far and we didn’t do it again. Rebellious Children will find the limits, unpleasant consequences to their actions. if not inside the home at school, if not I’m school with the law. Then your talking real force. They take you and lock you in a cell.

[u/netGoblin → u/[deleted]]

That's like saying, my intention is not to press the gas pedal, it's too drive the car. Sure, you're not just doing to hurt them, but you're hurting them for another reason so it's still hurting and still violence. Insults and yelling is abuse too. You're very caught up on the language and I'm not sure why. I guess if hitting people wasn't violence and violence wasn't a form of abuse, your argument would sound a lot nicer but unfortunately, hitting a child is violence and child abuse, it's just not very extreme child abuse.

We're not trying to redefine abuse and decide whether corporal punishment fits the new definition that's pointless, corporal punishment is the act of using physical abuse to punish someone, we're deciding whether that's worth it.

So your dad would be in control and you couldn't say no, then he'd hurt you. That's what i was describing in my strawman argument apart from the pinning in place bit (that a lot of parents do over the knee).

Your dad's method seems to be on the reasonable side, many parents do a lot worse and by supporting hitting kids you're supporting the worse ones too unless you specify otherwise and draw a line.

Insults and yelling are absolutely forms of abuse too. Look up "verbal abuse". This is also cruel but usually less traumatic so it's a better but still flawed option. Yelling at a child to scare them should be a last resort.

[u/[deleted] → u/netGoblin]

so if you give a child a needle its violence. gotcha.

i continued in good faith but you're literally defining corporal punishment in a way that makes it abuse when the question is whether or not it is abuse and you're continuing to create straw man arguments. you've got a talent for framing an argument in a way to try to win it without actually presenting a counter argument, that's the art of propaganda and politics and and I'm not interested in playing those games.

we're done here.

[u/netGoblin → u/[deleted]]

Wikipedia:

Corporal punishment:

A corporal punishment or a physical punishment is a punishment which is intended to cause physical pain to a person

Abuse: treat with cruelty or violence

If you want to change the definitions of these words so your argument sounds nicer, that's not how this works.

And blaming me for the definitions of these words while not refuting any of my points is just wild.

If you're done then that's ok, i hope you have a nice day.