Pope says it's OK to spank children if you don't demean them

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Although spanking children isn't immoral, corporal punishment like using other means like teachers using rulers to demean the children in public is wrong.  Spanking diminishes child's self worthiness period, but it is up to parent to decide the method.

[Хahar 🤔]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where would one hit a child if not on the face? How strange.

[politicus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where would one hit a child if not on the face? How strange.

Definitely not for your average Westerner.

[Simfan34]

The bottom? The side of the head?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where would one hit a child if not on the face? How strange.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRM2OENl2jk

[Joe Biden 2020]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where would one hit a child if not on the face? How strange.

Usually on the bottom.  Anywhere else should be left between consenting adults and not for punishment purposes.  The only other time it is acceptable to hit a child somewhere other than his or her bottom is forcefully knocking them or jerking them out of the way of an oncoming car.  If the child is about to get run over, you don't worry where on the body you touch them.  You usually jerk them on the arm or knock them out of the way with force.  It's better for the child to scratch up their knee doing that than to get run over.

[Alcon]

I was spanked on the bottom a few times and I turned out fine. There's a difference between that and being beaten.

You have to know how terrible of an argument is.

1. Your first sentence is a single piece of anecdotal evidence, which apparently implies that nothing is wrong unless it totally ruins your life.

2. Your second sentence apparently implies that nothing is wrong, unless there's something worse than it.

Except that many who are opposed to spanking equate spanking to being beaten.  While a flashlight and an industrial cutting laser both produce light, they are hardly the same, yet the analogous distinction is lost on many of those who oppose spanking.

Why does your post start with "except," like it was a rebuttal to anything I said?  You just replied to me pointing out that these are terrible arguments by pointing out that other people draw a false equivalency.  Did those arguments suddenly stop being terrible because other people's arguments are terrible?  No.  

Also, frankly, I don't think many people actually assert that equivalency.  Maybe they draw a moral equivalency (arguing that non-restraining assault is wrong), but that's not the same thing as claiming they're equally as harmful, which is an argument I almost never see people make.

And, again, let me reiterate how pointless it is to defend terrible argumentation with "other people make terrible arguments too."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I was spanked on the bottom a few times and I turned out fine. There's a difference between that and being beaten.

You have to know how terrible of an argument is.

1. Your first sentence is a single piece of anecdotal evidence, which apparently implies that nothing is wrong unless it totally ruins your life.

2. Your second sentence apparently implies that nothing is wrong, unless there's something worse than it.

Except that many who are opposed to spanking equate spanking to being beaten.  While a flashlight and an industrial cutting laser both produce light, they are hardly the same, yet the analogous distinction is lost on many of those who oppose spanking.

Why does your post start with "except," like it was a rebuttal to anything I said?  You just replied to me pointing out that these are terrible arguments by pointing out that other people draw a false equivalency.  Did those arguments suddenly stop being terrible because other people's arguments are terrible?  No.  

Also, frankly, I don't think many people actually assert that equivalency.  Maybe they draw a moral equivalency (arguing that non-restraining assault is wrong), but that's not the same thing as claiming they're equally as harmful, which is an argument I almost never see people make.

And, again, let me reiterate how pointless it is to defend terrible argumentation with "other people make terrible arguments too."

To begin with, I was commenting only on your second assertion.  I considered editing your first assertion out of my reply, but I had thought it would be self evident that I was responding only to your second. Apparently, I was wrong about that.

As for your second assertion, it was quite apparent to me that the second sentence you were objecting to was in response to those who do draw the equivalence.  And frankly, without such an equivalence, be it actually or only moral, treating spanking the same as beating does not make any sense.  Hence, asserting that there is a difference is at the least the beginning of a valid argument, tho it certainly could use more meat on it if one has any hopes of trying to convince those who do see an equivalence sufficient to warrant equal treatment that they are wrong about that equivalence.

However, I fail to see how that second sentence was in any way intended to advance your strawman implication of "that nothing is wrong, unless there's something worse than it". That's something you came up with on your own.

[Alcon]

To begin with, I was commenting only on your second assertion.  I considered editing your first assertion out of my reply, but I had thought it would be self evident that I was responding only to your second. Apparently, I was wrong about that.

I don't know what you mean.  I understand you were replying to #2.

As for your second assertion, it was quite apparent to me that the second sentence you were objecting to was in response to those who do draw the equivalence.  And frankly, without such an equivalence, be it actually or only moral, treating spanking the same as beating does not make any sense.  Hence, asserting that there is a difference is at the least the beginning of a valid argument, tho it certainly could use more meat on it if one has any hopes of trying to convince those who do see an equivalence sufficient to warrant equal treatment that they are wrong about that equivalence.

However, I fail to see how that second sentence was in any way intended to advance your strawman implication of "that nothing is wrong, unless there's something worse than it". That's something you came up with on your own.

You're interpreting his post differently than I am, and then accusing me of "strawanning" him based on my interpretation.  For your accusation to be reasonable, you have to prove that your interpretation of his post was clearly more reasonable than mine.  I don't think it is.  Here's why:

Read this thread.  There was literally no one drawing the equivalency you claim he was rebutting.  One person said that they are both immoral because they are both assaultive.  You are arguing that he came into this thread to pre-emptively rebut an argument that no one made, instead of respond to the thread question.

Why would that be more likely than my interpretation, that he was arguing for spanking's morality?  The first sentence of his post argued that he was fine, because he turned out fine.  Unless he was alleging that no one who was abused has ever turned out fine, this can't be him drawing a distinction between spanking and beating.  And, if he's not drawing a distinction between spanking and beating in his first sentence, he must be responding to the thread question.  So why do you think it's so patently unreasonable that I'd assume his second sentence would do so as well, instead of rebut an argument unrelated to his first sentence, that hasn't even been made in this thread?

Look, if that's what you sincerely believe he meant by the second sentence, that's fine.  But to accuse me of "strawmanning" him, while having total confidence in your interpretation, doesn't seem justifiable to me.

(Although we may be reading too much into the thought put into his post.  I don't want to over-read a post that started out with n=1 anecdotal evidence.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Read this thread.  There was literally no one drawing the equivalency you claim he was rebutting.  One person said that they are both immoral because they are both assaultive.  You are arguing that he came into this thread to pre-emptively rebut an argument that no one made, instead of respond to the thread question.

Why would that be more likely than my interpretation, that he was arguing for spanking's morality?  The first sentence of his post argued that he was fine, because he turned out fine.  Unless he was alleging that no one who was abused has ever turned out fine, this can't be him drawing a distinction between spanking and beating.  And, if he's not drawing a distinction between spanking and beating in his first sentence, he must be responding to the thread question.  So why do you think it's so patently unreasonable that I'd assume his second sentence would do so as well, instead of rebut an argument unrelated to his first sentence, that hasn't even been made in this thread?

Why do you assume his two sentences were addressing the same point?  This forum rarely displays rigorous writing styles.  As for why I think it's unreasonable, it's because the second sentence doesn't seem to serve as anything other than that argument.

Also you are mistaken that the equivalence has not been made in this thread, as it has been, a mere three posts before BaconBacon's:

this stuff baffles me* -- that the only acceptable civilian-on-civilian assault is the assault of small children. 

[Alcon]

Why do you assume his two sentences were addressing the same point?  This forum rarely displays rigorous writing styles.  As for why I think it's unreasonable, it's because the second sentence doesn't seem to serve as anything other than that argument.

I already addressed your question in the post you're quoting.  Please re-read it.  Perhaps you disagree with my rationale, but you've offered no reason why your assumption is more reasonable, so it was unfair of you to accuse me of "strawmanning."

Also you are mistaken that the equivalence has not been made in this thread, as it has been, a mere three posts before BaconBacon's:

this stuff baffles me* -- that the only acceptable civilian-on-civilian assault is the assault of small children.  

That does NOT make that equivalence.  It calls spanking "assault."  That does not at all indicate that all forms of assault are equal.  And, indeed, the legality of spanking is basically an exception carved out of the assault law.  (And, obviously, the law doesn't consider all forms of assault equal at all.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why do you assume his two sentences were addressing the same point?  This forum rarely displays rigorous writing styles.  As for why I think it's unreasonable, it's because the second sentence doesn't seem to serve as anything other than that argument.

I already addressed your question in the post you're quoting.  Please re-read it.  Perhaps you disagree with my rationale, but you've offered no reason why your assumption is more reasonable, so it was unfair of you to accuse me of "strawmanning."

Perhaps, you need to re-read.  You may think my reason insufficient, but I certainly provided one.  My own use of "why" above was not a request for a reason you hadn't provided, but for you to rethink your reasons as I felt your reasoning insufficient and I explained why I felt that.  I suppose if I were being a rigorous writer, I should have said "Why should" instead of "Why do", but even without that, I think my meaning was still reasonably clear.

As for why I think it's unreasonable, it's because the second sentence doesn't seem to serve as anything other than that argument.

Also you are mistaken that the equivalence has not been made in this thread, as it has been, a mere three posts before BaconBacon's:

this stuff baffles me* -- that the only acceptable civilian-on-civilian assault is the assault of small children.  

That does NOT make that equivalence.  It calls spanking "assault."  That does not at all indicate that all forms of assault are equal.  And, indeed, the legality of spanking is basically an exception carved out of the assault law.  (And, obviously, the law doesn't consider all forms of assault equal at all.)

It appears you are changing the goalpost from equivalence to identity.  If you want to play semantics, go ahead, but don't expect me to keep playing.

[Alcon]

Perhaps, you need to re-read.  You may think my reason insufficient, but I certainly provided one.  My own use of "why" above was not a request for a reason you hadn't provided, but for you to rethink your reasons as I felt your reasoning insufficient and I explained why I felt that.  I suppose if I were being a rigorous writer, I should have said "Why should" instead of "Why do", but even without that, I think my meaning was still reasonably clear.

No, you didn't provide reason to reject my response to your strawman accusation.  

This is what happened: You started by calling my interpretation a "strawman."  I responded, explaining why it's unreasonable to levy this accusation, considering my interpretation was not only reasonable, but more (I think) reasonable than yours.  I explained why I think this is so.  Your response was literally asking why I think this is so.  You apparently meant that rhetorically, because you apparently believe there's some glaring flaw in my response I should realize immediately upon rethinking it.

If you can't even articulate why you think my response was unreasonable, I have no idea why you'd think this would prompt me to figure out your objection.  If you can articulate why, do so.

It appears you are changing the goalpost from equivalence to identity.  If you want to play semantics, go ahead, but don't expect me to keep playing.

What exactly do you think "equivalence" means, if not substantively equal?

You claimed Tweed was indicating that beating someone is "equivalent" to spanking them because he called them both "assault."  However, calling two things "assault" does not make them substantively equal.  Assault -- in both the legal and colloquial sense -- can very between beatings and simple, unwanted physical contact.  Considering that you claim BaconBacon's entire and sole point was that beatings are different from simple, unwanted physical contact, you can't simultaneously claim he was responding to Tweed's argument, and claim that the distinction is "semantic."  It can't be a substantive distinction in one case, and not in the other.

Unless I totally misunderstand you (and I'm pretty sure I don't), you're making a logical error that renders your entire defense nonsensical.  This is not a semantic issue.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I already articulated.  I see no logical reason for BaconBacon to have written his second sentence except as a rebuttal to the idea that spanking and beating are equivalent.  Hence any attempt to infer it meant something else or additional is creating a strawman.  Perhaps BaconBacon was not making logical sense (and he certainly provided no support for his assertion), but that's not an inference I would make without evidence.  I generally assume people have some logical reason for saying what they say, tho I may disagree with their logic and/or their premises.

As for equivalence, my background in mathematics certainly affects my use of the term.  Equality is but one example of an equivalence relation (and the only one in basic arithmetic).  However, equivalence in mathematics only implies that two things give the same results in particular circumstances of interest.  That Tweed is asserting that spanking and beatings are equivalent and that BaconBacon is asserting that they are not equivalent indicates that they are not using the same equivalence relation. Thus the distinction between the two assertions is clearly semantic, since it depends upon the definitions used in their two different equivalence relations.  So yes, it certainly can "be a substantive distinction in one case, and not in the other" because they aren't using the same frame of reference.  Rather they each are asserting without providing any reasons why their frame is correct.

The error you appear to have made is in assuming that because one responded to the other, they must be using the same frame of reference when in fact the dispute between them is precisely about the frame of reference to be used.

Good night, I'm headed to bed.

[Alcon]

I already articulated.  I see no logical reason for BaconBacon to have written his second sentence except as a rebuttal to the idea that spanking and beating are equivalent. Hence any attempt to infer it meant something else or additional is creating a strawman.  Perhaps BaconBacon was not making logical sense (and he certainly provided no support for his assertion), but that's not an inference I would make without evidence.  I generally assume people have some logical reason for saying what they say, tho I may disagree with their logic and/or their premises.

I understand the bolded part, and I understand that your argument is premised on it.  You even asserted I was "strawmanning" BaconBacon because of it.  In other words, you not only think your interpretation is likelier, but you think that my interpretation is unreasonable.  I explained to you why I think my interpretation is not only reasonable, but more reasonable than yours.  Your responses to my rebuttal, as far as I can tell, were:

1. To ask me why I think think my interpretation was more reasonable (or not manifestly unreasonable), even though I just answered that question.  This was apparently rhetorical, but it's useless since I still have no idea why you're rejecting my rebuttal.

2. To argue that Tweed did broach the argument you claim BaconBacon must have been responding to in his second sentence, which is a claim that still makes no sense (see below).

Both of these claims fail.  I've already explained why #1 fails, and you haven't even explained why you disagree with my response.  And as for #2...

As for equivalence, my background in mathematics certainly affects my use of the term.  Equality is but one example of an equivalence relation (and the only one in basic arithmetic).  However, equivalence in mathematics only implies that two things give the same results in particular circumstances of interest.  That Tweed is asserting that spanking and beatings are equivalent and that BaconBacon is asserting that they are not equivalent indicates that they are not using the same equivalence relation. Thus the distinction between the two assertions is clearly semantic, since it depends upon the definitions used in their two different equivalence relations.  So yes, it certainly can "be a substantive distinction in one case, and not in the other" because they aren't using the same frame of reference.  Rather they each are asserting without providing any reasons why their frame is correct.

The error you appear to have made is in assuming that because one responded to the other, they must be using the same frame of reference when in fact the dispute between them is precisely about the frame of reference to be used.

Like I have already said, the bolded sentence is a glaring error.  You define "equivalent" as "two things that give the same results in particular circumstances of interest."  BaconBacon's post asserted that there is "a difference between [being spanked] and beaten."  Your claim is that this was a rebuttal to Tweed's post, which you claim asserted an "equivalence" between being spanked and beaten.  Your evidence for this assumption is that he referred to both as "assault."  "Assault" means intentional, offensive or painful physical contact.  If you're claiming that the "particular circumstance of interest" here is the presence of or intentional offensive or painful physical conduct, BaconBacon's post can only be a rebuttal of Tweed's if pointing out that spanking and beating are "different" rebuts the idea that they both involve the presence of offensive or painful physical contact.  It doesn't.  Obviously, that is not an arguable point.

It may be that BaconBacon's point is that they vary in the severity of offensive or painful physical contact, but that doesn't rebut what Tweed said.  Therefore, if your argument that my interpretation was unreasonable is contingent on assuming this was a rebuttal to Tweed's post, it requires asserting that BaconBacon is unaware that there are varying degrees of assault, or doesn't care.  If that weren't true, maybe I could buy your interpretation as a reasonable interpretation (although not the only one, as you seem to claim it is, considering you accused me of "strawmanning.")

Good night, I'm headed to bed.

Good night.  Look forward to your reply.

[© tweed]

That Tweed is asserting that spanking and beatings are equivalent

I'll jump in here and clarify, since my post has taken on some interest.  all I'll do is state categorically that Alcon is interpreting my post correctly, and you're not.  a 'normal' spanking is less harmful than whacking a kid half to death with a wrench.  much as a little fisticuffs outside of a bar is less egregious an offense than whacking your wife with the butt of a handgun. however, all of the above are part of the same category of acts: unwelcome, nonconsensual acts of violence against another person.  

the other issue is that an assaulted child has less ability to defend himself/seek retribution than an adult.  in this sense I personally find the act more offensive than a right hook in a bar fight, even if the physical harm is demonstrably less severe: amount of physical damage shouldn't be the sole criterion in evaluating the egregiousness of the varying 'levels' of assault.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Alcon, in response to "There's a difference between that and being beaten." you came out with what I would still consider to be a strawman argument. "Your ... sentence apparently implies that nothing is wrong, unless there's something worse than it."  While Tweed has clarified he wasn't trying to assert an equivalence in what I am inferring BaconBacon was responding to, I still don't see where BaconBacon's sentence makes sense except as a refutation of an equivalence, be it to something BaconBacon perceived in Tweed's statement, or more generally.  As such, I see it as trying to deconstruct someone else's position and not as trying to construct a position of his own.

[Alcon]

Alcon, in response to "There's a difference between that and being beaten." you came out with what I would still consider to be a strawman argument. "Your ... sentence apparently implies that nothing is wrong, unless there's something worse than it."  While Tweed has clarified he wasn't trying to assert an equivalence in what I am inferring BaconBacon was responding to, I still don't see where BaconBacon's sentence makes sense except as a refutation of an equivalence, be it to something BaconBacon perceived in Tweed's statement, or more generally.  As such, I see it as trying to deconstruct someone else's position and not as trying to construct a position of his own.

I already responded to this multiple times.  You're now just repeating your original argument without addressing my rebuttals.  See my last post, beginning with "like I already said."  Do you not understand my rebuttals?  Do you not find them convincing?  If not, why not?

It's good to know you "still" consider it a strawman, though.  That's actually pretty funny, since you're holding that your interpretation of BaconBacon's intent must be much more accurate than mine, even after you demonstrably screwed up in understanding Tweed's plain-language argument, which is what BaconBacon was responding to.  It requires a lot of chutzpah to be so confident in the superiority of your understanding of BaconBacon's response, considering you fundamentally misunderstood the post to which you confidently claim he must have been replying.