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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Spanking is something that should be in the toolkit of parents, but it shouldn't be a primary tool.  If you are spanking your kids every day, you're doing it wrong.  It also is something that should become rarer as the kids grow older and better able to process verbal correction.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Spanking is something that should be in the toolkit of parents

Why?

You can raise kids without it. It is just an all too convenient shortcut.

Maybe if you have unlimited time to do nothing but child discipline.  If you're a parent whose child continues to misbehaves while you're in the grocery store doing the shopping, a single sharp rap on the bottom makes far more sense than a fifteen minute timeout.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.