• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Corporal Punishment

Red Exodus

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
4,494
Location
Hell
Those are usually debates the general public take part in so they don't really have much experience to deal with those types of arguments so to avoid making themselves sound bad they just let that go. I've never been in one of these debates so I've never had a chance to disprove that point.

Although, there was one fellow who argued against it [terribly]. He said it made him a much more violent person and that if someone intended to harm him he would kill them. I doubt he would actually kill someone but he said it so calmly it made me wonder. In the end he made his point but made himself look bad in the process. I imagine a lot of people who argue against it here fear that social suicide.
 

1048576

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,417
If you murder the bad people, then the bad people are unhappier, but the good people are happier. As long as you pick your criteria for bad person carefully (terminally ill people with no family, murderers of good people, and unloved ******* would be where I start) then the increase in happiness from the people who aren't killed is greater than the decrease in happiness from the people who are.

Hitler's ideas were good, but his criteria were WAY off. I don't dislike Jewish or homosexual people in any way. I dislike people who harm me. Terminal people take my money for no reason. Murderers of good people detract from economic and societal progress, which leads to unhappiness, and ******* also consume without contributing (unless they're really muscular ******* or something)
 

Omis

my friends were skinny
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
2,515
Location
including myself in your posts
If you murder the bad people, then the bad people are unhappier, but the good people are happier. As long as you pick your criteria for bad person carefully (terminally ill people with no family, murderers of good people, and unloved ******* would be where I start) then the increase in happiness from the people who aren't killed is greater than the decrease in happiness from the people who are.

Hitler's ideas were good, but his criteria were WAY off. I don't dislike Jewish or homosexual people in any way. I dislike people who harm me. Terminal people take my money for no reason. Murderers of good people detract from economic and societal progress, which leads to unhappiness, and ******* also consume without contributing (unless they're really muscular ******* or something)
Your logic is severly flawed. No person should be stripped of their right to live just because you dislike them.

EDIT: Like GoldShadow said you seem to show typical developing serial killer tendencies.
 

GoldShadow

Marsilea quadrifolia
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
14,463
Location
Location: Location
If you murder the bad people, then the bad people are unhappier, but the good people are happier. As long as you pick your criteria for bad person carefully (terminally ill people with no family, murderers of good people, and unloved ******* would be where I start) then the increase in happiness from the people who aren't killed is greater than the decrease in happiness from the people who are.

Hitler's ideas were good, but his criteria were WAY off. I don't dislike Jewish or homosexual people in any way. I dislike people who harm me. Terminal people take my money for no reason. Murderers of good people detract from economic and societal progress, which leads to unhappiness, and ******* also consume without contributing (unless they're really muscular ******* or something)
Remind me to watch out for you in 10 or 20 years when you're arrested for a serial killing spree.

Now unless my sarcasm-o-meter is way off, this post strikes me as very wrong.
 

Zodiac

Smash Master
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
3,557
Corporal Punishment- Intentional punishment,on a child,for wrong doing such as breaking a rule and is done by an authority figure.(Not an exact Definition)

What is Corporal Punishment?
Deeper into Corporal punishment;
As some of you may or may not know Corporal Punishment or C.P is disciplinary tool used by many Parents/schools,furthermore it's the infliction of pain for misbehavior and it's used in 27 states. For parents C.P is acceptable in every single state except minnisota. It has been used for years and is still being usd in the US. Most are punsihed with paddles,hand,bat,ect.....
Spanking a kid when they refuse to listen to they're parents instructions repeatedly isnt bad enough to be considered corporal punishment , not by a long shot. Im talking about a smack with a hand or MAYBE a soft paddle, I personally think a paddle is going a little overboard. But a smack on the butt to a kid makes them cry. a smack of the same intensity to any teen or adults butt makes them go , "what the heck are you smacking my butt for?", Its NOT as bad as a lot of people crack it up to be.

Supporters of C.P
Okay lets make this short. Supporters believe "to spare the rod is to spoil the child", which basically means the kid has it good cuz he's not being hit,thats pretty dumb no one likes to get hit,if the table were turned on them they wouldn't want to be physically abused.How would they feel if they got kaned for being late work? Thats builds a very bad relationship between the hitter and the hit.Also in the bible it says its okay to hit a child,if there are wounds the child has sinned,something like that but, i don't believe in the bible so i don't really care. They also believe that if they don't know who the "boss" is they will never know.
First off if your going to take a passage from the bible out of context then don't mention it in the first place.

Second, why wouldnt a child know who is "boss" its not a relationship like that. that is portrayed very wrong, a relationship between a parent and a child is one of love and respect, a child obeys out of respect and disobeys out of disrespect. And no one will ever get kaned for being late to work because by that time they will have a proper respect for authorities over them, hell, by the time a person is around 5 or 6 they know who they need to respect, kids are not stupid like some people think they are.

Reasons why i think it's WRONG.
Yes i believe it is wrong,why?,well let me explain. Many people beilive that once punished, a child will crime commit no more but, sorry to say this is not the case always .It's assumed maybe just maybe an injured rule breaker will be less likely to commit a crime but, this can be the other way around and a rule breaker can commit a crime again. C.p can help contribute the creation of low self-esteem,anger,feelings of helplessness and humiliation.
Its true that someone punished once wont necessarily stop committing a crime, The same punishment wont work for every person, As far as kids go, spanking a child is not the only measure to be taken. There are countless ways to punish a child without ever laying a hand on them.

"Go sit in the corner"
"no tv for a weak"
"No desert"
And tons of different groundings.

The only way C.p would contribute to any of those things is if it was abused, at which point it would be abuse and not any kind of punishment. Kids that get one or two smacks on the butt because they continually disobeyed their authorities don't eventually develop low self esteem. Again the only way this would contribute to any of those things would be if the parent or authority abused the "right" to use C.p.

Corporal Punishment tells the kid that it's okay to hit others to solve problems and problems solved with violence is worse than the problem itself. The whole thing is embarrassing and uncivilized.Childhood is an important stage in life,kids shouldn't have to grow up in violence. Does not show what the child did wrong or how he could of avoided the problem, just that the paddle is the answer to everything.
C.p is NOT violence. It does not tell kids that its ok to hit others to solve the problem. Kids hitting other kids is what tells a child that its ok to use violence. And no decent parent would simply spank their kids and call it a day, in case you missed it earlier a relationship between a parent and child is of love and respect. A decent parent will always accompany the spanking, or ANY punishment for that matter, with a talk of why what they did was wrong or disrespectful, and more often then not they want to hear what they're kids think.

What Can be Done?
Banning C.P is already in the process but, doing so will take a long time soooo it's recommended that Strong disciplinary codes are used in it's place but, still give authorities the power to maintain order. So if its that easy why isn't it replaced well not everyone agrees. Even iffrequent corporal punishment is bad, teaching behavior that you want to see is a better alternitive to corporal punishment and will be more beneficial to use.
Yes, I think what your talking about is the abuse of power by a parent or authority figure under the guise of "Corporal Punishment". As in a simple spanking and corporal punishment are two different things because of the abuse of authority under the guise of C.p.

And leading by example is a very good way to teach good behavior because all kids have someone they really look up to and want to emulate.

Conclusion
so i think c.p is wrong and should not be practiced because all it accomplishes is fear and does not correct the mistake and children should be counselled and givin guidence instead of a cane.
As I stated above, any decent parent will give their kids council and guidance after a spanking or any punishment, but the world is not full of decent parents that care about their kids, its full of bad parents that will hit their kids and call it "Punishment" or C.p. That is when kids start having self esteem issues or believe the only way is violence.

so what are your thoughts on c.p?
Stated above
have you ever been cp'd?
Yes
would you use c.p on your children?
I'd rather not
 

1048576

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,417
Your logic is severly flawed. No person should be stripped of their right to live just because you dislike them.

EDIT: Like GoldShadow said you seem to show typical developing serial killer tendencies.
No, no. I'm afraid of the consequences of serial killing.

The people I believe should die are people that nobody likes or people that so few people like that the benefit is still greater than the cost.

I don't think that any creature has an inherent right to live. It must be earned.
 

Pluvia's other account

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
3,174
Location
No Internet?!?
It's all a slippery slope from there. All you're basically doing is killing people who you deem unworthy, and effectively breeding a 'super' race.

And anyway thinking that people must earn their right to live is flawed thinking, you can't just kill people cause you don't like them.
 

Peeze

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
Location
Sunshine State of Mind
No, no. I'm afraid of the consequences of serial killing.

The people I believe should die are people that nobody likes or people that so few people like that the benefit is still greater than the cost.

I don't think that any creature has an inherent right to live. It must be earned.
Too much brave new world for you.

What would be the benefit of killing a nobody? Dont say "more space or food" cause there is plenty of both, just unevenly distributed?
 

Oracle

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
3,471
Location
Dallas, TX
Physical pain works best in teaching a lesson.
Positive reinforcement doesn't work as well anymore because we spoil the kids so **** much.
 

Pluvia's other account

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
3,174
Location
No Internet?!?
Rubbish, if physical pain worked best then it would work almost all the time. Like I pointed out, hasn't anyone seen Supernanny? I've never seen any of her methods fail.
 

Peeze

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
Location
Sunshine State of Mind
no but im sure they don't listen all the time to that lady. And how do you know they keep it up after she leaves, or after the cameras are gone?
 

1048576

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,417
Too much brave new world for you.

What would be the benefit of killing a nobody? Dont say "more space or food" cause there is plenty of both, just unevenly distributed?
There are limited resources to satisfy unlimited wants. If someone is using more than they are worth, then by killing them, others can use these limited resources. If the person who dies was gaining less happiness from the use of these resources than the person (or people) who are now using them, that is a benefit, IMO.

If someone sucks at life, but they really enjoy living in a cardboard box, then I'd say leave them alone. It's when they start eating away at other people's resources that I figure something must be done.

Edit @ Pluvia: What's wrong with breeding a super race? My goal is to maximize happiness. If I can engineer people who constantly create massive amounts of dopamine (sp?) then society is better off than before.

There is no other creature that is given it's right to live when it is born. Even housecats must pass a 'cuteness' test. Why are humans any different?

It's not a matter of me not liking them. That's silly. It's a matter of the costs of keeping them alive being significantly larger than the benefits, measured in terms of utility.
 

GoldShadow

Marsilea quadrifolia
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
14,463
Location
Location: Location
Edit @ Pluvia: What's wrong with breeding a super race? My goal is to maximize happiness. If I can engineer people who constantly create massive amounts of dopamine (sp?) then society is better off than before.
To pull a 'GoldShadow' and look at this from a biological perspective, if you knew anything about genetics, you'd know that it is impossible and genetically unfavorable, as well as unsafe for a species, to "breed a super race".
 

Pluvia's other account

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
3,174
Location
No Internet?!?
Edit @ Pluvia: What's wrong with breeding a super race? My goal is to maximize happiness. If I can engineer people who constantly create massive amounts of dopamine (sp?) then society is better off than before.
That is still flawed thinking, I'm pretty sure this was one of Hitler's ideas. Anyway, GreenKirby just said everything I was going to say:

You do know that's basically how racism, sexism, homophobia, elderly abuse, religious conflict, handicap abuse, and supremacist groups started
 

Mr. Puddin

Smash Rookie
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
2
Kids are like dogs they don't understand parents when they try to reason with them.

[Timmy]- I WANT A REESES!!
[Mom]- Now honey you probably shouldn't have sweets before supper. You know your father's been cooking all day...bla bla bla
[Timmy] *flails* I WANT I WANT I WANT!!!

or

[Timmy]- I WANT A REESES!!!
[Mom] *SMACK*
[Timmy] *cries*
[Mom] SHUT UP AND EAT YOUR DINNER

I like mom 2 she sounds awesome
 

Thrillhouse-vh.

Smash Hero
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
6,014
Location
The Bay
Didn't stop humans from doing it to dogs for the past 100 years.
Did you just seriously compare breeding dogs (if not all animals) to making humanity a singular master race to destroy all abnormalities and kill of those with said abnormalities?

Is nothing sacred anymore?
 

Omis

my friends were skinny
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
2,515
Location
including myself in your posts
There are limited resources to satisfy unlimited wants. If someone is using more than they are worth, then by killing them, others can use these limited resources. If the person who dies was gaining less happiness from the use of these resources than the person (or people) who are now using them, that is a benefit, IMO.

If someone sucks at life, but they really enjoy living in a cardboard box, then I'd say leave them alone. It's when they start eating away at other people's resources that I figure something must be done.

Edit @ Pluvia: What's wrong with breeding a super race? My goal is to maximize happiness. If I can engineer people who constantly create massive amounts of dopamine (sp?) then society is better off than before.

There is no other creature that is given it's right to live when it is born. Even housecats must pass a 'cuteness' test. Why are humans any different?

It's not a matter of me not liking them. That's silly. It's a matter of the costs of keeping them alive being significantly larger than the benefits, measured in terms of utility.
Do you seriously not see the flaw in your agruement. Happiness is subjective. Worth is subjective. I could love the fat, lazy, loser in the mansion next door because he gives me motivation of what not to be.
 

1048576

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,417
You do know that's basically how racism, sexism, homophobia, elderly abuse, religious conflict, handicap abuse, and supremacist groups started
Okay, for hopefully the last time, I'm not racist. I hate people who take more than they give by a lot. Same thing for sexism, I don't care if you are male or female. If you are a burden to society, you deserve to die. Some elderly people should be killed, as they are no longer able to contribute. Most elderly people can transmit wisdom or entertain younger generations, so they still have a purpose. Either way, injecting them with lethal chemicals is more humane than punching them over and over, no? All religions are equally stupid, but they make people happy, so I'm tolerant of it. Some crippled people aren't worth spending massive amounts of money to keep around. This primarily applies to vegetables.

I hold no delusions that I am better than any of you. I would probably be one of the first people killed under my system.

Nothing is sacred. Holding things sacred (other than the axioms of logic) is stupid.

I've already mentioned that I believe Hitler had the right idea. His criteria were just way off.

Oop forgot to mention homophobia. Being gay has its advantages in that you can have as many partners as you want at a time and the ratio is never awkward. I think that eventually, when we perfect cloning, our society will be entirely homosexual. I'll admit I haven't thought about this too much though.

@Goldshadow: How is it unfavorable to breed people to be predisposed to happiness? I wish I was happy all the time and I'm sure you do too. In my society, future generations could enjoy that luxury. I'll grant that it's unsafe for everyone to be an identical twin, but I also think disease discourages happiness, so keeping a little genetic diversity would fit in with the criteria. I think you'll grant that crippled ******* aren't going to be the answer to a super disease anyway, so we can kill them off, right?
 

GreenKirby

Smash Master
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,316
Location
The VOID!
NNID
NoName9999
Okay, for hopefully the last time, I'm not racist. I hate people who take more than they give by a lot. Same thing for sexism, I don't care if you are male or female. If you are a burden to society, you deserve to die. Some elderly people should be killed, as they are no longer able to contribute. Most elderly people can transmit wisdom or entertain younger generations, so they still have a purpose. Either way, injecting them with lethal chemicals is more humane than punching them over and over, no? All religions are equally stupid, but they make people happy, so I'm tolerant of it. Some crippled people aren't worth spending massive amounts of money to keep around. This primarily applies to vegetables.
WTF made you think I was talking about you? I was just explaining how hate groups start because of their idea of a superior/perfect race.
 

Peeze

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
Location
Sunshine State of Mind
Well 1048576, i find your a burden to society, because you make pointless and nonsensical claims and theories. Does that mean i can kill you?
 

GoldShadow

Marsilea quadrifolia
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
14,463
Location
Location: Location
@Goldshadow: How is it unfavorable to breed people to be predisposed to happiness? I wish I was happy all the time and I'm sure you do too. In my society, future generations could enjoy that luxury. I'll grant that it's unsafe for everyone to be an identical twin, but I also think disease discourages happiness, so keeping a little genetic diversity would fit in with the criteria. I think you'll grant that crippled ******* aren't going to be the answer to a super disease anyway, so we can kill them off, right?
Maybe if I have the time/motivation to do it later, I'll make a post explaining some basic principles.

But right now, I'm just going to say that your complete lack of understanding of genetics and gene expression, compounded by your faulty logic and inhumanity, completely undermines your argument.
 

1048576

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,417
Well 1048576, i find your a burden to society, because you make pointless and nonsensical claims and theories. Does that mean i can kill you?
That's a stupid definition of a burden to society. When did a nonsensical or pointless claim ever hurt anybody? If it's pointless, then it can't hurt anybody almost by definition. A burden to society is a person who causes society to lose more happiness than it gains. For example, if you gain a little utility from robbing people, and the people you rob lose a lot of utility from being robbed, then you are a burden to society. If you gain a lot of happiness from robbing people, and the people you rob only lose a little happiness from being robbed, then it's okay for you to rob those people.

Goldshadow: what specifically am I not understanding about genetics? You shouldn't just say "You're wrong." and end it at that.

Edit: Also, what faulty logic? I'm not the one holding arbitrary things sacred and making claims of inherent rights.
 

Peeze

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
Location
Sunshine State of Mind
I hope you see the point now. MY defintion of "burden" is different from yours. The old lady who's "taking up space and resources" on earth is a burden to you, but not to her daughter. You cant just make concrete definite terms for happy or "being a burden", because then you just start killing people with no real cause.
 

GoldShadow

Marsilea quadrifolia
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
14,463
Location
Location: Location
Goldshadow: what specifically am I not understanding about genetics? You shouldn't just say "You're wrong." and end it at that.
Like I said, if I find time or motivation to explain, I'll do it later. Obviously, if it was extremely easy to explain, there wouldn't be whole textbooks and courses on the subject!
 

GreenKirby

Smash Master
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,316
Location
The VOID!
NNID
NoName9999
1048576, your situation is still flawed.

Killing a guy because he robbed something is stupid and unfair from a logical standpoint. Also, I'm sure most people will steal something in their lifetime. So does that mean they should all die just because they stole something as petty as a piece of candy?

And as Peeze said, a burden's vary from person to person
 

1048576

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,417
A burden to society is a burden to more people than not. An old lady sucking up medicare is a burden to you, me, and every other taxpayer, because if she weren't alive, we'd all have a few more resources and be a little happier. If she has a daughter, then you have to consider whether the benefit of giving all of us a bit more happiness is greater than the cost of devastating her daughter. I'd say no, unless she was exceptionally ill or her daugher sucks too (kill her and it doesn't matter) or something.

I assume that if you steal candy, you are geting more happiness from the candy than the business owner is unhappy due to the loss of the candy, so I'd say you are not only permitted, but encouraged to steal candy, as long as the business owner doesn't care very much. Obviously if everyone did that, the owner would care, and you would all be warned if your collective happiness was less than the owner's sadness.

If the robber is capable of being "cured" of his tendencies to rob, and if it would be beneficial to pursue this action, then we should warn him that his robberies are a burden to society. Likely the robber will stop robbing and, as a productive individual, he/she will benefit society. If he doesn't, he gets the needle.

An isolated incident of decreasing the total happiness in society is not cause for killing. Decreasing society's happiness more often than not is cause for killing.
 

Pluvia's other account

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
3,174
Location
No Internet?!?
How exactly could you measure happiness. I could rob someone and gain money from it, then use that money to buy a Xbox 360 for me and my cousin, therefore making us both really happy. Our happiness could be greater than their sadness, therefore you wouldn't be able to charge me.
 

Peeze

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
Location
Sunshine State of Mind
And you would be robbing my happiness, by killing my aging mother who you say is a burden. So your a detriment to society by robbing my happiness. Off to the gallows with you!
 
Top Bottom