Opinions on corporal punishment.

[Savon]

This is the essay I wrote in response to my opinion on paddling. My school paddles students, but there has been some controversy from an outside source about whether or not it should be there. Most of the students and alumni support the paddle. I am actually a minority at my school. Just looking for opinions. This essay sums up my viewpoint.


To Paddle or Not to Paddle

The real world is a harsh and unforgiving place. In the real world people can only rely only on their instincts and judgment when it comes to decision-making. Only we can make the choice of getting up in the morning for school or work. Only we can make the decision of whether or not we will carry out the responsibilities that are so crucial in our day-to-day lives. A man is not paddled at his job for being late, nor is he paddled for not having a regulation tie or shoes. This is the logic I am applying to my stance against the paddle being used as a form of discipline at St. Augustine High School. One cannot simply beat discipline into a person; it is something that is learned through life experiences and through decision making both good and bad.
Many who support the paddle feel that having it makes students do the right things in school when it comes to behavior, homework, and following school uniform. This may be true, however is this truly how we want to instill discipline into the youth of our school? Students should be encouraged to follow rules and do their homework because it is the right thing to do, not because they are simply scared of being paddled by their teacher at school the very next day. In an educational setting this may not seem like an actual problem. Work would still getting done and rules would still be being followed. This seemingly looks like a working system with no real flaws. The true problem sets in once this student is no longer in high school and the punishment brought on by the paddle is no longer a reality. Students are then thrown into a situation where the paddle will not be there to scare them into doing making the right decisions later in life. Simply put, the high school student no longer cares about wearing proper uniforms or handing in work on time because the paddle is no longer there to intimidate them into doing it in the first place. This is one of the biggest issues brought on by having a disciplinary system that revolves around paddling students for the most menial of infractions. What does it say about our society when 17 and 18 year old men must be paddled because they do not have a writing utensil for class? The paddle is an example of something that seems effective in the short term, but has the potential to cause serious problems in the long run.
The second main problem brought on by paddling is regulation. Where do you draw the line between when it is necessary to paddle a student and when it is simply overkill? Such arbitrary standards result in a system in which there is no real standard for what is an action worthy of being paddled for. Some teachers may consider paddling to be something that is reserved for only the harshest of offenses such as extreme disrespect to a teacher or fellow classmate. Other teachers may see even the smallest offenses such as being late for school along with blanket punishments for entire classes due to the actions of few.
In conclusion I stand firmly against paddling in schools because of the lack of true discipline that in teaches to students along with how it creates a system that is very easy to abuse. The real world does not paddle its citizens to get them to follow rules; the citizens must learn the rules or suffer much more severe and real consequences.

 

[ballin4life]

Since people often misunderstand my simple opinions, I'll try to make my moderately nuanced opinion on this issue clear:

I don't think paddling in schools is a good idea, for exactly the reasons you say. The big problem I see is the chance for misuse by a teacher that happens to hate a certain student or something like that. I don't understand why you would even need to have corporeal punishment when there are many other options available.

However, I support PRIVATE schools having the right to choose to do this, so long as the STUDENTS and PARENTS consent to be governed by these rules. If you want to be in this system, then that's your choice, not mine. But I don't like the idea of students being forced into schools where they are going to get beaten.


In general, I think the idea of forcing students to do things just makes them resent school and become worse students. If possible, parents and teachers should encourage students to follow things that they are passionate about, rather than shoehorn them into a given curriculum that they dislike and won't be helpful to them in the "real" world anyway.

 

[Dre89]

I think you have to look at which kids turn out better.

Comparing this generation to previous ones where kids were hit, I say bring back the cane.

 

[ballin4life]

Because you have some objective standard of better?

 

[Dre89]

Well, people from the cane generation say kids/teenagers are worse than ever. It makes sense, parenting in general now is not as strict as it was before either.

 

[ciaza]

But again that's subjective. They might be saying we're worse simply because we're different to them. Maybe if you looked at "better" in terms of Arisotles virtues in people, but again that's not completely objective.

 

[~Tac~]

Well, people from the cane generation say kids/teenagers are worse than ever. It makes sense, parenting in general now is not as strict as it was before either.

In my opinion, I find this rather true to an extent. This would include many factors on whether these kids/teens would benefit in ANY form of paddling. The two main, if not, only ones being their maturity level and how they were raised to learn from "punishments" given to them for infractions.

By far, I'd have to agree that this generation of children and teens have exceeded the lack of discipline of previous generations. There are a lot more activities and opinions that are fed to this generation that weren't even available to our preceders. Drugs and "freedom" issues.

 

[ballin4life]

It's a huge generalization by the way that people from the "cane generation" support it. I know my Dad is against that kind of stuff, even though he went to a super strict school where they did that.

Also, if you think this generation is sooooo much worse than previous ones due to drugs and freedom issues then I suggest you watch the movie "Dazed and Confused".

 

[~Tac~]

I haven't seen the movie, nor have I heard of it. But I also wouldn't put emphasis on "so much worse". I firmly believe that at this rate of deterioration and statistics, this generation is overall worse in comparison. Depending on their upbringing, it ultimately determines their sense of ..."cause and effect" awareness.

Even branches such as Suicide Rate and Teenage Arrests have gone up within the past few years. I will look into this movie, though.

 

[Dre89]

Admittedly, suicide rates do have a correlation with irreligion, and seeing how irreligion has been on the rise, perhaps that contributed to it.

Now watch someone post the Wiki link to the cause-correlation fallacy, as if numerous independent sources all concluding the same results isn't legitimate grounds to make that induction.

 

[ciaza]

"Admittedly, global temperature rising does have a correlation with the number of pirates, and seeing how the number of pirates has been on the drop, perhaps that has contributed to it.

Now watch someone post the Wiki link to the cause-correlation fallacy, as if numerous independent sources all concluding the same results isn't legitimate grounds to make that induction."

Satire aside, all you've done is shown that lack of faith has the potential to be the cause, but without decisive evidence you simply can't argue that.

However I will concede that irreligion is probably the most likely correlation to be the cause, but again we need more conclusive evidence.

 

[ballin4life]

Ugh Ciaza beat me to it, although I was going to post the actual graph of global warming vs pirates

Anyway, Dazed and Confused is just about teenagers from the 70s being rebellious. I'm just giving an example of how this generation is not the ONLY one to rebel from their parents (in fact I would speculate that the 60s-70s were worse)

 

[_Keno_]

Admittedly, suicide rates do have a correlation with irreligion, and seeing how irreligion has been on the rise, perhaps that contributed to it.

What exactly about irreligion do you think causes this?

numerous independent sources all concluding the same results.

Can you post links to some of these? When I google suicide, I get that the causes are rise in substance abuse, divorce, and mental illness.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I agree completely with the OP. Corporal punishment is simply behavior modification, and it is cruel and ineffective modification at that. As the OP pointed out, we don't hit other adults for failing to do certain things, and I'll never understand why we think it's okay to strike children simply because they're children.

As for the past generations being better, let's not forget that these were some of the same people who supported segregation, anti-communist hysteria, dozens of military actions throughout the Cold War, and now are fighting tooth and nail against gays being accorded the same rights as everyone else. Corporal punishment may have instilled discipline in these people (and I have a very hard time believing that), but it sure didn't teach these people how to be decent human beings.

Also, for those who like to say that everything has gotten worse since the "Golden Age" or whatever, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that teen births actually peaked in the 1950's, and have decreased significantly since then:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

 

[rvkevin]

The need for mathematical literacy.

Studies have shown that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement. When this was mentioned to flight school drill instructors, they disagreed. They said that when a student made a great landing, they gave them a congratulatory "Good Job!" When they did a poor landing, they would berate them for it. They noticed that after someone was given positive reinforcement, the student was more likely to do worse, and when given negative reinforcement, they were more likely to do better. This is true, but it is not meaningful. I'll let you contemplate why this is so, so I will forgo the solution for now. If you were to cite several independent studies showing this correlation (which you no doubt could since it's a real effect), it would not change the original conclusion that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement. This correlation would only convince someone that negative reinforcement is better than positive reinforcement if they don't understand probability.

 

[jaswa]

I think you have to look at which kids turn out better.

Comparing this generation to previous ones where kids were hit, I say bring back the cane.

A small anecdote: my Indian friend (Jabish) moved to Australia after living in India until he was 10. Man did he get the cane at school and smacked at home. The cane in schools instills fear in the kids to shutup, not muck around and pay attention. Because of this they learn at a faster rate than us and he laughed at the basic maths the kiddies were doing when he entered westernised school.

10 years later he isn't mentally damaged or anything by this harsh schooling treatment, if anything he can take a hit, you can't hurt this guy. He's ridiculously mature when he needs to be around higher authoirities, families, meeting new people etc. and he's studying electrical engineering at university. He's not some superhuman either, he's just an average guy, India is swarming with them!

Look at a highschool today and you see insane amount of whiny, emo, ***** kids to be honest. "Waaaaaah mommy won't buy me an xbox", "maths is too hard I'll just smoke pot and get even worse", "you can't do anything to me if I don't want to do my homework I know my rights", etc.

I personally think that general education and maturity is reduced in our society compared to one where corporal punishment exists.

What exactly about irreligion do you think causes this?

People who don't believe there's a higher (otherwise than) being might see no purpose in life and no 'ruleset' to stop them commiting suicide. Also maybe something to do with religion and the community it brings achieving greater general happiness.


(Brackets are for Dre )

 

[Dre89]

The suicide statistic is in the Cambridge Companion to Athiesm.

The happiness statistic was mentioned by William Lane Craig in a debate with Theodore Drange. It's on Youtube.

The health statistic is mentioned by Peter Keeft in his book Making Sense of Suffering.

It's also mentioned by an old athiest also in a debate with WLC on Youtube. Can't remember his name but he's old and has no idea what he's talking about, and he mentions it very early in his opening speech.

I bet no one would be questioning it if was about religion though.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I heard it somewhere, so it must be true!

even though I have no way to defend my appeal to authority!

causation and correlation Dre. it's really not so difficult to understand that a myriad of other factors besides irreligiousness could have affected the suicide rate and happiness/health statistics.

 

[jaswa]

Well he didn't link to the Wiki page like you said he would...

 

[Dre89]

Well when you hear it from four different sources, who have competing agendas, it seems reasonable to make the induction.

 

[ballin4life]

Mormons are happier on average than Christians, so I'll hold my breath while you all convert ...

Also correlation causation etc.

 

[jaswa]

Noone said that we are going to convert until we're as happy as possible...

APNS already said that, and Dre made a point against it.

 

[ballin4life]

No one made any point against the "correlation is not causation" argument because you have no way of doing a controlled experiment to establish causation.

I mean, every source will agree that number of pirates is highly correlated with global warming, but that STILL does not mean that there is causation.

 

[_Keno_]

The suicide statistic is in the Cambridge Companion to Athiesm.
The happiness statistic was mentioned by William Lane Craig in a debate with Theodore Drange. It's on Youtube.
The health statistic is mentioned by Peter Keeft in his book Making Sense of Suffering.
It's also mentioned by an old athiest also in a debate with WLC on Youtube.

Dre., how does mentioning a statistic count as actually being a statistic? If WLC mentions that he believes that atheism correlates with suicide, it doesnt suddenly become a statistic. Same with everyone else. Show us actually statistics please. Like this:

intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg

omg being religious makes you dumb, correlation ---> causation

/sarcasm

 

[Nicholas1024]

The fear of punishment is a legitimate motive for changing your actions.

Think about it. Would you go into the office (or wherever you worked), and try to beat up your boss? Why not? Because you'd get fired, and probably arrested. What if there was no penalty for beating up your boss? You'd probably do it every time you got sufficiently annoyed with him.

I think the reason this generation tends to be "worse" (at least subjectively), is because there's no real punishment for goofing off and not learning in school. What's the worst the school can do to you? Expel you? A lot of these kids don't care, and I'd imagine their parents don't discipline them for that sort of stuff either. So why work hard at homework when you can just goof off and play? Sure, you'll have troubles with unemployment later on in life, but kids don't care about that sort of thing.

The point is, when there's no penalty for not learning, and no incentive to learn, very few kids will put the time and effort in to learn.

My personal stance on the cane would be to use it as a last resort. If a child behaves without it, and does well, then never use it. However, if nothing else will motivate the kid (and the parents don't deal with the situation), then by all means use it.

 

[ballin4life]

The fear of punishment is a legitimate motive for changing your actions.

Think about it. Would you go into the office (or wherever you worked), and try to beat up your boss? Why not? Because you'd get fired, and probably arrested. What if there was no penalty for beating up your boss? You'd probably do it every time you got sufficiently annoyed with him.

LOL. No I wouldn't, because I am not a psychopath.

I think the reason this generation tends to be "worse" (at least subjectively), is because there's no real punishment for goofing off and not learning in school. What's the worst the school can do to you? Expel you? A lot of these kids don't care, and I'd imagine their parents don't discipline them for that sort of stuff either. So why work hard at homework when you can just goof off and play? Sure, you'll have troubles with unemployment later on in life, but kids don't care about that sort of thing.

Sure, but I don't think beating the **** out of kids is going to help. Especially if it's the government doing it (through the schools).

I mean, parents get sent to prison for that kind of stuff anyway, and I think you can argue that they have WAY more of a right to use physical punishment on their children.

The point is, when there's no penalty for not learning, and no incentive to learn, very few kids will put the time and effort in to learn.

I really, really don't think that the problems with US schools come from a lack of corporeal punishment.

My personal stance on the cane would be to use it as a last resort. If a child behaves without it, and does well, then never use it. However, if nothing else will motivate the kid (and the parents don't deal with the situation), then by all means use it.

What gives you the right to choose when to beat up a kid, rather than the parents?

Honestly, people won't really stand for it anyway.

 

[Nicholas1024]

LOL. No I wouldn't, because I am not a psychopath.

Whoops, bad example on my part. Let's put it this way. If you were given the exact same pay and benefits for playing as you were for doing your job, would you do your job, or just play all day? (Aside from the small minority that enjoy their job, most people would pick to play all day.)

Sure, but I don't think beating the **** out of kids is going to help.

Why not? How many people do you know that would pick regular beatings over putting some effort into learning a topic?

Especially if it's the government doing it (through the schools).

Personally I don't think the government should be involved in the schools at all, but that's another topic.

I mean, parents get sent to prison for that kind of stuff anyway, and I think you can argue that they have WAY more of a right to use physical punishment on their children.

I'm not talking about beating people to death here! If you can get arrested for using moderate punishment on a disobedient child, then that's just sad.

I really, really don't think that the problems with US schools come from a lack of corporeal punishment.

It's lack of incentive to learn vs punishments for not learning. Why do 99% of people work at their jobs? For money. That's an incentive. Why do they (usually) follow the rules? So they won't get fired. That's a punishment. It's difficult to provide incentives for learning (aside from those inherent in learning new things), so the other option would be to provide punishments for not learning.

What gives you the right to choose when to beat up a kid, rather than the parents?

The parents actively choose which school to send their child to. If the rules and punishments are presented up front and the parents agree to them, there's nothing wrong. If the parents do have a problem with it, they can switch schools. It's a free country.

Honestly, people won't really stand for it anyway.

It's not about public opinion. (Besides, the majority doesn't have a great track record when it comes to meaningful decisions.) Again, if parents don't like it, they can pick another school.

 

[ballin4life]

Whoops, bad example on my part. Let's put it this way. If you were given the exact same pay and benefits for playing as you were for doing your job, would you do your job, or just play all day? (Aside from the small minority that enjoy their job, most people would pick to play all day.)

Agree. But there is a difference between positive incentives (money) and negative incentives (if you don't do this I'm going to beat you). One could say that's the line between work and slavery, especially given the fact that children are forced to go to school (which I don't think they should be).

Why not? How many people do you know that would pick regular beatings over putting some effort into learning a topic?

I don't think it is that simple. Are you proposing a system where if you get a bad grade, you get beaten? I doubt that, because there are legitimate reasons to get bad grades besides lack of effort.

So I think you likely would support this only in cases of misbehavior or disrupting the class. I think that in those cases it is much better to simply kick the student out of the class. Basically, I think that there is a large potential for abuse by teachers if they can assault students on a whim.

Personally I don't think the government should be involved in the schools at all, but that's another topic.

Agree, sorry I took your post above as meaning that we should put corporeal punishment into public schools.

I'm not talking about beating people to death here! If you can get arrested for using moderate punishment on a disobedient child, then that's just sad.

Yeah, it's called "child abuse"

Seriously though, I think laws against child abuse have been tightened because it's hard to draw a line between acceptable punishment and serious abuse in some cases.

It's lack of incentive to learn vs punishments for not learning. Why do 99% of people work at their jobs? For money. That's an incentive. Why do they (usually) follow the rules? So they won't get fired. That's a punishment. It's difficult to provide incentives for learning (aside from those inherent in learning new things), so the other option would be to provide punishments for not learning.

IIRC psychology says people respond better to positive incentives than negative incentives.

The parents actively choose which school to send their child to. If the rules and punishments are presented up front and the parents agree to them, there's nothing wrong. If the parents do have a problem with it, they can switch schools. It's a free country.

Agree with this. This is pretty much what I said in my first post. But I definitely disagree with the idea that corporeal punishment should be widespread or enforced in public schools.

It's not about public opinion. (Besides, the majority doesn't have a great track record when it comes to meaningful decisions.) Again, if parents don't like it, they can pick another school.

It kind of is about your opinion when it comes to how a school is going to treat your child though.



Overall, I think that a lot of the problem in schools is that students have an attitude of "when am I ever going to need this" which is true for a lot of the info they learn. I think it would be better if those students could split off and learn a trade earlier, whereas academically oriented students could continue with academic schooling.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Agree. But there is a difference between positive incentives (money) and negative incentives (if you don't do this I'm going to beat you). One could say that's the line between work and slavery, especially given the fact that children are forced to go to school (which I don't think they should be).

It depends on your perspective. For one child, steak would be a luxury, for a spoiled rich kid used to Filet Mignon, normal steak could very well be a punishment. But now I'm nitpicking, since it's pretty obvious which category corporal punishment falls into.

I don't think it is that simple. Are you proposing a system where if you get a bad grade, you get beaten? I doubt that, because there are legitimate reasons to get bad grades besides lack of effort.

Yeah, some kids just don't understand the material. You can't punish kids for not being as intelligent as the rest of the class. (Ideally you could sort out the lazy ones and punish them, but I doubt that would be plausible.)

So I think you likely would support this only in cases of misbehavior or disrupting the class. I think that in those cases it is much better to simply kick the student out of the class. Basically, I think that there is a large potential for abuse by teachers if they can assault students on a whim.

I agree (on the abuse part). That's why I think corporal punishment should be used solely as a last resort. Basically, you go through everything else first (lines, extra work, telling the parents, suspension, etc.), and if the student STILL causes trouble, then you resort to corporal punishment. But not until.

Yeah, it's called "child abuse"

Seriously though, I think laws against child abuse have been tightened because it's hard to draw a line between acceptable punishment and serious abuse in some cases.

Yeah, the line there is hazy.

IIRC psychology says people respond better to positive incentives than negative incentives.

Here's the thing though, what kind of positive incentives can the school use to motivate students that aren't being used already? Because whatever exists doesn't seem to be working.

Agree with this. This is pretty much what I said in my first post. But I definitely disagree with the idea that corporeal punishment should be widespread or enforced in public schools.

The problem with public schools (or any government-backed stuff) is that it has to suit EVERYONE, or you're cheating people regarding their tax money. I wouldn't complain if public schools were to use corporal punishment (as a last resort.) I would prefer it though if all education were private. But again, that's another topic.

It kind of is about your opinion when it comes to how a school is going to treat your child though.

True.

Overall, I think that a lot of the problem in schools is that students have an attitude of "when am I ever going to need this" which is true for a lot of the info they learn. I think it would be better if those students could split off and learn a trade earlier, whereas academically oriented students could continue with academic schooling.

That's a neat idea, actually. In fact, even at the college level, students are often forced to take classes outside of their field of study in order to be "well-rounded". If they could specialize in the area of their choice (as my university thankfully allowed me to do), it would probably greatly increase the quality of education.

 

[Ganonsburg]

As far as incentives go, psychology has also shown that people are better motivated by praises to their efforts, rather than their abilities.

ie, "You did a good job on that test! I bet it's because you're so smart!" actually encourages kids to try less on the next test, whereas "You did a good job on that test! I bet it's because you worked and studied hard!" Will get them to work hard for the next test.

I personally don't think paddling a child is always such a bad thing. Like anything else, it should be used A) When appropriate and B) In balance with other disciplinary actions (positive or negative). Which, admittedly, is not very realistic with our current system. My Intro to Psychology college book (from Pearson) supported this notion too.

@Nic: Lucky! My college is stupid and requires something like 10 or 12 non-major courses to "round" students out. So stupid.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

In my country, governmental laws allow parents to spank their children because it's necessary for the proper development of a child. But as said before that's just for the parents, it's not allowed in schools or comming from no related people.

Also, that'd be helpfull only during the growing child process (when the child is knowing the difference between what's good and what's wrong)

However, The trend in the United States for the past two decades has been to abandon corporal punishment (spanking) in favor of increased use of alternate discipline methods -- e.g. logical consequences, natural consequences, time outs or withdraw of privileges.

If this trend continues, or:

• If corporal punishment advocates are correct, then the abandonment of spanking will significantly increase violence and criminal activity among the next generation of adults. Society will become more violent. More people will be victimized. We will have to build additional jails to hold all of the criminals.
  
• If corporal punishment opponents are correct, then the abandonment of spanking will greatly decrease youth rage and criminal activity among both teens and adults. Over the longer term, levels of clinical depression, clinical anxiety, alcohol and other drug addiction among adults will also decrease.
  Unfortunately, neither side in the conflict trusts each other's studies and data. So we are probably going to have to sit back and simply observe the long-term effects of the reduction in corporal punishment.

I think there shouldn't be rectriction about spanking (or corporal punishment if you want) because then children would say: "Ok I'll do this even I know it's wrong because you can't touch/hit me or I'll call the cops"
but spanking also shouldn't be taken lightly because it may cause a psychological issue to the child

 

[KrazyGlue]

If this trend continues, or:

• If corporal punishment advocates are correct, then the abandonment of spanking will significantly increase violence and criminal activity among the next generation of adults. Society will become more violent. More people will be victimized. We will have to build additional jails to hold all of the criminals.
  
• If corporal punishment opponents are correct, then the abandonment of spanking will greatly decrease youth rage and criminal activity among both teens and adults. Over the longer term, levels of clinical depression, clinical anxiety, alcohol and other drug addiction among adults will also decrease.
  Unfortunately, neither side in the conflict trusts each other's studies and data. So we are probably going to have to sit back and simply observe the long-term effects of the reduction in corporal punishment.

Crime in the US is most likely going to continue to decrease in the future, just as it has been doing (in general) for a long time. But to say this is a consequence simply of the reduction of spanking would be a faulty assumption. There are many socioeconomic factors that go into the trends in crime rates, so to attribute that trend to the reduction of spanking is fallacious unless you have extra information to back your claim.

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

I forgot to mention that those two points are not "my claim" they were taken from an article I read;
but there're two different points of view in those, which both lead to consequences that ultimately would be felt.

The consequences are things that should be taken in consideration before accepting the banning or not of something like corporal punisment/spanking to rais a child.

 

[1048576]

Didn't read the thread, so forgive me if I'm way off topic.

What's the relevant difference between insulting someone and beating them up? I claim that there is none. Both hurt in different, but functionally equivalent ways (both decrease happiness.) Different people have different degrees of tolerance to both, and different people are differently capable of inflicting both. I don't understand why you can call me fat, but I'm not allowed to sit on you and eat you.

Edit: skimmed the thread. I'm way off topic, but good god Dre... 1.) Every generation thinks the next generation sucks. It's nothing special. 2.) Even if you did have objective criteria by which to determine a correlation, there are uncountably many other variables which could influence said correlation. 3.) Christians aren't hated in America. 4.) You fundies give me an ulcer. I think I'm gonna be unhappy and commit suicide

 

[ballin4life]

What's the relevant difference between insulting someone and beating them up? I claim that there is none. Both hurt in different, but functionally equivalent ways (both decrease happiness.) Different people have different degrees of tolerance to both, and different people are differently capable of inflicting both. I don't understand why you can call me fat, but I'm not allowed to sit on you and eat you.

I'd say there is a pretty big difference between insulting someone and assaulting someone.

For one, assault is clearly nonvoluntary. It is violation of your body, the one thing that you always have ownership of.

Insulting someone, on the other hand, is not so well-defined. We might disagree about what is an insult. Furthermore, so-called "insults" can be effective communication. You might take it as an insult when your boss tells you that your work isn't up to par, but that's something that your boss has to do as part of his job.

Really, there is a big difference between outlawing violence and outlawing free speech.

 

[1048576]

Nah, your mind is the one thing you always have ownership of. Amputees, transplants, and whatnot.

So beyond that you're saying the difference is that one is easier to spot? That's a really stupid reason to codify physical and mental/emotional offenses so drastically differently. You can come up with ambiguous situations as to what constitutes assault too. What if it's loud and I want your attention, so I touch you on the shoulder. Is it different if you recently broke your shoulder?

That last sentence is so loaded. There's a big difference between outlawing sex and outlawing advocating the overthrow of government. I know you're smarter than that. I'm willing to try debating honestly.

 

[ballin4life]

The difference just seems very obvious to me.

Once you outlaw "insults" you have to outlaw speaking out against anything - as nearly any speech can be considered an insult by someone.

Once we allow this idea of "mental harm", it can be used to justify anything. I can claim that someone's homosexuality does harm to my mental state and thus justify banning homosexuality, for example.

Assault is much better defined - there has to be physical interaction that damages your body. Physical harm is easily observed, but "mental harm" is subjective and can only be observed indirectly.

I would perhaps make an exception for "mental harm" that has a quantifiable effect on your body.


Overall I would say also that you own your body, but not the air around you, so you are justified in outlawing physical harm to your body, but not justified in outlawing people's speech.

 

[rvkevin]

Assault is much better defined - there has to be physical interaction that damages your body. Physical harm is easily observed, but "mental harm" is subjective and can only be observed indirectly.

That would be the definition of battery. You don't have to physically harm someone to be guilty of assault. Assault is broadly defined as invoking a fear of serious bodily harm or death in the victim. For example, pointing a gun at someone would be considered assault with a deadly weapon. This is exactly "mental harm."

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

What's the relevant difference between insulting someone and beating them up?

I'd say that insulting someone would hurt his/her feelings.
While beating someone would hurt both, his/her body and feelings.

 

[ballin4life]

That would be the definition of battery. You don't have to physically harm someone to be guilty of assault. Assault is broadly defined as invoking a fear of serious bodily harm or death in the victim. For example, pointing a gun at someone would be considered assault with a deadly weapon. This is exactly "mental harm."

Yes, threats of physical violence are bad too, but they are bad because of the physical violence part.