Opinions on corporal punishment.

[1048576]

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.

If you talk to me about your flaming homosex and I hate it, perhaps that's on me.
If you touch me with your vulcan death grip and I hate it, perhaps that's on me too.

That last paragraph is unsatisfactory to me, partially because you can theoretically use air as a medium to inflict physical pain, which I don't think you'd be okay with.

Also, you don't have to outlaw all speech to make insulting someone punishable. You just have to use common sense like with my broken shoulder example.

What would your response be if I said I consider my ownership of my body about as sacrosanct as the ownership of my furniture (except obv. worth much more)

 

[ballin4life]

If you talk to me about your flaming homosex and I hate it, perhaps that's on me.
If you touch me with your vulcan death grip and I hate it, perhaps that's on me too.

Ok, not sure what your point is. I think I should be able to talk about whatever I want, but I shouldn't be able to touch you with my vulcan death grip.

That last paragraph is unsatisfactory to me, partially because you can theoretically use air as a medium to inflict physical pain, which I don't think you'd be okay with.

Yes, but that's wrong because of the physical harm inflicted. Blowing an airhorn in your ear will cause observable physical damage. Talking to you won't.

Also, you don't have to outlaw all speech to make insulting someone punishable. You just have to use common sense like with my broken shoulder example.

Can you clearly define insult then? What constitutes an insult? It CAN'T just be anything that makes you feel bad, because then I can claim that anything you say makes me feel bad.

What would your response be if I said I consider my ownership of my body about as sacrosanct as the ownership of my furniture (except obv. worth much more)

Um ... I would agree?

 

[1048576]

Do you think the difficulty in measuring harm caused between the two different mediums is sufficient to justify treating them so differently? I ask because you seem to be making a point that mental harm is not directly observable and is caused by different things for different people.

Another thing we seem to be dancing around is the issue of intent. You can harm me without meaning to by talking about your flaming homosex. We have 3 different ways to deal with this for physical harm, and I think they apply similarly to emotional harm. If a court deems that your actions were not negligent (you threw a piece of paper away, the wind catches it, and cuts someone,) you're off the hook. This could equate to talking about flaming homosex. It's not reasonable to suggest that that action would cause harm. Then there's accidental harm, where your actions endanger someone, but the goal was not to hurt them. Then there's violence, where the singular goal is to hurt them.

 

[ballin4life]

I want to preface this by saying that I define "harm" to mean damage to someone that is serious enough that outside interference is justified to prevent it.

Do you think the difficulty in measuring harm caused between the two different mediums is sufficient to justify treating them so differently? I ask because you seem to be making a point that mental harm is not directly observable and is caused by different things for different people.

Yes.

Basically, I'm saying that you can't just have a criteria of "puts someone in a bad mental state" for your definition of harm because it leads to ridiculous conclusions.

We do have some grey areas like harassment, but overall if you want to classify something as harm, you have to give a better definition than the one above. And I don't think you can give a good definition where insults will count.

Also I think it is pretty clear empirically that physical harm is much worse according to any way you choose to measure harm.

Another thing we seem to be dancing around is the issue of intent. You can harm me without meaning to by talking about your flaming homosex. We have 3 different ways to deal with this for physical harm, and I think they apply similarly to emotional harm. If a court deems that your actions were not negligent (you threw a piece of paper away, the wind catches it, and cuts someone,) you're off the hook. This could equate to talking about flaming homosex. It's not reasonable to suggest that that action would cause harm. Then there's accidental harm, where your actions endanger someone, but the goal was not to hurt them. Then there's violence, where the singular goal is to hurt them.

So if I know that you are in the room (and your opinion of homosexuality) I can't talk about what I want, because then that's knowingly harming you?

 

[1048576]

No, I'm saying talking about homosex is fine. In fact, I can't think of anything not directed to the victim or talking directly about the victim that isn't fine.

I think that insults are the physical equivalent of flicking someone in the ear and should be treated as such. Fair enough? I'd actually prefer if it went the other way, where courts weren't so quick to hand out large penalties for causing physical harm.

That said, there's a lot of vagueness with the definition of "puts someone in a bad mental state." So what? Even within that vague definition, there are some things that obviously cross the line. In fact, I think, and I was kind of hoping to avoid bringing this up, that the only reason anything should be condemned is because it puts someone in a "bad mental state." The only reason getting punched isn't okay is because being injured/dominated feels bad. Thats where the furniture/body comparison comes in.

 

[ballin4life]

Yes, but physical harm has a clear impact, nonphysical harm doesn't (it's subjective).

So you're saying only direct insults? E.g. "You're fat"

But what if I say to someone else "1048576 is fat". Is that ok?

Note also that the amount of harm from this insult is going to be very different for different people. Meanwhile, a punch in the face is going to be pretty similar for most.

 

[1048576]

1st sentence is irrelevant.

2nd and 3rd, I mentioned talking about or to someone, so I covered that base.

4th is true but the diction is leading. Some people can definitely take a punch better than others. Some people can definitely deliver a punch better than others. I want to make sure that we both understand that the difference between the variation in the ability to inflict pain via physical vs. mental means among different people is only a matter of degree. That sentence is difficult to parse, but you can get the gist of what I'm trying to say by picking out key words.

If the difference between physical and mental pain is only a matter of degree/concreteness, then why do courts treat the two like opposites? Like, I can kill and eat your pet in front of you and only be charged with vandalism and be fined, but if I flick your ear I get a dime for battery. It's absurd because the former definitely hurts more than the latter.

 

[ballin4life]

The reason that people treat the two differently is because for one the damage is objectively observable and another isn't (as I've been saying). Imagine courts trying to determine "Well, exactly how much did calling the plantiff fat hurt him?" People would just try to sue each other over anything that could be construed as an insult.

Killing a pet is not the same as an insult either, since that's actually physically damaging one's property.


Honestly, what insults cause a non-negligible amount of mental pain in your opinion?


And remember that you still haven't given a reason to outlaw insults besides this notion of "mental pain". As I said before, by the same argument I should be able to ban any speech I disagree with by claiming it causes mental pain. In fact, I can argue that someone talking about sports harms me mentally much more than any insult. And you can't even dispute this, because mental pain is subjective.

Your only argument has been that physical pain is really just mental pain, but this is debatable. We kind of make an assumption that other people's experiences are similar to our own. It's possible that someone out there is like Renard from The World is Not Enough (doesn't feel any physical pain), but we assume this isn't the case and that experiences of physical pain are similar among people. It isn't proven, but very little along those metaphysical lines can be proven anyway. It certainly seems much more likely to be common among all people than mental pain.

 

[1048576]

As an isolated incident, insults aren't reasonably going to cause damage. The fat example was tongue-in-cheek. It would have to be frequent and sustained over a period of time, like bullying.

Anyway my claim is that killing and eating someone's pet is more than destruction of property. It's not like I should be able to get away with it by giving you $40 for a new cat. I'm sure you agree.

If you claim everything is an insult, a court should dismiss your case. It's pretty simple. Obviously the line for what should reasonably cause mental pain and what doesn't is blurry and we should err on the side of caution, but at the same time lets acknowledge that mental pain does exist just like physical pain and punish people who obviously and wantonly cause it, like my cat example. That's something that's over the line basically no matter where you draw it, since it hurts way more than getting stabbed with a knife.

Some people can take a punch better than others. True or false? Like they bruise less, feel less pain, and heal quicker. I was kind of hoping this would be uncontested. Edit: you see guys in the UFC all the time choking each other until they literally pass out. If that was you or me, no way we'd be that cool. We'd prolly cry like lil' *****es and then tap after like 10 seconds. On the other end of the spectrum, there's those blond barbie dolls that drive me crazy by making a scene when the ambient temperature is 2 degrees above their liking. You know the type.

 

[ballin4life]

As an isolated incident, insults aren't reasonably going to cause damage. The fat example was tongue-in-cheek. It would have to be frequent and sustained over a period of time, like bullying.

I'm pretty sure there are laws in place that prevent extended bullying.

In fact, courts do recognize some kinds of mental damages. I'm saying you have to be very very careful when you do that.

Anyway my claim is that killing and eating someone's pet is more than destruction of property. It's not like I should be able to get away with it by giving you $40 for a new cat. I'm sure you agree.

I'd see it like you ruining a painting made by a family member or something. Obviously you are going to be forced to pay more than just the "market value" of the painting.

If you claim everything is an insult, a court should dismiss your case. It's pretty simple. Obviously the line for what should reasonably cause mental pain and what doesn't is blurry and we should err on the side of caution, but at the same time lets acknowledge that mental pain does exist just like physical pain and punish people who obviously and wantonly cause it, like my cat example. That's something that's over the line basically no matter where you draw it, since it hurts way more than getting stabbed with a knife.

The cat example isn't about mental pain at all though in my opinion at least. It's about someone destroying property that you place a high personal value on.

Also getting stabbed is pretty freaking serious lol.

Some people can take a punch better than others. True or false? Like they bruise less, feel less pain, and heal quicker. I was kind of hoping this would be uncontested. Edit: you see guys in the UFC all the time choking each other until they literally pass out. If that was you or me, no way we'd be that cool. We'd prolly cry like lil' *****es and then tap after like 10 seconds. On the other end of the spectrum, there's those blond barbie dolls that drive me crazy by making a scene when the ambient temperature is 2 degrees above their liking. You know the type.

Some people take a punch better than others, sure. But the variation is not nearly as much as mental pain. If someone talks about being homosexual, one person may be completely fine with it, another may be mildly uncomfortable, and a member of Westboro Baptist church will go ****ing ape ****. Or if someone calls me fat, I'm not going to take it as seriously as someone else might.

A punch in the face on the other hand is going to be bad for anyone.

By the way, I'm pretty sure courts will take the actual amount of damage into account. If you punch a scrawny kid in the face you'll probably wind up worse in the courts than if you punch a huge bodybuilder type.

 

[1048576]

Are you saying we should consider the least offended person to be the metric for what constitutes emotional distress? I'd be okay if we did that for physical pain as well. Also, while I agree that you can file emotional distress charges for homosexuality, it should get about as far as claiming assault for blowing bubbles at someone, especially if we err towards caution, as I've advocated. The damage may be hard to quantify for mental anguish, but surely you can get something like a confident lower-bound. Also, there's way to make it known that you as an individual are being negatively affected by someone emotionally. Like when I get a bad grade and someone is having an episode of blatant shadenfreude (and I tell them to leave me alone and they don't), why shouldn't I be allowed to crack an elbow across their jaw and call it even? Why would I go to jail for the incident and not that person?

As far as considering your pets as high-value property. Eh, I think anything could be considered high-value property if you're willing to look at it like that, so w/e. Killing a person's pet should be treated with more gravity under the law. Punching someone should be treated with less.

Suppose you suddenly think, 'wow that numbers guy is an idiot and a jerk. Imma hit him with a hammer,' so you hit me with a hammer. I should be compensated for my medical bills and then given some money for the time I spent recuperating, and maybe a bit for pain and discomfort. Why do you need to go to jail over it? I'd be perfectly fine with you hitting me with a hammer over and over again and paying me for it each time.

Anyway rereading your post I think we're hedging pretty close to each other on this. Mental/emotional damages are valid, but really hard to demonstrate, so you should avoid awarding them unless it's really obvious.

I think physical damages are overly punitive. Ironically I think the worst thing about getting battered is the shame of being dominated and powerless, and that you should be compensated for that shame, but jail is as warranted in these cases as it is in mental damage cases. Is there a reason one is criminal and not the other?

 

[ballin4life]

All I'm saying is that you need a really really good criterion for seperating the "homosexuals put me in emotional distress" cases from the "legitimate" cases.

If someone shows me a criterion I can get on board with, then fine. But I can't think of one off the top of my head at least.

The reason you can't punch someone in the face for insulting you is because punching in the face is viewed as an escalation (rightly so IMO). Of course your punishment will probably be less than if you randomly sucker punch someone.

 

[1048576]

We treat people who punch people in the face like criminals. Do you think if someone treats someone else really ****ty (like brings them to therapy) they should be held criminally liable as well?

****, post eaten. Anyway, I can live with most of your points. Difference of philosophy and whatnot. I disagree that we need a strict criteria, since all that a "good" criteria does is make the line less blurry. A bad criteria does not eliminate all instances of crossing the line. For example, our criteria for what constitutes a person is poor, but we know that you and I fit the criteria, whatever they may be.

This is why I tend to edit all my posts 1000 times, btw. I don't like having them eaten.

 

[vato_break]

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.....

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

i made a thread a few years a go and here is my input