3 ms·

I am not trying to play word games. Your argument is "smacking is violence against children, by the common sense definition; violence against children is inhere

by dash2 5mo ago

I am not trying to play word games. Your argument is "smacking is violence against children, by the common sense definition; violence against children is inherently bad" - also, I think, by common sense. My point is that when people say "smacking is violence" by common sense, they don't necessarily think that it is the kind of violence that is inherently bad; and when they think "violence against children is inherently bad", they are not necessarily thinking of smacking. But maybe you're right. We both agree that killing children, or kicking them in the head, is inherently bad. You also think smacking children is inherently bad. What makes you believe so?

baobabKoodaa 5mo ago
So now you're trying to say that "smacking" is not violence? At least where I live, in Finland, smacking someone in the head is considered to be a violent crime (battery). If I smacked you in the head, you could file a criminal complaint, a prosecutor would sue me, and you would win the lawsuit. You want to argue that smacking is not violence? I don't really get this line of arguing.
- dash2 5mo ago
  No, if you reread my point, I didn’t say “smacking is not violence”. My point was subtler than that - if you don’t understand it I can try to explain it better. You don’t seem to have answered my second question.
  - baobabKoodaa 5mo ago
    Okay, I reread your comment and I still don't understand what you were trying to say, sorry. Regarding that second question: > You also think smacking children is inherently bad. What makes you believe so? Are you asking me why something is "inherently" bad or good? That question doesn't make sense, because if there was some external reason, then it wouldn't be "inherently" bad or good. I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion, because we've now gone several times back and forth where each time I have no idea what you're trying to say. *edit: maybe you were looking for an answer like this: each person has their own moral foundation (or, most people do, at least). it's shaped by a combination of their genes and cultural influence, and later in life, possibly re-shaped by some introspective moments. some person might feel very strongly that "truth" is valuable in and of itself. another person might feel very strongly that all forms of "violence" are wrong. a third person might not care much about either of those things. everybody has a different set of morals. i don't know what specific causes caused my morals to think "violence against children is wrong", but some combination of genes and cultural influence I guess.

by dash2 5mo ago

baobabKoodaa 5mo ago

So now you're trying to say that "smacking" is not violence? At least where I live, in Finland, smacking someone in the head is considered to be a violent crime (battery). If I smacked you in the head, you could file a criminal complaint, a prosecutor would sue me, and you would win the lawsuit. You want to argue that smacking is not violence? I don't really get this line of arguing.

dash2 5mo ago
No, if you reread my point, I didn’t say “smacking is not violence”. My point was subtler than that - if you don’t understand it I can try to explain it better. You don’t seem to have answered my second question.
- baobabKoodaa 5mo ago
  Okay, I reread your comment and I still don't understand what you were trying to say, sorry. Regarding that second question: > You also think smacking children is inherently bad. What makes you believe so? Are you asking me why something is "inherently" bad or good? That question doesn't make sense, because if there was some external reason, then it wouldn't be "inherently" bad or good. I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion, because we've now gone several times back and forth where each time I have no idea what you're trying to say. *edit: maybe you were looking for an answer like this: each person has their own moral foundation (or, most people do, at least). it's shaped by a combination of their genes and cultural influence, and later in life, possibly re-shaped by some introspective moments. some person might feel very strongly that "truth" is valuable in and of itself. another person might feel very strongly that all forms of "violence" are wrong. a third person might not care much about either of those things. everybody has a different set of morals. i don't know what specific causes caused my morals to think "violence against children is wrong", but some combination of genes and cultural influence I guess.