06 Mar 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeare you sure you ave the right guy? i don't recall being accused of the naturalistic fallacy by you, although it is comforting to know that it does exist.
It's actually more than bordering on a fallacy, it IS a fallacy...
The Naturalistic Fallacy in point of fact.
You ought to know this given the number of times you have been accused
[often by me] of committing it. 😉
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Mar 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's also an assault upon another person which is something we generally
I think there is a rationale but understanding what it is and what its based on is not easy. It seems to be that there are a few arguments and if we cut away the flesh and get to the bone we are left with,
1. That corporal punishment leads to other forms of physical abuse.
2. That corporal punishment teaches that violence is a solution.
There may be others but this is what i have understood so far.
try to discourage.
My position is that I am opposed to any form of corporal punishment.
You shouldn't punish children with violence.
However, I do think that there are occasions where very small children can
loose it and need a short sharp shock to bring them back to reality and make
them start paying attention again. But this should be a very last resort, very
infrequently used, and never as punishment.
I oppose any law that would make such actions illegal.
However I am totally for a [well drafted] law that makes beating children as
punishment illegal.
06 Mar 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't either, and for the record rape is extremely rare amongst the mammals, excluding man of course. In fact amongst the mammals (excluding man) it is nearly always the females who are the boss. I place emphasis on the word mild because in evolutionary terms humans to a very large extent are protected from the consequences of their actions, and excessive force can go unpunished.
No, I am saying that calling something 'natural' doesn't make it OK, nor does observing similar behavior in other animals.
And why the emphasis on MILD physical discipline? Severe physical discipline also exists amoungst animals.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Mar 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGo look up just about every discussion [and I don't want to re-hash any of
are you sure you ave the right guy? i don't recall being accused of the naturalistic fallacy by you, although it is comforting to know that it does exist.
them here right now] we have had about gay marriage and/or homosexuality.
You will find it there.
....
Actually, I was wrong, it's not the naturalistic fallacy, it's the appeal to nature fallacy.
Sorry, my mistake, I keep mixing those two up.
I really should have those down by now.
06 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeI agree with your views and would add that it is a practice that should be phased out fairly quickly.
It's also an assault upon another person which is something we generally
try to discourage.
My position is that I am opposed to any form of corporal [b]punishment.
You shouldn't punish children with violence.
However, I do think that there are occasions where very small children can
loose it and need a short sharp shock to bri ...[text shortened]... wever I am totally for a [well drafted] law that makes beating children as
punishment illegal.[/b]
I could not see the current politicians in my country being able to to make legislation here that would recognize these finer points.
06 Mar 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe fact that other factors may also have a bearing on the phenomenon does not mean that their study has not established a link.
lame, soooo lame even for a scourgy windbag like you. What I have actually said and lets be clear about this so that your perverted little mind cannot distort the facts...[text shortened]... Again why you have trouble understanding this I cannot say and what is worse, i don't really care if I am, honest.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
07 Mar 15
Originally posted by FMFIn fact, the report (it is searchable by control-f and the word control) says, numerous times, that the various other factors mentioned were 'controlled for' in the studies. I'm not sure everyone here knows what that means.
The fact that other factors may also have a bearing on the phenomenon does not mean that their study has not established a link.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/01/12/what-does-it-mean-to-control-for-something/
or
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/a-tribute-to-regression-analysis
07 Mar 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeI think morals and ethics arise as societal survival strategies, and are themselves a result of natural selection. A lower animal forerunner could be the pack dynamics of wolves or the social structure of chimps for example.
RC is correct, [hidden] [and you have no idea how much I hate saying that] [/hidden] the fact that a behaviour is found in the animal kingdom and/or has
been selected for by evolution is not in any way evidence or reason that it is morally
or ethically good, by any standards.
To claim otherwise is to commit the naturalistic fallacy [among other flaws].
EDIT: my mistake. appeal to nature fallacy.
Originally posted by JS357I think robbie doesn't want the study to be seen as providing valid evidence for his own ideological reasons and "already after the first few paragraphs" ~ before having read it ~ he was dismissing it. He went on to say "...happy couples don't engage in abuse and to link this to corporal punishment in childhood i find not a little incredulous, unless of course we are willing to say that being subject to corporal punishment causes someone to behave in a particular way". Which is like saying 'this study which provides evidence that X = Y is wrong because I personally don't think X = Y'.
In fact, the report (it is searchable by control-f and the word control) says, numerous times, that the various other factors mentioned were 'controlled for' in the studies. I'm not sure everyone here knows what that means.
07 Mar 15
Originally posted by OdBodThen what was your point, if any?
I didn't either,
..and for the record rape is extremely rare amongst the mammals, excluding man of course.
Does that matter?
In fact amongst the mammals (excluding man) it is nearly always the females who are the boss. I place emphasis on the word mild because in evolutionary terms humans to a very large extent are protected from the consequences of their actions, and excessive force can go unpunished.
I don't understand. Please explain that again.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraFirst of all you will need to demonstrate why its abusive, secondly you will need to say what relevance beating a dog has to administering corporal punishment. that one is legal and the other illegal? How doe that explain anything? Is it simply an attempt to put it in some kind of context?
Abusing children is bad, m'kay. It's interesting that there are many places in the world where beating an adult or your dog is illegal, but beating a child is A-OK.
07 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357controlled? who can control economics?
In fact, the report (it is searchable by control-f and the word control) says, numerous times, that the various other factors mentioned were 'controlled for' in the studies. I'm not sure everyone here knows what that means.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/01/12/what-does-it-mean-to-control-for-something/
or
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/a-tribute-to-regression-analysis