Jimmy Changa Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Do you consider physical restraint a form of physical violence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Do you consider physical restraint a form of physical violence? what do you mean by 'restraint'? give an example. 'restraint' is too broad a term to say "i do" or "i don't" to. you need to be more specific. (plus i've just been being a devil's advocate earlier. what i've said isn't necessarily my own personal view. i'm just trying to give you a different perspective. i'm just puttin' it out there) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Changa Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Physical Restraint - physically restraining or controlling someone.Is this violence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Physical Restraint - physically restraining or controlling someone.Is this violence?done in what manner? under what circumstances? in what setting? you need to give an example . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Changa Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 If you wanted to go to the store and I physically restrained you from going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 If you wanted to go to the store and I physically restrained you from going.how did/would you physically restrain me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Changa Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 (edited) Whatever it takes. ...umm, i pick you up over my head. Edited November 30, 2005 by Jimmy Changa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Whatever it takes. ...umm, i pick you up over my head. Violence - Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing are you trying to abuse, damage or violate me (that sounds so wrong)? if so then it is violence . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Changa Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Well, physical restraint violates your freewill or your ability to choose where you want to go....no matter what method i use to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Well, physical restraint violates your freewill or your ability to choose where you want to go....no matter what method i use to do it. violate is different from violence: VIOLATE To break or disregard (a law or promise, for example). To assault (a person) sexually. To do harm to (property or qualities considered sacred); desecrate or defile. To disturb rudely or improperly; interrupt: violated our privacy VIOLENCE Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado. Abusive or unjust exercise of power. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor. it would be violence is the sense that it is the 'unjust exercise of power' . . . . what are you getting at? in a physical sense it is not violence unless you are going out to violate (sexually), damage or abuse me. in a psychological sense it 'could' be considered violence i suppose (if you use the 4th definition). whether it is violence depends upon the context and the intentions (i.e. whether you wished to damage me) . . . the example is poor though 'cos i would have head-butted and done a 'Stone-Cold Stunner' on you as soon as you'd made your move against me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_ed Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 one of the reasons why the kids shouldn't be smacked could be because they "aren't fully developed" and are more impressionable and will see beatings when someone is 'naughty' as the norm or an acceptable thing to do. yes, parents are 'supposed' to teach their kids what is right and wrong but i don't see why that needs to be done through the medium of violence. as i said previously. violence is violence and in this case the only difference is the person at the end of the violence and the acceptance of the violence by society. (i should point out that i was using violence against women as an example. if you seriously think that i think that "men are legally superior to women" then shame on you. i just cited that as an example. i could have given an example where wives beat up their husbands. they had a documentary on that on TV a while back ) in terms of courts, i think that there should be more leniency towards very yound kids 'cos they may not necessarily know the difference between what is right or wrong and so need to be given a chance. i also think that society should give people a chance and try and rehabilitate individuals who have strayed and so sentences or penalties awarded to younger persons should be more lenient. at the same time though i don't think that penalising a little lad by slapping him or whatever will instill a strong moral sense of 'right' and 'wrong' in the little chap. it merely teaches the little guy that if you get caught then you get a slap . . . no worries about the rhetorical questions. i like 'em . . . Not saying that punishment is necessarily the only method of teaching, but it can be a useful method. Also if "violence is violence" then "murder is murder". What the hell is manslaughter? Its just murder, whether it was intentional or not. There's no need to differentiate between accidentally killing someone and intentionally doing it because it still results in the death of a person With regards to the "legally superior issue", I was trying to point out that there is no need for any person to take the law into their own hands by punishing another person. Giving an example of a woman beating a man is still wrong. Neither partner should be beating the other... and women that beat up mean are scary Can't remember what else I said. Shall address later when my head ain't pounding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 one of the reasons why the kids shouldn't be smacked could be because they "aren't fully developed" and are more impressionable and will see beatings when someone is 'naughty' as the norm or an acceptable thing to do. yes, parents are 'supposed' to teach their kids what is right and wrong but i don't see why that needs to be done through the medium of violence. as i said previously. violence is violence and in this case the only difference is the person at the end of the violence and the acceptance of the violence by society. (i should point out that i was using violence against women as an example. if you seriously think that i think that "men are legally superior to women" then shame on you. i just cited that as an example. i could have given an example where wives beat up their husbands. they had a documentary on that on TV a while back ) in terms of courts, i think that there should be more leniency towards very yound kids 'cos they may not necessarily know the difference between what is right or wrong and so need to be given a chance. i also think that society should give people a chance and try and rehabilitate individuals who have strayed and so sentences or penalties awarded to younger persons should be more lenient. at the same time though i don't think that penalising a little lad by slapping him or whatever will instill a strong moral sense of 'right' and 'wrong' in the little chap. it merely teaches the little guy that if you get caught then you get a slap . . . no worries about the rhetorical questions. i like 'em . . . Not saying that punishment is necessarily the only method of teaching, but it can be a useful method. Also if "violence is violence" then "murder is murder". What the hell is manslaughter? Its just murder, whether it was intentional or not. There's no need to differentiate between accidentally killing someone and intentionally doing it because it still results in the death of a person Can't remember what else I said. Shall address later when my head ain't pounding i take your point to an extent. i have acknowledged that intentions are a factor in whether something is considered violence. but if you intention is too elicit pain as i believe that someone said it is in the case of smacking then your intention also has to be to damage because it is the damage which elicits the pain (unless you just inject with Bradykinin - the most nociceptive substance known to man. that's sweet). man slaughter applies to random stuff such a negligence as well though as i have said intentions are a factor but in the case of smacking this doesn't really help 'cos it would license beatings as long as the parent's intention was just to elicit pain . . . nonetheless this argument is becoming very drawn out and i'm afraid that i must retire to bed . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Changa Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 whether it is violence depends upon the context and the intentions Thank you for making my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 With regards to the "legally superior issue", I was trying to point out that there is no need for any person to take the law into their own hands by punishing another person. Giving an example of a woman beating a man is still wrong. Neither partner should be beating the other... and women that beat up mean are scary i wasn't saying that it was right. it was just an example. i didn't say that it was right for a man or woman to beat up their partner . . . anyways, see ya later!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Changa Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 whether it is violence depends upon the context and the intentions Thank you for making my point. ...and I couldn't have said it better myself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_ed Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Don't be silly, Barry. Parenting is a responsibility and a unique relationship. It is the foundation of society and has always been. You can't compare this to any other relationship like apples to apples. you said earlier that it was alright if you have the right intentions? effectively violence is violence. the only difference is the person on the receiving end. i think that it's not really fair to justify violence against one sector of society by saying that it's a "unique relationship" and therefore the same rules don't apply. all relationships are "unique" so i think that saying this is "unique" is a bit of a cop-out. marriage is a "unique relationship." could i justify violence in a marriage by saying that it's "unique" and therefore normal rules don't apply? . . . Plato's 'Republic' is organised differently and advocates the abolition of private family . . . i know it's not enacted but it is a different system that in theory at least could work . . . So if both marriage and the parent-child links are "unique relationships" in their own right, doesn't that make them unique to each other, hence making them different relationships relatively? So, if they are different, then you shouldn't equate the use of force in each relationship. Continuing on with that line of thought, using force in a marriage can be deemed as abuse, and using force in a parent-child relationship can be deemed as punishment, which actually coincides with (Western) society's interpretation of each situation funnily enough. Did that all make sense? Beers make it really hard to think properly i am making the point that ALL relationships are "unique" and different but that one should have a consistent code which they follow when it comes to violence. i think that one should follow a consistent code of ethics rather than have a mish-mash of different contradictory beliefs. that is Western society's interpretation but is it necessarily correct??? What's the point of a consistent code of ethics when you're treating different people. You already admitted that children lack the same cognitive capacities as adults (I hope so, you didn't make it explicit but for a med student to argue otherwise would just be silly), so why treat them the same. The fact of the matter is, children learn better based on behavioural theory whilst you can reason on a higher level with adults. and I think by treating women and children in a different manner (with regards to abuse and punishment) is correct...which is actually what I'm trying to argue...or is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 whether it is violence depends upon the context and the intentions Thank you for making my point. yes but in the case of smacking your intention is to elcicit pain in the child, correct? to elicit the pain you must cause damage, correct? thus your initial goal it to cause damage to achieve your overall goal of eliciting pain, correct? so it is violence it seems, correct? can i go to bed now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_ed Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 With regards to the "legally superior issue", I was trying to point out that there is no need for any person to take the law into their own hands by punishing another person. Giving an example of a woman beating a man is still wrong. Neither partner should be beating the other... and women that beat up mean are scary i wasn't saying that it was right. it was just an example. i didn't say that it was right for a man or woman to beat up their partner . . . anyways, see ya later!!!! night? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 and I think by treating women and children in a different manner (with regards to abuse and punishment) is correct...which is actually what I'm trying to argue...or is it? this is getting silly it's 3am . . . anyways, i'll proceed . . . but in an equal society people shouldn't be treated in such a different manner with regards to violence . . . are you suggesting that i would be allowed to spank someone who lacked the same cognitive ability as 'most adults' then? . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red_ed Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 one of the reasons why the kids shouldn't be smacked could be because they "aren't fully developed" and are more impressionable and will see beatings when someone is 'naughty' as the norm or an acceptable thing to do. yes, parents are 'supposed' to teach their kids what is right and wrong but i don't see why that needs to be done through the medium of violence. as i said previously. violence is violence and in this case the only difference is the person at the end of the violence and the acceptance of the violence by society. (i should point out that i was using violence against women as an example. if you seriously think that i think that "men are legally superior to women" then shame on you. i just cited that as an example. i could have given an example where wives beat up their husbands. they had a documentary on that on TV a while back ) in terms of courts, i think that there should be more leniency towards very yound kids 'cos they may not necessarily know the difference between what is right or wrong and so need to be given a chance. i also think that society should give people a chance and try and rehabilitate individuals who have strayed and so sentences or penalties awarded to younger persons should be more lenient. at the same time though i don't think that penalising a little lad by slapping him or whatever will instill a strong moral sense of 'right' and 'wrong' in the little chap. it merely teaches the little guy that if you get caught then you get a slap . . . no worries about the rhetorical questions. i like 'em . . . Not saying that punishment is necessarily the only method of teaching, but it can be a useful method. Also if "violence is violence" then "murder is murder". What the hell is manslaughter? Its just murder, whether it was intentional or not. There's no need to differentiate between accidentally killing someone and intentionally doing it because it still results in the death of a person Can't remember what else I said. Shall address later when my head ain't pounding i take your point to an extent. i have acknowledged that intentions are a factor in whether something is considered violence. but if you intention is too elicit pain as i believe that someone said it is in the case of smacking then your intention also has to be to damage because it is the damage which elicits the pain (unless you just inject with Bradykinin - the most nociceptive substance known to man. that's sweet). man slaughter applies to random stuff such a negligence as well though as i have said intentions are a factor but in the case of smacking this doesn't really help 'cos it would license beatings as long as the parent's intention was just to elicit pain . . . nonetheless this argument is becoming very drawn out and i'm afraid that i must retire to bed . . . *sigh* I believe you don't have the right idea about punishment. Talking only about positive punishment, the idea of it is not solely to elicit pain, but rather to elicit pain in such a manner that one will associate it with the experience in question and form a bad impression of it to help prevent the situation from happening again. There is also a moral norm which we adhere to as to how much pain should be elicited. Going overboard and beating your child is just abuse. I'll admit there is a fine line there, but on the whole I trust people to punish appropriately and not cause extensive harm to their children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.