Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Paidiske" data-source="post: 77668983" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>No; differentiating between the system and the people in the system, does not answer my point. </p><p></p><p>We have agreed that a degree of control to prevent harm is ethically reasonable. But not all Covid restrictions were about preventing harm, or were questionable, and there was room for public debate about those. I would also argue that in a democracy, we all have an ability to participate in the process of law-making, law reform, and so on; and that there is a social contract in which people who are part of a society agree to abide by its laws. </p><p></p><p>But all of this is not what we are talking about as abuse, or even hierarchy.</p><p></p><p>Power, in that situation, yes. Control in the direct way we mean when talking about abuse, not so much. </p><p></p><p>I don't look up to someone just because they're rich; and I'd argue that's a deeply problematic view.</p><p></p><p>A healthy setup is also one which minimises dynamics of control, and maximises dynamics of participation, as much as possible. </p><p></p><p>Yes; but the point I am trying to get at (and you seem to keep missing) is that control is always limited, nuanced, and in service to some other end. It is not an end in itself. And it is not healthy if it becomes the paradigm for parenting.</p><p></p><p>All of it. I think military life is deeply dehumanising. But that is largely off topic to this thread, so I have restrained myself and deleted the extended amount I wrote about that. </p><p></p><p>No, it isn't. In a true hierarchy, we wouldn't be voting for those in government, or able to change them on a regular basis. There is power at the ballot box.</p><p></p><p>That's true, but it is not oppressive in the way of direct control of one person by another. </p><p></p><p>How can you say that, and then argue for hierarchy? Surely, "we are all equal and one in Christ," is about as far away from hierarchy as one can get?</p><p></p><p>No, it isn't. We have actually seen real improvement. As a basic example, I have had access to education, employment, vocational opportunities, financial freedom, and a safe marriage that my grandmothers could only have dreamed of. Why on earth should I want to go back to the days when gender hierarchies were more pronounced and rigid, and see my daughter and any granddaughters go back to the way things were? </p><p></p><p>Let me just pause to note that that has always been happening.</p><p></p><p>And so has this. </p><p></p><p>And so has this. All the way back to Roman circusses, and no doubt earlier. Let's not pretend that society has ever had an era where sexual violence, exploitation, and abuse have been absent. </p><p></p><p>Because arguing for equality in marriage is totally rejecting God and the sanctity of marriage. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite11" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll Eyes :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> (Again, /sarcasm).</p><p></p><p>And I don't buy that for one second. </p><p></p><p>That is an extremely recent view of marriage. </p><p></p><p>If, say, one of them was required to vow to obey they other, that would certainly be a hierarchy. </p><p></p><p>In terms of things like governing society, sure. "In control" in terms of making decisions for my own life - what I may study, where I may work, how I may participate in society, whom I may marry - no, I don't think we do value people being in control over us, whether they know what they are doing or not.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77668983, member: 386627"] No; differentiating between the system and the people in the system, does not answer my point. We have agreed that a degree of control to prevent harm is ethically reasonable. But not all Covid restrictions were about preventing harm, or were questionable, and there was room for public debate about those. I would also argue that in a democracy, we all have an ability to participate in the process of law-making, law reform, and so on; and that there is a social contract in which people who are part of a society agree to abide by its laws. But all of this is not what we are talking about as abuse, or even hierarchy. Power, in that situation, yes. Control in the direct way we mean when talking about abuse, not so much. I don't look up to someone just because they're rich; and I'd argue that's a deeply problematic view. A healthy setup is also one which minimises dynamics of control, and maximises dynamics of participation, as much as possible. Yes; but the point I am trying to get at (and you seem to keep missing) is that control is always limited, nuanced, and in service to some other end. It is not an end in itself. And it is not healthy if it becomes the paradigm for parenting. All of it. I think military life is deeply dehumanising. But that is largely off topic to this thread, so I have restrained myself and deleted the extended amount I wrote about that. No, it isn't. In a true hierarchy, we wouldn't be voting for those in government, or able to change them on a regular basis. There is power at the ballot box. That's true, but it is not oppressive in the way of direct control of one person by another. How can you say that, and then argue for hierarchy? Surely, "we are all equal and one in Christ," is about as far away from hierarchy as one can get? No, it isn't. We have actually seen real improvement. As a basic example, I have had access to education, employment, vocational opportunities, financial freedom, and a safe marriage that my grandmothers could only have dreamed of. Why on earth should I want to go back to the days when gender hierarchies were more pronounced and rigid, and see my daughter and any granddaughters go back to the way things were? Let me just pause to note that that has always been happening. And so has this. And so has this. All the way back to Roman circusses, and no doubt earlier. Let's not pretend that society has ever had an era where sexual violence, exploitation, and abuse have been absent. Because arguing for equality in marriage is totally rejecting God and the sanctity of marriage. :rolleyes: (Again, /sarcasm). And I don't buy that for one second. That is an extremely recent view of marriage. If, say, one of them was required to vow to obey they other, that would certainly be a hierarchy. In terms of things like governing society, sure. "In control" in terms of making decisions for my own life - what I may study, where I may work, how I may participate in society, whom I may marry - no, I don't think we do value people being in control over us, whether they know what they are doing or not. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
Top
Bottom