And this brings to mind a common misconception; what is relevant is the attitude serving as the impetus behind the punishment, not the nature of the punishment. Why, any punishment, corporal or otherwise, administered in a spirit of anger and frustration sends the same message. After all, if governmental authorities persecuted you merely because they despised you, would their actions somehow be sanitized if they decided to imprison you instead of administering a flogging? Abuse can take many forms, and so can justice.
Unfortunately, so can false doctrine. Lust can lead to sexual indiscretions, greed to theft, gluttony to over-eating, envy to uncharitableness, sloth to irresponsibility, pride to repeated error, and wrath to violence. None of these faults or any of their corresponding manifestations have to be taught, as they’re painfully common among men. No, with people believing blather such as “violence has to be taught,” it seems as if the only common thing that needs to be learned is common sense.
Article comments
1 - diana hartman
Selwyn says: “Don’t you dare spank your kids!” say those schooled in the fictions of sickology, “It’ll teach them to be violent.” I wonder, does crying in their presence teach them how to bawl, too?
What a bizarre way to compare and contrast. I'm not sure what it would teach a child if you spanked yourself in their presence. Why don't you give that a try and get back to us?
I would ask if the people who espouse this belief have ever had any experience with babies who get angry quite often and, when they do, will sometimes instinctively slap the object of their displeasure.
Ask away. What do you want to know? How to handle an angry baby/toddler/child from the perspective of a grown person who isn't so easily incited, who has more than a passing familiarity with child development and who knows how to act like a civilized adult?
Of course violence doesn't have to be taught. If impulses are left unchecked, hitting others is not the only thing children would do. Alas, if only we could justify using a grown person's untrained communication skills against them, too. What fun we'd have knocking some people around for poor syntax.
And natural it is, as most every creature " be it an insect, fish, bird or land mammal " will resort to violence when feeling angry or threatened.
This is your justification for spanking? You feel threatened by the actions of babies, toddlers and children?
Wow.
I’m not too keen on being compared to the likes of mackerels and mosquitos either, but I’ll assume that wasn’t your intention.
So, as far as the problem of violence goes, secularists and Christians should agree that it’s part of our nature; the only argument should be whether that nature is basic or fallen.
Aye, there is another argument. Just as much a part of our nature is our ability to learn, grow, and develop. You know, free will - as in choice and personal responsibility.
But a thing can only be cultivated if it’s already present, and we’re all born with both dark and light angels residing in the recesses of our hearts. The only difference is that the dark one is far more seductive.
What a wonderfully crafted skirt of personal responsibility - the devil made me do it.
This is the handiwork of those who, in the name of an obsession (again, eliminating corporal punishment), would blind others to nuance as they lump good in with bad in the same damnable category.
Sooo, not only are you not responsible for your violent tendencies, I'm not responsible for my blindness as it is the result of someone else's handiwork. At least you're equal opportunity about it.
Thus, if physical contact is not directed toward the purpose of violating, damaging or abusing, it’s not violence.
I'm sure we can find some heart-of-gold volunteers to spank you without intent of violating, damaging or abusing you. It may hurt a little -- or a lot -- but the intent to hurt won't be there so really it won't hurt. The pain will be all in your mind and if you focus hard enough, you'll feel the love swelling up in your heart like a spiky ball of goodness and warmth.
Without a doubt, not all aggressive physical contact is created equal, and this fact must be understood when evaluating it.
The law agrees.
A failure to do so leads to many misconceptions, such as the painting of all spanking as violence " and, therefore, abuse " and all violence in movies as being equal. But this is no different from labeling all yelling “emotional abuse”; you can also yell to warn someone away from a hot pan or against taking another step lest he fall into some hidden danger.
Where's the example of a spanking that would avert a child away from a danger? If you were within spanking range, you'd first have saved them, wouldn't you have? The consequence of being saved is being spanked? If you think for one second a child is going to make the leap to “What did I do wrong?” before wondering why in the world he’s being spanked, consider this:
If you pushed someone out of the way of a speeding car and then spanked them right there on the side of the street, it's a good bet the only thing they’d be thinking is that some crazy bastard pushed their savior out of the way just to start hitting them.
What is usually overlooked is the morality behind the physical contact. In a movie, for instance, a truly noble hero using measured violent action to defend the innocent is far different from a morally ambiguous portrayal wherein ignoble characters are exalted as they use violence to enrich themselves or achieve perverse pleasure. Two very different messages are sent, the former of virtue, the latter of vice.
In a movie? There are plenty of real life examples at your disposal. Why fiction?
All of the people in your example are adults - or at least grown enough to defend themselves and others, not something a small child can do against an adult.
If, however, the punishment is delivered in a cool, sober fashion, the message is quite different. After all, the child has to think (on some level), “Wow, my parents aren’t angry, so they must be doing this for some other reason.” The message then is simply: You’ve done something wrong, and this is the consequence.
Now you're a mind reader of children. Cool. What am I thinking now?
Isn't it curious how often you use the words "some" and "something" as in "some other reason" and "something wrong." No guessing games there, eh? At least it's consistent with the idea of learning by osmosis (read: child gets message through application of parent’s hand to child’s butt rather than the parent going to all the trouble of using his/her brain to communicate and think of a logical consequence " you know, as is done in the adult world).
After all, if governmental authorities persecuted you merely because they despised you, would their actions somehow be sanitized if they decided to imprison you instead of administering a flogging?
Again, you're talking about adults, not children. Do you know children are not just tiny adults?
Lust can lead to sexual indiscretions, greed to theft, gluttony to over-eating, envy to uncharitableness, sloth to irresponsibility, pride to repeated error, and wrath to violence. None of these faults or any of their corresponding manifestations have to be taught, as they’re painfully common among men.
So, we can spank our child, screw our neighbor, steal our friend's stereo, pack on a few hundred pounds, hoard our wealth, break promises, do it all again -- and come out squeaky clean because, after all, we were all born to do it this way.
No, with people believing blather such as “violence has to be taught,” it seems as if the only common thing that needs to be learned is common sense.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
2 - Lloyd
Well violence doesn't hae to be told, obviously!
But, it could be taught that violence is a good solution endorsed by the society, or not....