🇳🇱
Shout out to that time a long-time friend of a friend who always had a crush on me was devastated when I called her out (and ultimately cut her off) for hitting her child.
No one is going to beat their child in public and expect to not get an ear full out of me. I dont care who you are.
@freemo haaaaaaavvvvveeeee you been to Asia? 😏 Or mexico is probably closer to you where beating your child is totally normal thing.
@dashrandom I have. And being normal doesnt change how wrong it is.
@freemo or perhaps not all right and wrongs are objective but subjective?
Culture plays a big role in determining if some behaviours are socially acceptable or not.
Nah, thats just an excuse we tell ourselves.
While one action may be right or wrong given the nuance of the situation for sure, it is not a cultural thing.. What is wrong is that which causes harm and suffering, that is an objective measure even if that suffering may have to some degree cultural components.
For example torturing someone for pleasure is **always** objectively wrong, culture accepting that wont change it, it just make you more naive to doing wrong. No cultural perspectives can change the fact that act is one that causes net suffering.
Same goes back to beating little kids. No amount of cultural acceptance removes the suffering and harm inflicted and thus is objectively and universally wrong regardless of culture.
@freemo what if beating kids prevents them from doing things that will cause them even greater harm in future? As far as I know, most parents don't beat their kids out of anger but rather to discipline them.
If that discipline prevents even greater self destructive behaviour in future (e.g. playing with fire, running with scissors, etc), is it not justified? Keep in mind that it takes time for children to understand concepts of right and wrong or "this could kill/hurt me or others".
> what if beating kids prevents them from doing things that will cause them even greater harm in future?
What if unicorns shat rainbows? It doesnt, so the what if regarding something that isnt true doesnt mean much.
> As far as I know, most parents don't beat their kids out of anger but rather to discipline them.
Thats just a lie they tell themselves so they can justify their beatings. And even if it were true it wouldnt make the beatings any less abhorrent.
When parents beat their kids "out of disciplin" what they are really saying is they beating them out of frustration and anger that their kids arent listening, nothing more. They just need to pretend they are doing it for altrusitic reasons. Even most murderers need to find an excuse for what they do and usually find a way to excuse it as a greater good... it isnt.
> If that discipline prevents even greater self destructive behaviour in future
It doesnt, quite the opposite, it creates adults with deep rooted psychological issues who are likely to have all sorts of functioning problems. Worse yet since they are never taught to cope with their issues they likely lack the skills to even address their now underlying issues, or even the self awareness to recognizet he problem. They likely just go on to beat their own children and continue the cycle.
> is it not justified?
Since that doesnt happen this is a moot question.
> Keep in mind that it takes time for children to understand concepts of right and wrong or "this could kill/hurt me or others".
No it doesnt... by the time a kid is able to learn from a beating they are able to reason. Regardless even if this isnt true there are plenty of punishments that dont require you to beat your child.
@freemo @dashrandom I'd add that this "cycle" can also be viewed this way:
Using violence to discipline someone sets a standard. Namely that using violence to resolve conflicts is acceptable.
It might look like it works short term, since those using violence are usually stronger: Adults vs. Children, Prison guards vs. Prisoners.
So to refine the description before: The standard set is that violence to resolve conflict is fine if one is stronger than the other person.
Longer term, many of those people will go on to apply said standard. You might just not get to see much of the results individually.
@freemo @dashrandom I agree that children are more vulnerable, but i think the concept holds true for adults, too. It's not like criminals come out of prison as people changed for the better...
@admitsWrongIfProven
Agreed. But as someone else pointed out there is far more to it than just "teaching a kid violence instead of words is ok"... we are talking about children who are emotionally very sensative and often quite scared and need the security and protection of a parent to a reasonable degree.
To have the one person you are programmed to trust and look to for safety being the one beating you is a god awful psychological expiernce for a child. It can, and usually will, break a child and give them life long distrust of their parents. This not only has massive psychological issues but it also makes the parent less effective as teaching the child.. this loss of control over the childs trust, and the subsequent lack of any positive results when trying to parent, will lead to just more hitting and abuse out of frustration.
@dashrandom