Pseudotriton ruber ruber is admittedly disingenuous.

[Scumpup]

And it is also totally irrelevant to the point, which was: people in a position of power over you ultimately back it all up with force.

Thank you.

[Dante]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

Thank you for reminding people … <snip> … analogy remains as ludicrous as it ever was.

It’s almost physically painful to watch you trying to keep up. I mean, if you literally can’t see what everyone else is pointing out over and over again, you seriously need to think about getting professional help. That level of disconnect just isn’t right.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@erislover

Apart from the fact that, you know, their job consists of holding people against their will as punishment.

Being held against your will is no way related to physical violence. You can be asked to enter a cell, politely comply, and stay in there for a life term without any physical violence entering the situation. Resisting entrance into the cell–now, that’s a different story, but any physical harm you suffer wil be the result of resistence, not of your original terms of incarceration.

Don’t you morons get it yet? There is no crime, apart from a capital crime, the prison term for which includes physical violence. Prisoners can get themselves hurt badly by behaving violently after entering prison, or by threatening to become violent, but that has nothing to do with their original sentence. Show me a sentence (apart from a death sentence) where a criminal is ordered by a judge to suffer any physical harm whatsoever. That’s the analogy that Scumpup idiotically raised that I called bullshit on, and it’s still a steaming load.

[Shodan]

Piss off, you fucking troll.

Regards,
Shodan

[erislover]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

Being held against your will is no way related to physical violence… Don’t you morons get it yet? There is no crime, apart from a capital crime, the prison term for which includes physical violence.

What part of “against [one’s] will” don’t you understand? The threat of physical violence is exactly what lies beneath compliance against one’s will. There’s really just no other answer. It’s what separates kidnapping from standing around. It’s what separates prisoners from visitors. It’s what separates an accomplice from a victim. What measure do you use?

[FinnAgain]

Immense And Obvious Intellectual Superiority.

Of course.

[Dante]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

Don’t you morons get it yet? There is no crime, apart from a capital crime, the prison term for which includes physical violence. Prisoners can get themselves hurt badly by behaving violently after entering prison, or by threatening to become violent, but that has nothing to do with their original sentence. Show me a sentence (apart from a death sentence) where a criminal is ordered by a judge to suffer any physical harm whatsoever. That’s the analogy that Scumpup idiotically raised that I called bullshit on, and it’s still a steaming load.

You’ve admitted that you knew what Scumpup meant, but parsed his phrasing improperly in order to make some sort of “point” (see recap in post #9), and it has been proven to you in this thread in multiple cites by FinnAgain that he was correct. Then you yourself even reiterated Scumpup’s position, as if it were your own.

And yet you keep hanging on to this “prison guards are allowed to kill prisoners at their whim” thing like grim death. Again, even though you admitted that you KNOW that’s not what Scumpup meant.

As a side note, it was interesting to see that you are in favour of hitting children, at least as far as Scumpup is concerned (post #51). If there are any other conditions under which you feel striking children is warranted, you may want to post them in your other thread, you know, in the interests of honesty.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

WHAAA!!!

This discussion has become so disconnected from context that it’s feeling surreal.

Here’s prr’s first post in the corporal punishment thread that started this discussion.

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

It’s horribly, offensively, unequivocally, and morally wrong. No excuse for it, ever. If you find yourself hitting your kid, for any reason, turn yourself in at the nearest police station at the very moment you come to your senses, and throw yourself before the mercy of the court. If you have an extenuating circumstance (“This is the first tme I ever hit my kid, Your Honor, and I’m deeply ashamed and will promise never to do it again”) you’ll probably get off with a slap, and it’s a slap far less severe than you meted out in your court of justice.

Why so extreme? Because it’s just bullying, disguised as parenting. Think: if babies popped out adult-size and grew gradually smaller, you’d never in a million years start any physical shit with a toddler who towered over you. If that were the case (can’t imagine how, of course, but just go with it for a second) the only commandment that would matter to society would be the one about honoring your parents, and it would be accompanied by the death penalty. Hitting would be so wrong, under any conceivable circumstances, if there were any semblence of equity in a physical struggle between parent and child.

We hit kids because we can get away with it, plain and simple. Now I’m not claiming for a minute that kids don’t piss us off, and we often have to chastise them fo their own good and their own growth, but the forms of chastisement I consider acceptable are often very inconvenient. It’s much easier to smack your kid hard for misbehavior, than to stop what you’re doing, and arrange for a non-physical punishment–if you’re out on a family picnic, a smack is far more convenient than figuring out how to give a timeout in a public park. Probably you’ll have to punish yourself and some innocent family members by packing everyone into the car just to deprive little Johnny of his freedom for fifteen minutes, or bore everyone to tears while you admonish him verbally for his transgressions. But my point is that when you’re feeling anger and frustration, it’s hard to empathize with the transgressor, but when you’re at work, let’s say, and your boss pisses you off in the same visceral way that little Johnny does–your blood boils, you find yourself making that “Grrrr” sound deep in your throat, etc.–you restrain your impulses precisely because there are obvious consequences to hitting your boss across the face in front of everyone, and you’re well conditioned to suppress your rage.

No difference with little Johnny, just different consequences. If you hit your kid, you’re a sick fuck, to my mind, and you need help, immediately and badly.

If I’m interpreting it correctly, he’s saying that people shouldn’t hit their kids because one wouldn’t hit an adult who had more power over you. Using power to hurt other people just because you can is wrong. (the full grown kid analogy)

Underlying this notion is that people who abuse power in small ways can also abuse them in larger ways.

Corollary to that is the notion that we might not be doing the same actions if other people were watching. (the police station analogy)
**
Scumpup**'s response is:

@Scumpup

Comparisons to how we discipline adults are hilarious. FTR, we ultimately discipline adults through the threat of pain and death. If you break the law, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest you will be physically subdued with pain and violence, or perhaps even killed. While you are incarcerated, you will be supervised by guards who have the authority to physically subdue you, or even kill you, should your level of misbehavior require it according to their rules and procedures.
If I could trick out my car to run on sanctimony, this thread would let me commute for a year for free.

OK, somewhat of a non-sequitur if it’s in direct response to prr, but somewhat in the same playing field.

I understood Scumpup to be saying that we discipline adults with force, so using that argument that we don’t use force with adults doesn’t work. That’s not entirely true and the statements Scumpup has made about prison guards don’t really wash because society doesn’t allow the actions that he’s talking about. Generally, the actions that he’s talking about are to keep people we consider dangerous away from hurting other people to protect the society, not as punishment to prisoners. Although it might come across and be seen as punishment, that’s not the intent of why it’s done. If it were for punishment purposes, the laws would be written differently.

But after much twisting and turning of the arguments, now Scumpup agrees with erislover’s interpretation that:

@erislover

And it is also totally irrelevant to the point, which was: people in a position of power over you ultimately back it all up with force.

which comes back full circle to prr’s point that one shouldn’t hit their kids because when you’re in a position of power (adult over child), you have a propensity or at least the possibility to abuse it.

So Scumpup was agreeing with prr the whole time and we’ve had this much discussion about it?

Kinda weird.

[erislover]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

I understood Scumpup to be saying that we discipline adults with force, so using that argument that we don’t use force with adults doesn’t work.

The threat of force. Jesus, you just quoted it!