<Rant> Where has courtesy gone?

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

As always Warlord Ralts, truth lies in the middle ground.

I completely agree. That's the problem, the middle ground is hard to see, and everyone usually ends up standing on one side or the other.

You made it seem like I was advocating molly-coddling children through their faults and ego-trips. Far from it.

I apologize for that. I realize that you might not have understood that what I thought you were advocating is the popular belief in disciplining children.

Honestly, there are people that believe that children should recieve NO negative reenforcement, and recieve only positive reenforcement and self-affirmation. Knowing now that you live in another country, and may not realize how rediculous it has gotten in places, in certian cases, here in the US, you might have thought it was a personal attack upon you, when in actuality, it was more of a sneer at the "My child is just expressing himself when he throws a fit in the store, curses at me, urinates upon the floor, and screams at the top of his lungs because he has to share the toy I am buying with his sibling." crowd.

Discipline is required for children to learn boundries. And while I may sincerely believe that you would not use your position to abuse your children, there are others who would, and do.

I agree with the fact there are those who use thier position to abuse thier children. These people are little more than bullies or mentally ill.

In Sweden, physical violence against minors is forbidden, but other methods of disciplining are not. Do not your courts have a hard time trying to adjudicate what is a reasonable amount of force to discipline a child with, as opposed to abusing the child, and for society to deem what is "deserved" physical punishment for minor transgressions against good behaviour?

It depends on the area. In some places in the US, ANY physical punishment is abuse. A threat of physical abuse (IE: the threat of a spanking) is considered abuse. Both of which are grounds for the state to take away the child, and the parent must provide the burden of proof that abuse did not occur.

 

[green slime]

She was throwing the wood into the wood stack next to the stove when she brought it in, and a piece bounced off, hit her sister in the mouth, and split her lip. She had written sentences, done pushups, been grounded, had to take the wood back and forth 10 times, stood in the corner, ran around the block 15 times, and other punishments.

She didn't throw the wood again, strangely enough.

And was that primarily because she received a physical punishment, or because she finally saw the consequences of throwing the wood, that it could actually hurt someone and did? What hurt her the most? That she hurt her sister through her laziness and blatant disregard for your instructions (thinking she knew better), or your corporal punishment of her?

 

[green slime]

I apologize for that. I realize that you might not have understood that what I thought you were advocating is the popular belief in disciplining children.

I apologise for my unclear statement! I grew up in Australia and New Zealand, live in Sweden, and work, for the moment, in Iran ( )

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

And there are people who FIRMLY believe that those who disagree with them deserve a firm thrashing on principle. It is because of these people that we have the laws we have.

I can agree with that. Beating someone down for a difference of opinion or beliefs is the refuge and action of the socially inept and the bully.

These types of people think the statement, "If anyone hits me, I have the right to shoot them" is morally correct. Some of them even think "If anyone bad-mouths me, I have the right to shoot them" is morally correct.

See above.

This is why using violence as a response to a verbal comment is expressly forbidden. It takes away the ability of each individual to determine how much violence is appropriate because each indidual's response will vary in severity. Or let me rephrase that, it gives those agressed upon violently the legal right to seek restitution against those who do not follow our laws.

Actually, it coddles though who do not want to have repercussions.

Your examples above only have physical acts of violence in common with my example. Your examples are quite difference from punching someone in the mouth for a verbal barrage that can't be repeated here without a threat of banning or an actual banning being leveled against me. If I was to subject you to the same language and same statements, you would immediately call out for my banning for breaking the rules of civility on this board.

The ability to sue those who take them to task for thier mouths gave the vulgar, foul, rude and impolite the means to attack those gave them the punch in the mouth they richly deserved without any risks.

It may be the law, but that don't make it right.

In other words, It's to protect your family from people who are like yourself, but willing to use more violence.

LOL This is too funny.

So it's OK to allow my family to be suggested to foul insuations, verbal rudeness of a vulgar and foul sort, because the laws are there to protect my family for people who would normally shoot the man for it?

Your examples don't fit.

The laws are to protect people who feel they have the right to say anything they want without repercussions. Who feel that a personal, verbal attack should be protected.

I had my own encounter with rudeness today. Someone was waiting in a parking lot for someone to park. I waited for about a minute and honked. Nothing. I waited a bit longer and when the finally pulled in, I pulled in next to them and open my window and yelled. "How rude!" They didn't hear so I yelled again, "How rude! You think everyone else can wait for you because you think you're more important that other people! How rude!" They got huffy like I was the rude one to mention it, but oh well.

joe b.

Yeah, yours is the same. Quite the same.

SO they were waiting politely for someone to park, to make sure they didn't need to back out and cause an accident, and to keep a decent clearance, and you decided that you were inconvienced enough by this politeness to repeatedly scream at them.

Looks to me like the rudeness was on the other side.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

And was that primarily because she received a physical punishment, or because she finally saw the consequences of throwing the wood, that it could actually hurt someone and did? What hurt her the most? That she hurt her sister through her laziness and blatant disregard for your instructions (thinking she knew better), or your corporal punishment of her?

It wasn't the first time she had hurt someone. Bruises mostly. She was being inconsiderate and dangerous.

Which actually hurt more? Since it was one swat on the butt with my right arm (which is weak at best and has limited mobility) I'd say it was the shame of the swat, hurting her sister again, and realizing that she had actually pushed it to the point where all that was left was a swat on the butt.

As for living in Iran now, man, my condolences.

 

[green slime]

As for living in Iran now, man, my condolences.

9 days and 1 hour to go..... and counting!

 

[Rel]

I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've ever spanked my child. And when I did it I always hated doing it. But I did it for a very good reason: When I invoke "The Daddy Voice", I need to command instant and complete compliance with my orders.

This is not because I fancy myself as some sort of iron fisted ruler over my kid. It is for safety. Kids have no concept of many of the things in life that are far more dangerous to them than a spanking. It makes them innocent and sweet but also makes them a danger to themselves.

To use an example, my daughter likes to trot out to get the mail with me and my wife. One of the first times she did this, she got out ahead of me and despite my verbal warnings for her to stop, she dashed right out into the road in order to win our "race". Thank God no cars were coming at the moment. I swooped in upon her, grabbed her out of the road and back into the driveway where I deliered two firm and swift pops on the bottom. She looked at me in total shock and I got close to her face and said (in the Daddy Voice), "When I tell you to stop, you STOP! Immediately!" Then I gave her a big hug and told her that I was glad she was safe and explained about the danger of cars.

Was the spanking in response to this situation "lazy parenting"? I don't know and I don't care. I do know that it was effective. Although she still loves going to get the mail with us, she never ever sets foot in the street and doesn't stray out of arms reach when we get near the road.

I'd never consider spanking her for every minor infraction or misdeed. But it is important for her safety that she obey me when I tell her in no uncertain terms what to do. It seems that when all she has to fear is "time out" that she is much more likely to want to "negotiate" than to obey.

So there's one father's anecdote. Make of it what you will.

 

[jgbrowning]

Your examples above only have physical acts of violence in common with my example.

Yes. Quite rightly. That was my point.

As soon as you think it's right for you to exercise your judgment as to when someone has been rude enough to deserve a punch, you are defacto saying that others have the right to use their judgement about when it's ok to punch rude people. Or your saying that only you have the right or your saying that only people who agree with your assessment of the situation have the right, which is wrong—you're not special, neither am I, we're not better than everyone else in the eyes of the law. Also, you open the door to the idea of perhaps even being justified in using even more force against rude people because, "They were so rude they deserved two punches."

Your interpretation of what is justification is the reason why the law doesn't let people interpret using violence against rudeness. Because legally, your interpretation is wrong.

Your examples are quite difference from punching someone in the mouth for a verbal barrage that can't be repeated here without a threat of banning or an actual banning being leveled against me. If I was to subject you to the same language and same statements, you would immediately call out for my banning for breaking the rules of civility on this board.

The ability to sue those who take them to task for thier mouths gave the vulgar, foul, rude and impolite the means to attack those gave them the punch in the mouth they richly deserved without any risks.

It may be the law, but that don't make it right.

Again you don't see my point. The point of the law is to not allow people the option of using violence at all in response to a verbal insult because what's insulting varies from person you person.

You don't think it's appropriate to shoot someone because they insulted your wife. Someone else might. The law means that individuals don't get to choose legally to use violence *of any type* because removing that choice completely makes it pretty crystal clear about what's acceptable and what's not. ie. using violence at all in response to a verbal insult (any insult, not just what you think as an insult, but what anyone thinks as an insult) is not legally allowed.

So it's OK to allow my family to be suggested to foul insuations, verbal rudeness of a vulgar and foul sort, because the laws are there to protect my family for people who would normally shoot the man for it?

Your examples don't fit.

Actually they do. If say, in a moment of frustration your wife is rude, (we all are at some time after all) and someone punches her. Would you be ok with that? I mean all the other guy did is what you did— excercised his "right" to use violence when confronted by rudeness. It doesn't matter that you, or she, or me, or anyone wouldn't think that what she did was bad enough (as how you thought of what the guy said to your wife was bad enough) to justify a punch in the face, because only the other guy's interpretation of what's rude enough for a hit is what make it right, not what is legal or not legal under your working operations. Using your belief, the other man is even right in teaching your wife a lessen not to mouth off. She needed to be FIRMLY delt with.

I bet you'd get pretty fricken angry and may use more violence on the guy because he punched your wife. Or if you don't, I imagine I'd see you taking the guy to court.

I don't think what the guy did to your wife is right. I also, dont think what you did was right either. I'm trying to explain why individuals don't have the right to do what you did. It protects people from the violent incident initially, and prevents a spiral of potential violence as one side tries to "right" what was wronged.

Individuals don't have the right or authority to escalate the violence level except in situations where they are fearful for their life. This is a pretty good idea after you give it some thought.

The laws are to protect people who feel they have the right to say anything they want without repercussions. Who feel that a personal, verbal attack should be protected.

No, the laws are designed because someone calling you a name or being mean and you reacting with violence isn't civil behavior. The old, two wrong don't make a right thing. You and your wife and your family should either ignore him and realize he's an jerk or respond verbally informing him that he's a jerk. That's civil behavior in response to incivility.

Yeah, yours is the same. Quite the same.

SO they were waiting politely for someone to park, to make sure they didn't need to back out and cause an accident, and to keep a decent clearance, and you decided that you were inconvienced enough by this politeness to repeatedly scream at them.

Looks to me like the rudeness was on the other side.

Yeah, I was really rude. I mean, who'd expect them to park 50 ft. away in the unoccupied part of the parking lot? I mean, it's much better to force a young mother to rush and hurry putting her kid away in a car seat while forcing two people in one car and another person in a car behind that one to wait than it is to walk 50ft because you want to park right infront of the store's doors. No, I wasn't the rude one. Not by a long shot. They believed that everyone can hurry or wait for them—that they were the important ones.

But if I believed the way you did (ie. that each individual is morally right in deciding when to apply violence against rudeness), I would feel justified in getting out of my car and puching the rude driver of the car that made me wait.

joe b.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

As soon as you think it's right for you to exercise your judgment as to when someone has been rude enough to deserve a punch, you are defacto saying that others have the right to use their judgement about when it's ok to punch rude people.

This one.

Your interpretation of what is justification is the reason why the law doesn't let people interpret using violence against rudeness. Because legally, your interpretation is wrong.

Yeah, but that doesn't make it wrong morally.

Again you don't see my point. The point of the law is to not allow people the option of using violence at all in response to a verbal insult because what's insulting varies from person you person.

What the law does is protect people who are being rude from cashing those checks thier mouth is writing.

You don't think it's appropriate to shoot someone because they insulted your wife. Someone else might. The law means that individuals don't get to choose legally to use violence *of any type* because removing that choice completely makes it pretty crystal clear about what's acceptable and what's not. ie. using violence at all in response to a verbal insult (any insult, not just what you think as an insult, but what anyone thinks as an insult) is not legally allowed.

You've got a thing against violence period, don't you?

Trust me, being hit in the mouth isn't nearly as bad as being shot.,

I know it's not legal to punch him in the mouth, but you know what, I guarentee you, there are certian things that can be said that will make you punch someone in the mouth.

Actually they do. If say, in a moment of frustration your wife is rude, (we all are at some time after all) and someone punches her. Would you be ok with that? I mean all the other guy did is what you did— excercised his "right" to use violence when confronted by rudeness. It doesn't matter that you, or she, or me, or anyone wouldn't think that what she did was bad enough (as how you thought of what the guy said to your wife was bad enough) to justify a punch in the face, because only the other guy's interpretation of what's rude enough for a hit is what make it right, not what is legal or not legal under your working operations. Using your belief, the other man is even right in teaching your wife a lessen not to mouth off. She needed to be FIRMLY delt with.

Whatever man.

You want to figure you can smack my wife around, you go with your bad self.

You don't get the whole thing, do you? But that's OK, I could explain till I'm blue in the fact, and all you'd understand is that I hit the guy for his words, and it's wrong, so I'm wrong.

Face it, we'll NEVER see eye to eye on this.

I believe violence is an acceptable solution to some things.

You don't.

BUT, unlike you, I'm not going to try to force my views on you or harangue you until you decide to give in.

I bet you'd get pretty fricken angry and may use more violence on the guy because he punched your wife. Or if you don't, I imagine I'd see you taking the guy to court.

hehehehee

Well, if he hauled off and hit a woman, what do you think I'd do?

As for suing? I've never sued anyone for a physical confrontation.

I don't think what the guy did to your wife is right. I also, dont think what you did was right either. I'm trying to explain why individuals don't have the right to do what you did. It protects people from the violent incident initially, and prevents a spiral of potential violence as one side tries to "right" what was wronged.

And so the guy goes on a cursing spree against my family, and I just stand there and take it or MAYBE tell him he's a jerk when he moves to block us from going somewhere because he wants to stand there and scream.

Screw that.

Individuals don't have the right or authority to escalate the violence level except in situations where they are fearful for their life. This is a pretty good idea after you give it some thought.

No, I don't. I have NEVER thought it was a good idea. The constant reliance of authorities to protect you has dangerous consquences.



[qote]No, the laws are designed because someone calling you a name or being mean and you reacting with violence isn't civil behavior. The old, two wrong don't make a right thing. You and your wife and your family should either ignore him and realize he's an jerk or respond verbally informing him that he's a jerk. That's civil behavior in response to incivility.[/quote]
Naw, I'd already informed him of that. He just got more abusive.

Yeah, I was really rude. I mean, who'd expect them to park 50 ft. away in the unoccupied part of the parking lot? I mean, it's much better to force a young mother to rush and hurry putting her kid away in a car seat while forcing two people in one car and another person in a car behind that one to wait than it is to walk 50ft because you want to park right infront of the store's doors. No, I wasn't the rude one. Not by a long shot. They believed that everyone can hurry or wait for them—that they were the important ones.

Yeah, you weren't rude. You just rolled up and screamed at them.

Seriously, you could have ignored that, and to tell the truth, what I was talking about is a LOT worse.

You WERE rude. What they did, while selfish and rude, was not like pulling up and screaming at them like a deranged lunatic.

You WERE rude, but you can't see it.

But if I believed the way you did (ie. that each individual is morally right in deciding when to apply violence against rudeness), I would feel justified in getting out of my car and puching the rude driver of the car that made me wait.

That's fine with me. You know, maybe a sock to the grill, and the driver wouldn't sit there and make people wait.

You just better hope that he's not willing to beat on you back.

 

[mojo1701]

I think we're getting a little off-track here, and possibly hitting the political.