Quote:
Originally Posted by citamgine
Pointing out that you specified to "physical harm" does not make your statement any more valid. Because to "physically harm" is to physically hurt by definition. To injure is to hurt. That was what you were attempting to sweep under the rug. Its nonsensical to say spanking does not cause harm, whether physical or otherwise. And like I said, the misuse of the word "harm" in your original statement serves to persuade in a sneaky fashion.
I generally try to avoid arguments about word meaning, so I'll just say that the way I use the words "harm" or "damage or injure" or even "hurt" in some contexts, is not just "cause pain," but something more substantial. If I spoke with a doctor, I would distinguish between feeling pain and being injured or in some way damaged. While I'll acknowledge this is a fuzzy distinction, this distinction is also used in law to regulate corporal punishment. Since the question chillrob asked me was specifically what extent of corporal punishment I think the state should allow, I'll also maintain that regardless of whether my language was exact, the meaning was relatively clear. Furthermore, by specifying
physical harm, I'm was explicitly not including the psychological damage that might result from parents spanking their children. But I'll let this drop, don't have anything more interesting to say about this.
Quote:
I don't think that is dumb. That makes sense. But you are using this example to draw distinction between types of physical harm.
Yeah, I wouldn't describe spanking someone in BDSM as physically harming them. I would say they are causing them pain, but not harming them. Exercise can also sometimes be painful, but it also doesn't harm the person undergoing it.
Quote:
I don't think you are intending to sneak this in, but I want it to be clear that drawing distinction between types of physical harm is the scope of this example and should not be considered analogous to spanking children. Unlike a person in a BDSM scenario, children do not consent to being struck or having pain inflicted upon them.
That's fine. I agree that children do not consent to being physically punished and so you cannot justify corporal punishment on those grounds. Parental rights are a tricky subject for liberals imo.
Quote:
Maybe you are not advocating. If you look a couple posts up you will find that I've already conceded that as a possibility. The definition of advocating is "to publicly recommend or support". It's debatable whether you are supporting spanking by saying that it should be allowed or merely expressing a sort of indifference.
Actually, beyond just indifference, I can strongly oppose x while still thinking it should be legal, eg I think hate speech should be legal, but I strongly oppose hate speech on moral grounds. This is a common result of liberal attitudes about the limits of state power and the primacy of human freedom.
Quote:
If we were having this discussion in private I would grant you more charity. I just do not want people misconstruing what you've said as a valid case for spanking. Not everyone will automatically parse out your original statement and then make their decision on the issue without being influenced by the minimization of the effects of spanking by the misuse of the word "harm".
Okay.
Quote:
Fwiw I think you are one of the most thoughtful and charitable posters on here and I do not think you intentionally framed your original statement in a dishonest fashion.
Cheers, but "dishonest" does, as I use it, imply some kind of intention to deceive. For example, the difference between lying and saying something false, or being dishonest about p or just being wrong about p, has to do with the intentions of the person involved imo.