|
|
|
|
|
|
by calibraxis
5392 days ago
|
|
|
I don't think the above comment is positing a false dichotomy. Then again, the highest-rated comment here literally advocates violence against children — because supposedly other mammals do it, so we should be violent animals too and inflict premeditated pain on the weakest — and everything else pales in comparison. "Disgusting" is quite an understatement. (And it's not so much the fellow advocating child abuse who's disturbing, but those supporting this advocacy here with upvotes and agreement.) |
|
|
I was referring to nature films we've all seen where a bunch of adorable cubs are crawling over a mother lion and one of them crosses a line somehow and she swipes it with a paw. What I'm advocating, which I think was pretty obvious, is quick, clear, and loving boundary-setting in response to bad behavior. How one does this is beside the point; that's why I said "figuratively". The point is that we ought to do it, children need it (have you never seen a child calm down after being stopped like this? they need it for their own security), but parents who identify with their children tend not to do it.
Violence is all about the emotion of the violent one - trying to relieve a feeling of rage or whatever. Discipline is about giving the child something they need. It's impossible to do that when in a violent state oneself, so in fact these two things are mutually exclusive. It's possible to be violent to a child without any physical contact. That's our preferred form of violence nowadays.
On the whole, it's better for people not to hit their kids than to be as brutal as past generations often were. But to turn that into a virtue, as we have, is self-righteous.