|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 24, 2009 10:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1) Where do you think we should draw the line at discipline? 2) Should society really be able to tell us how to discipline our children? 3) When does discipline become abuse?
1): See 3
2): Yes
3): When it leaves any kind of damage that won't heal or leave scars.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 10:46 AM |
|
|
I think we must be flexible, but not meek.
Tolerance only goes so far, before it turns into weakness.
With Flexible I mean that we should not apply the rigid and lawful arguement of "Every Crime must be punished accordingly". We must adapt ourselves and our judgement to the particular case, as every case and person is UNIQUE.
Tolerance and Flexibility are imperative if you wish to get Justice. (though neither should be exaggerated).
As for crossing the line, that depends from person to person. Personally, I find that the line is crossed, when someone is offended by something another person did or said. This offence is extremely subjective, but from the moment the offence had been called, it should be closely monitored and weighed, to give the utmost fair Judging.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 10:58 AM |
|
|
Interesting, yet people can get offended for such things as being called a name. Should there be reprocussions for that? I mean, yeah it can be a bit childish to call people names, but illegal? Take for instance 'redskin'. I know several of 'my' people (Native Americans) that get super insulted when they hear this, even when applied to a baseball team (for goodness sakes..*sighs*).
Where does such things fall in your example Lex?
____________
Message received.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 11:11 AM |
|
|
Well it depends, but they all follow a similar model.
First of all, the person calls a redskin must have taken offence before crossing the line.
Secondly, we must see the Circumstances. Did the person call the Native America a "Redskin" with the idea of insulting/hurting him badly, or was it more a cry out of Frustration.
Third point is Some sort of remorse; Does the person understand what damage he did (or did not) do when he and is he TRULY sorry? (for minor things apologies will do; for major ones they'll have a large symbolic value). Also note that it DOES make a difference whether the person feels sorry because of what he did, or because of the fact that he was caught (like in Burglary)
Fourth Comes the Punishment. In case of the "redskin" case, if the Person called the NA that out of frustration, no punishment is needed. If he called out of hate/rascism, AND feels remorse, usually apologies will do (but that depends on the "Victim"). If he called out of hate/Rascism and does not feel any feeling of remorse, he should get an according punishment. (depending on the case). In case of the Baseball match, he could be put on probation as a punishment. Suing someone for a Fine in this case is particularly ridiculous.
SO that's what I mean with Flexible. Delve into the case, and understand it completely, and then give an appropriate punishment!
(You don't sentence a Would-be Suicide Terrorist to death, for example.)
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 11:43 AM |
|
|
|
I wonder about the connection between raising and disciplining children and the philosophy, ethics and mechanisms of offending and taking offense, especially if weighed against the right of free opinion and expressing it, and I have to say I'm at a loss here.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 11:48 AM |
|
|
You know how things can get offtopic. Still Lex is sticking with the thread name..Where do we draw the line. Though it might not bear with the current topic, it does with the overall topic.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 12:19 PM |
|
|
Okay.
So to fuel that, I'm going to take the position here that offending someone is more a problem of TAKING offense, not the offending.
Basically, I would like to hear a good reason why people shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion about one or more people - if that opinion is a harsh one they are probably not going to be friends, but that's obviously not intended.
I feel, that this offense thing is tightly connected with the "honour" problem, which has to do with status and reputation and a perceived fear to lose that if you allow disrespectful behaviour of other persons - generally this whole stuff is hopelessly blown out of proportion, nowadays where everyone is supposed to have equal rights.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 12:30 PM |
|
|
You're allowed to say whatever you want, I guess, but people won't like it (no offense, but especially not certain religious people...). Freedom of speech is pretty much still just a theory, that's my opinion at least. It wasn't anything better before, here in Norway in the middle ages (vikings  ) you had to fight to the death if you dishonored someone ... better or worse? 
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 12:37 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:37, 24 Jun 2009.
|
I personally agree with your post JJ. One thing I will say though is a keyword here is 'supposed'. While everybody is suposed to have equal rights, in the real world they do not. Too often wealthy people are able to buy themselves out of trouble (and not only in America), while a poor person who does the same thing ends up behind bars.
Women in Iowa (and probably other areas) still make only .78 cents for every dollar a man makes doing the exact same job. (Forget the source, but it was something done by Iowa here recently that took the ammount people made in jobs and compaired them..so the .78:1 is an average). Minorities are still disproportionally ending up in jail more then 'whites' (there are several factors in that). I know, I know offtopic sorry.
And yes Wog_Edn things HAVE gotten better, but I think there is still a bit to go.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 05:23 PM |
|
|
Freedom of Speech implies racism too.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 06:13 PM |
|
|
|
You mean, racism is found in WORDS, instead of people's minds? Isn't that a tad superficial?
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 06:23 PM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 18:25, 24 Jun 2009.
|
Whether the line is crossed does not depend on the offender; it depends on the offended.
If someone is offended by a comment that would leave someone else cold, we could do a few things:
1) Just tell the Offended to grow some thick skin and grow up, if the offence is so minor [Most satisfactory option]
2) Punish the offender, according to the offence [Less satisfactory, as some offences are pulled extremely out of proportion (and are made bigger!)]
3) Say it's freedom of speech and move on. [Completely unsatisfactory for the Offended, if the offence was Major]
The problem with freedom of speech is that, if allowed fully, people will OFFEND people over time. There is no other way. People's feelings are hurt, without reprocussions. We musn't forget that.
A Limited Freedom of speech seems more favourable, but imo Keepers of the Law (here: Moderators) ought not to react and punish as quickly as they usually tend to do. Something as simple as an APOLOGY can do much more mentally than a PENALTY. Not to mention that it's more satisfactory for everyone.
People MUST grow thick skin (though not too thick - We're humans, not rhinos), and be carefull out when discussing touchy subjects (LGBTs; Holocaust, Abortion,...- Everything with an ethical value). If all of us do BOTH things, feelings will not be hurt as often as there are currently, and the world would be a better place.
Coexistance in Harmony - With the Good Momements and the Bad ones.
And a different account, I'm opposed to HC censorship as it is now. I find it rather hypocrite actually.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 06:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You mean, racism is found in WORDS, instead of people's minds? Isn't that a tad superficial?
As far as I know, people can't speak about something they don't have in their head.
People speak what's on their mind. Freedom of speech may allow this or forbid it -- but it won't change what they currently have in minds.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 07:01 PM |
|
|
Exactly.
That's why freedom of speech allows only to speak out loudly what's in the heads of people anyway.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 07:08 PM |
|
|
Indeed.
People will get hurt emotionally, but all that Freedom of Speech does, is allowing people to express their true feelings and thoughts. And some of these thoughts can be seen as offence. That's just how it is.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 07:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Indeed.
People will get hurt emotionally, but all that Freedom of Speech does, is allowing people to express their true feelings and thoughts. And some of these thoughts can be seen as offence. That's just how it is.
I think it's better after all -- at least you will know the true colors of people. Better than being devious IMO.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 24, 2009 07:16 PM |
|
|
I guess so...
*sigh*
Freedom always depends on the Decency of those who benefit from it.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 27, 2009 07:48 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 08:00, 27 Jun 2009.
|
Me, I am a supporter of total freedom of speech. Honestly, are we so worried about what others think about us that we let a few words bother us? ((This is why I seperate my personal opinion from my duties as a Moderator. That is a topic for another place however)).
Yet on the other hand are we such neanderthals that we can not find other ways to convey our thoughts then name calling and curse words? Maybe we should go back to saying "Ugh me hit" and using clubs  . People SHOULD be able to speak freely, but they also SHOULD have the common sense and decency to know how to say what they think. Until that time, maybe some 'Moderation' (a play on words here) is in order.
Now about child discipline. It is not all about spanking, and such, though some people seem to think it is. It is structure, rules, and and responsibility. When you let your children get away with just about anything, for whatever reason, you end up with brats who think they are Entitled to anything they want. When you give them structure, rules, and responsibility (with a fair and SET discipline if they don't follow them) you tend to get well behaved children.
The funny thing is, it tends to be the people who let their children run rampant that end up doing the physical abuse. They get frustrated because their child is throwing a tantrum and not listening, and end up taking out their frustration on a child. A child that THEY made that way. When a child has structure and KNOWS what punishment (which should be constant and not arbitrary or change with circumstances) they face (even if it is just no TV), and they KNOW they will be punished each and every time they tend to learn not to cross that line.
What is more children tend to value structure and discipline. As much as they like spending time with their parents (at an early age at least). Nobody likes being punished, but they need a stable and structured life to flourish.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 27, 2009 09:50 AM |
|
|
The same thing is true for dogs, but I don't think that humans are disciplined and raised like dogs and should not either.
So I kind of miss your point, Mytical, except that raising children involves some amount of disciplining which not many would disagree with.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 27, 2009 10:03 AM |
|
|
Which is their right to think that way. Maybe one of the problems with society in fact. People don't care or bother or they know no other way. My point is actually simple, rules and structure are in no way a BAD thing. Now it is just my opinion, which matters no more or no less then anybody elses, but I can easily provide a small sample (still, only a sample however) in my own family.
The ones in my family who let their kids run amok can be the most abusive (ie crossing the line when they actually break down and discipline), and their kids are real brats. Tantrums, hitting sibilings, hitting their parents, spoiled..etc. While the ones who discipline their children often have the best behaved children who adore their parents. These people do not have to raise a hand to their child either. Which is what I find odd. The ones who raised their child with discipline actually end up NOT abusing their children. Go figure.
____________
Message received.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
