A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

When does the logical become illogical?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 4th 05, 09:13 PM
Opinions
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default When does the logical become illogical?

"When does the logical become illogical or vice versa?" was going to be
among my next questions. Logic, like crime, is relative. So is
*common sense* and a host of other concepts. As proven by differing
attitudes in Minnesota and Oklahoma, the logic of time and place also
defines when spanking becomes abuse. (Geographically, less than 700
miles separates St. Paul from Oklahoma City and the drive time is about
12 hours in moderate traffic.) The dividing line for all of the above
reside within a cultural context.

Even science is a product of its day. The so-called *scientific
method* of today is actually a byproduct of what, at the time, were
believed to be the more serious studies of alchemy and the occult. It
may also be the product of a bright mind poisoned by mercury.
Systematic methodology merely proved more useful for the emerging
notion of a mechanical universe than did the search for a universal
panacea.

Although science is a god these days, given enough time, our version of
science will become a subject of study for that discipline we know as
anthropology. *Modern science* will evoke the same curious wonderment
we now reserve for the outrageous notion of serious minds studying
alchemy. The concept of "Better living through chemistry" already
seems quaint. *Laws* of science will be regarded for what they really
a A desperate prayer by an elite clique that the universe contains a
logic that can be understood by mankind.

Whenever a relative small group within a society coalesces their
beliefs and values into a systematic ideology, especially if its belief
system is at odds mainstream thought, it becomes a subculture. These
subcultures become fascinating, although often involuntary, subjects
for study by sociologists and anthropologists once they lose status
within the society. Religious fundamentalists are a prime example
today. Whole volumes have been written on once ubiquitous Southern
Baptists as a subculture. Books written on spin-off from the
Enthusiasm Movement, from which Southern Baptists sprang, would fill a
library.

Even now, no-spanks make interesting subjects for study. Their often
knee-jerk reactions to the slightest difference of opinion and a
quasi-paranoid search for heretics are quite reminiscent of the
splintering effect that wracked the religious fundamentalist movement.
No-spanks' *spoiling for a fight* mentality is also evocative of the
fundamentalist idea that, if they can just keep a fight going with
somebody, they can win.

The doctrinaire air of superiority is also remarkably similar. Those
not subscribing to the tenets of the subculture's belief system are
perceived *sinners* in need of *salvation* from some perceived
damnation. For religious fundamentalists, it is the sinner's soul that
is at stake; for no-spanks, it is the alleged reprobate's children.
Both have a *broad is the road to hell* philosophy. Worse, they
actually need to feed off of each other in order to survive.

Because, like religious fundamentalists, no-spanks have closed minds
that are impervious to any logic outside that approved by the
subculture, they are not so much to be debated as to be understood
within the context of the society that gave birth to the movement.
Understanding is paramount since, if they ever achieve any degree of
power, these extremist subcultures have a remarkable capacity for
witch-hunts and inquisitions.

  #2  
Old November 4th 05, 09:42 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default When does the logical become illogical?

Opinions wrote:
"When does the logical become illogical or vice versa?" was going to be
among my next questions. Logic, like crime, is relative. So is
*common sense* and a host of other concepts. As proven by differing
attitudes in Minnesota and Oklahoma, the logic of time and place also
defines when spanking becomes abuse. (Geographically, less than 700
miles separates St. Paul from Oklahoma City and the drive time is about
12 hours in moderate traffic.) The dividing line for all of the above
reside within a cultural context.


That is why society has a concept called "governance." To deal with
the differences in perception and bias.

And no, the "logic of time and place" in regards to spanking is not
the issue for a definition. Not when governance is enacted. And it will
be, as it has been.

Even science is a product of its day. The so-called *scientific
method* of today is actually a byproduct of what, at the time, were
believed to be the more serious studies of alchemy and the occult.


A fit analogy for "spanking."

It
may also be the product of a bright mind poisoned by mercury.


Scientific method?

Systematic methodology merely proved more useful for the emerging
notion of a mechanical universe than did the search for a universal
panacea.


Mindless babbling. Played with mercury a lot when you were a child, did
you?

Although science is a god these days, given enough time, our version of
science will become a subject of study for that discipline we know as
anthropology. *Modern science* will evoke the same curious wonderment
we now reserve for the outrageous notion of serious minds studying
alchemy. The concept of "Better living through chemistry" already
seems quaint. *Laws* of science will be regarded for what they really
a A desperate prayer by an elite clique that the universe contains a
logic that can be understood by mankind.


Launching into a lecture on intelligent design, or chaos theory?

Whenever a relative small group within a society coalesces their
beliefs and values into a systematic ideology, especially if its belief
system is at odds mainstream thought, it becomes a subculture.


Actually what we are finding as time passes is that the core group of
believers in using pain to control and teach children becomes a smaller
and smaller group feeling themselves more under attack.

The most obvious evidence of this are rambling pointless and illogical
babblings in defense of their position.

These
subcultures become fascinating, although often involuntary, subjects
for study by sociologists and anthropologists once they lose status
within the society.


I don't doubt we will have historians and others looking back, in
fact as we do even now, on societies that used horrendous abuses of
children to control them.

Religious fundamentalists are a prime example
today. Whole volumes have been written on once ubiquitous Southern
Baptists as a subculture. Books written on spin-off from the
Enthusiasm Movement, from which Southern Baptists sprang, would fill a
library.


They are not the only fundamentalists.

Even now, no-spanks make interesting subjects for study.


Not nearly as much as the dying spanking enthusiasts and compulsives.

Their often
knee-jerk reactions to the slightest difference of opinion and a
quasi-paranoid search for heretics are quite reminiscent of the
splintering effect that wracked the religious fundamentalist movement.


In other words you do not want to be challenged and this silliness is
the best you could come up with assuming no one would see through you?

No-spanks' *spoiling for a fight* mentality is also evocative of the
fundamentalist idea that, if they can just keep a fight going with
somebody, they can win.


Couldn't have given a better description of the spanking apologists
that have come and gone in this ng.

So you believe that the best way to win this debate is to declare the
other side has no moral standing, nor logical assumptions, hence their
debate is based not on their logic and morals but only on a desire to
win, am I correct?

The doctrinaire air of superiority is also remarkably similar. Those
not subscribing to the tenets of the subculture's belief system are
perceived *sinners* in need of *salvation* from some perceived
damnation. For religious fundamentalists, it is the sinner's soul that
is at stake; for no-spanks, it is the alleged reprobate's children.
Both have a *broad is the road to hell* philosophy. Worse, they
actually need to feed off of each other in order to survive.


Time and again the argument of the spankers that come to this ng has
been a fundamentalist approach you just described.

They postulate, even against evidence to the contrary, that unspanked
children will turn out badly. Yet as spanking becomes less and less
acceptable we see youth crime rates diminishing.

And where crime is more rampant spanking, geographically 0:- is more
accepted.

Because, like religious fundamentalists, no-spanks have closed minds
that are impervious to any logic outside that approved by the
subculture, they are not so much to be debated as to be understood
within the context of the society that gave birth to the movement.


The society that gave birth to the concept of not using pain and
humiliation on children is the one you speak from. They did not come
from outside, another planet, another nation, but this one.

Understanding is paramount since, if they ever achieve any degree of
power,


It's more than apparent that perfectly decent rational and ethical
people are making logical as well as moral attacks on the child abusers
of the world who disguise their abuse as "discipline." Otherwise
you wouldn't be here saying what you are saying.

these extremist subcultures


Between hitting a child to control him and not hitting him, which would
you say is the more extreme behavior?

have a remarkable capacity for
witch-hunts and inquisitions.


Reading the strange and sometimes factually incorrect diatribes of the
"medicine men" and various shamans of the spanking brotherhood
shows the witch-hunt mentally clearly.

The "inquisition" comment I find interesting though, since your
debate consists almost entirely of the inquisitory.

I'm charmed with your cleverness, but not the least mislead.

Quite an interesting bit of rambling though.

Hardly qualifies as an "Opinion," or so I observe.

0:-

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A sad birthday...and Dr. Hollands' 'logical medical thought'... Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 1 January 18th 05 09:50 PM
Olive oil in vagina? (Vaginal dilatation 'illogical' cause of pelvic floor damage) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 May 27th 04 04:30 PM
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
Kids should work. LaVonne Carlson General 22 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.