Topic: Serious Discussion /
Spanking: yea or nay
Guys, I think you are in actual agreement on the issues of authority, restrictions, submission, physical violence, enforcement. While these terms aren’t exactly “ambiguous”, they certainly can be subjected to a variety of areas & degrees for each of them. I can’t argue that there isn’t this “progression-of-social-discourse”
I’ve presented my concept of it a couple of times on this forum.
Basically a small social group would MILDLY ESTABLISH a rudimentary AGREEMENT on how particular social “engagements” would be handled in order to lessen conflicts….both in incidence & degree. A simple example is upon meeting a person walking…there could be a tacit AGREEMENT that ppl would pass on the right side of each other.
As the seriousness of social interaction issues escalate and the numbers & varieties of societies increase….perhaps the elders of the village would officiate disputes and apply their concept of the “customs” (what each party believed to be a customary agreement) to help settle upon an amicable agreement.
Gong on up the line, in order for these disputes to be more fair in consistency…some actual RULES were written down to help those elders and the social group better understand the nuances of their increasing complexity of their growing society. Rules would describe & proscribe behavior and apply strongly suggested “remedies”
Soon, it became obvious that rules needed to be backed up w/ some aspect of AUTHORITY that could exact PUNISHMENT (harsh remedy) for failing to observe, submit to, abide by, restrict to conform to what was LAW.
So, tl;dr version.
simple social courtesy.
moral guidelines…both religious & non secular (fables, etc.).
laws…which include capital punishment, the ultimate “physical violence” that I’m guessing Ung is referencing.
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:
Kasic: Authority you listen to because they have the ability to impose restrictions and standards. You submit to someone who’s stronger because they can hurt you.
And what is that ability to impose based upon? I’d suggest physical violence. Non capitulation will escalate inevitably to the use of force. Can’t just decide to not be arrested.
In my model, all of the above is included/covered.
I think Kasic is merely applying his concept more specifically to parent/child. It appears that Ung is going more for a social setting (can’t just decide to not be ARRESTED).
I see Kasic as saying that parents have a socially, legally, & moreally granted AUTHORITY over their children. In the ideal world, this authority is wielded in a loving manner…one where “rattling the sword” of a SUBMISSION-to-strong-use-of-force isn’t an integral part of the parenting process….let alone actual use of that “sword” (spanking for example) isn’t employed.
I agree w/ Ung that—as my model of social structure implies—there are individuals that evidently “need” to be acutely mindful of the full extent of the “guiding parameters” for there to be adherence by them so that they might better behave.
I don’t think anyone can argue that most sane & rational ppl will (Kasic) listen to (MY: “agree with”) authority because it has the ability to impose restriction & standard. And, that authority also can impose "penalties. In the case of child/parent….groundings, loss of privileges, labor tasks, etc. But, this method greatly diminishes the concept of “needing” to escalate to stronger (physical…spanking) measures. This demarcation is important to the concepts being discussed.
I don’t think anyone can argue that the particular element of ppl IN SOCIETY that doesn’t conform to law (Ung’s ESCALATION) likely will end up SUBMITTING TO an authority that is decidedly stronger and can hurt you…heavy fines, jail time, death. In the child/parenting venue….this is the spanking, beating, thrashing,,,,whatever. I’m going to leave out the insane…burning w/ cigarette, putting into a bathtub filled w/ scalding water, being put in a dark closet for a week with only small amounts of bread & water…shitting & pissing in the corner. For every “ultimate” that is sane….the “beyond” use of force also exists.
And yes, it is best to not “decide to not be arrested”. But, submitting to being arrested by a policeman AUTHORIZED to do so doesn’t mean that one has automatically SUBMITTED to the law that policeman has deemed you to have broken. A court of law will determine if an eventual submission to authority must be (Kasic’s words) listened to because the individual agreed to abide by the restrictions & standards of the society he lives in.
But, let’s be reasonable here, for the form of disobeying (non-captitulation) that elicits an overt acknowledgment of the ultimate extent of use of physical force….we’re talking about some rather heinous activity. Activity that the rational person just doesn’t have “in mind” when they go about their typical activities.
Let’s use the analogy of driving a car. Most ppl drive observing common social courtesy. Yes, they know particular rules (laws) apply. But, I will often cede my legal “right of way” in deference to common sense…..whether it be just an unintended mistake by the other driver or a mild disregard for safety & law. I have the “power” to not “submit” to being involved in an incident where the true outcome really isn’t all that subject to authority or “escalated force”.
Now, if that “errant” driver is of an elevated nature—such as being drunk, doing 80 MPH in a 30, etc.—that is purposely endangering public safety…we are talking about an entirely difference level of “authoritative listening to” that needs be applied. And, in the case of drunken driving….very often, the court has told the drive to stop doing it. Yet, the behavior continues until something disastrous finally puts the asshole in jail….for a loooong time, hopefully. My nephew was killed by a guy who had multiply DUI’s.
Kasic: For example, a police officer telling you to drive slower vs a huge muscled guy telling you to drive slower or else. Authority carries power by virtue of position. Whereas being submissive to a bigger power is due to threat. Yes, the policeman can punish you (and he will) if you don’t drive slower, but he’s not going to crush your face in. He has the ability to penalize you in a non-harmful way which you have to comply with or face larger penalties. The only way the huge guy can control you is through violence (unless he goes to the policeman, whereupon it’s not actually the huge guy who’s doing anything).
I see Kasic’s point.
I think he made it awkwardly….mostly because of use/misuse of key words in this discussion w/ Ung. Yeah, I know….I’m all over the board much worse w/ my mess above (“it takes one to know one”? lol)
But, I’ll give my "interpretation:
The police officer has the AUTHORITY to “tell” you to drive w/in the confines of the LAW he enforces and which you agreed to abide by in order to use the PUBLIC roads. The authorization Kasic is talking about in his virtue of POSITION isn’t the one the police officer carries. I see it as being the “position-of-law” that he enforces. This position is the “higher authority” a person yields their personal dictates to so that social harmony can exist….for him, his family, his community.
The police officer doesn’t do the actual “punishing”. It is more of a “wake up call” that you’ve done a no-no…at least as that TRAINED person has viewed your action. The guilt & resulting punishment is up to the court. AND, driving courts don’t typically deal out inevitably escalated uses of force. I’m saying: there are clear demarcations for action/reaction….wrong doing by a child/degree of punishment (ultimately…spanking)
This demarcation is described by Kasic when he clearly demonstrates how the huge muscled guy isn’t AUTHORIZED to punish (crush in your face) the guy for driving infractions. I would argue that he has the “right” to TELL you to slow down. A huge difference/demarcation in the two. Something akin to FlabbyWW’s spanking someone else’s kid.
The balance of Kasic’s quote there gives further supportive explanation of his position. I don’t know how it could be made much clearer about how their is those two very separate areas of “authority” and submission to it.
Ung: I don’t really see a difference in their means, motive maybe but I still see both examples dependent upon the implicit use of force.I’m just not following here.
There is a complete difference in the MEANS by which the errant behavior is addressed.
The officer is acting w/in his authorization to enforce laws….laws which the drive very likely supports and typically adheres to.
The pissed citizen’s means (face crushing) are actually a breaking of a law considered to be much more egregious than speeding.
The officer’s motivation is hoping to maintain civil order…maybe in hopes of reducing “road rage”….which might well be the only motivation the citizens is operating on. At the very least, the legal infraction of the driver is only a minor source for the action by the bully.
I just don’t see how someone can strongly connect the action of the officer w/ ultimate threat of “force”. Yes, I’ve clearly made the point that such physical force does exist. But, does it exist as in any serious form of relevance for lower level behavior? Perhaps a very great amount of ppl do what is right simply because they understand WHY authority is listened to…and adhered to. How can threat of ultimate force be tied in w/ their compliant behavior?
Ung: That position is pure illusion, it’s all just mob and force sanction.
I don’t fully grasp.
Ung: So, if we are non capitulating with the officer, we would not be slowing down the vehicle, which would become a chase, ignoring that we get away, we then get arrested, if we do not capitulate with the arrest and resist, then you get your ass beat. His ability to penalize me in a “non harmful” (non physical violence?) is no different then any other persons ability to demand money from me. The only way the police, or any authority, can control you directly is through physical threat. Whether that be personal harm, material destruction, physical displacement, what have you.
Ung…ya’re “all over the place” w/ all of that.
First: law & order is hardly “mob & force sanction”. I’m guessing ya’re in some obtuse way using the anti-capital punishment group’s line of: it is simply legal killing by the state.
Second: the chase scenario is very confusing. The Rodney King et.al incident is rare. It is illegal. Officers ARE NOT empowered to mete out such “punishment justice”. Their legally mandated methods are quite clear on what kind & amount of physical force can be used.
Third: Ignoring that it IS NOT the officer that is “penalizing” you, but rather the law…I need to point out that what the law is doing there is very far removed from the “penalty” of losing your money (being mugged?) by any other person’s ability to demand money from you. I remind that when an entity LEGALLY demands that you fulfill a contractual agreement…this is different than a mugging.
Fourth: I really don’t understand how you (last sentence in above quote) include material destruction, physical displacement, what have you as being part of what you rightly can equate your: physical threat = personal harm.
Yes, being fined (physical money), physical displacement (being put in jail?), & what have you certainly seem to me to be separated by the same line of demarcation that the OP of this thread is seeking to “establish” on how non-corporal (not spanking) methods clearly don’t use a “physical threat” to back them up.