Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » MORE TORTURE
  • MORE TORTURE

    Filed at 4:22 pm under by dcobranchi

    Yes, using pain to force compliance is torture.

    5 Responses to “MORE TORTURE”


    Comment by
    Nance Confer
    July 28th, 2008
    at 6:16 pm

    If the officer had shot the kid, would that be a problem? How serious does the offense have to be before the officer is disarmed?

    Nance


    Comment by
    speedwell
    July 29th, 2008
    at 2:01 am

    When people allow schools to use pain to force compliance from students, they call it “getting serious about discipline.” When they inflict pain upon their own kids at home to force them to be compliant, it’s considered a “parental right.”

    Any society that leaves the “spanking” loophole open to allow painful coercion to be used on children, leaves it open to be used on anyone that society decides to treat as if they were inferior and powerless: poor people…mentally ill people… old people… obese people… prisoners (political and criminal)… people who consume unapproved substances… immigrants… dissenters…

    Think I’m engaging in hyperbole? I’ve personally heard and/or seen otherwise reasonable people admit that the same reasons they use to justify spanking their children justify using painful coercion to force compliance from each of those groups I mentioned. What makes me gag is the fact that most of the time they see it as a positive thing that benefits society in general.


    Comment by
    John
    July 29th, 2008
    at 7:44 am

    assault is assault, unless of course it is the government doing the assaulting 🙂

    Playing devils advocate for a moment, if there are circumstances under which it is acceptable for an individual who is authorised by the state to use force against another (for example a police officer apprehending a suspect) then surely it is also acceptable for a parent (whom the state recognises as having special rights and responsibilities with regard to that child) to use force against a child in similar circumstances.

    What does a parent do with a violent child, for example? Any physical restraint – my own preference if circumstances necessitate – would itself be a form of assault. Self defence (or the defence of another) might legitimise such restraint against either an adult or child – but it might also legitimise hitting. Each case should be judged on its merits – but therein lies a problem. Do we want or need the state to intervene in every case where a child is restrained by its parents? This reductio ad absurdam would require state powers reminiscent of Oceania.

    I don’t hit my child, nor do I support exceptions in the case of child victims to the laws against assault. However, when we depend on the state to monitor and police the raising of our children we are setting dangerous precendents (and ones of which homeschoolers in particular may wish to be wary).


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    July 29th, 2008
    at 10:10 am

    So John, what devil are you advocating for, then?


    Comment by
    speedwell
    July 29th, 2008
    at 10:55 pm

    Gee, why is it that every time I talk about parental violence, some schmuck thinks I’m advocating that the “state” should stick its lang bloody neb deep into the affairs of honest citizens who merely wish that their God-given freedom to hit their children be preserved for… um, maybe “posterity” is the wrong word?

    There are no laws against taking a three-hour nap every five hours, for example, or agreeing with the suggestion of a mentally ill homeless man that you should sleep with him, or holding your bodily waste in as long as possible, but almost nobody would agree with you if you maintained these behaviors were healthy, desirable, and sane. The practice of adults committing and condoning physical assault against children will hopefully soon be considered as filthy and sickening as committing and condoning sexual assault against children is today.

    And when that day comes, I hope we’ll be a little more reasonable about passing stupid laws that punish the innocent, abuse the victim, and encourage institutional vendettas, and don’t deter the guilty.