Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The whole subject is fraught with different opinions.
Violence only really works for perpetuating violence. There are tons and tons of studies that conclude corporal punishment, at best doesn't work to achieve the desired results, and if it does do anything it overwhelming puts children at a higher risk of maladaption, learning to solve problems with violence themselves, and several other negative outcomes.
Yes, violence will suppress unwanted behavior, but it won't correct the mental deficit that allowed the behavior to emerge in the first place. You can expect the behavior to re-emerge when the threat of violence is removed. You can expect the recipient of violence to grow up to see violence as a legitimate method of persuasion.
Unquestioning respect for authority can be problematic. Blind obedience can be problematic. These are hallmarks of authoritarianism.
I gave you a "Winner" for this.
It would depend upon how discipline is administered - if a person feels that the thing is unjust and extremely excessive, anger and resentment builds up, vengeance is desired. If it is recognized to be justly done, and in line with the transgression it would cause a readjustment. Unfortunately, I was victim of mean spirited punishment, though in this case it wasn't even corporeal. I still resent the high handedness some 50 years later.
Well, it is. Police, prisons, the military, etc. all use it legally, and excessively many times.
There evidence of numerous studies do not support that conclusion. There is "it depends." It doesn't work to deter unwanted behaviors in children. All it teaches them is "what mamma don't know won't hurt." If anything, it makes them better at covering their tracks than getting them to not do that again.
And yet often we hear complaints of the police being wrongfully violent (police are supposed to only resort to violence when it comes to protecting themselves and others). And clearly there is a huge difference between military violence and doing violence to someone for doing something you disapprove of.
If we worked to install civic responsibility and a social conscience we might not need so many police. If we taught people to think for themselves and respect principle rather than authority, convincing people to round up the local Jews or march into Poland or Iraq might be more difficult.
Let me use an example to illustrate how I think violence works positively:
I do not know what makes the difference in some countries. Some countries have big problems, others have few. You walk about in their big cities and people are friendly, no worries about being mugged, or violated as a rule. You still have rude people at times, but the difference is telling.
What you describe is called self defense. You're allowed to do it. Unless you're Jesus, most people have no objections to it, and to a degree necessary to protect yourself you are legally entitled to it.
Being violent with bullies will not get them to quit being bullies. Chances are good the bully has already been subjected to physical and/or emotional abuse, and they are taking it out on others, and their behaviors were learned by watching others do it, with a chance they were bullied themselves. Being violent with them won't teach them anything, or get them to see the error in their ways.
Done right it's an important lesson. Even as adults, the police will inflict pain if you don't follow the rules.
I do not know what makes the difference in some countries. Some countries have big problems, others have few. You walk about in their big cities and people are friendly, no worries about being mugged, or violated as a rule. You still have rude people at times, but the difference is telling.
I don't think he objected to self-defense. However, as to his death, he knew it was necessary.
No, but they sure as hell will understand that they don't want to mess with 'you' even once more. They will continue to target other ones they think weak.
Matthew 5:39
This "target others" is why is doesn't work. You beat up a bully, and did nothing to actually address the behaviors of bullying.
Self preservation is not the same as using violence to teach someone a lesson.
Well, put.
In classrooms it is not a lesson that is sought but peace to teach, peace for others who want to learn. The violent ones shall be treated violently. The ones who prevent the function of the classroom shall be pacified, one way or the other.
What happens to an adult if he refuses to comply with the law?
They aren't attacked, not unless they become hostile and aggressive themselves. Most of the time there is no violence at all when an adult does not comply with the law and police arrest them.
Do you think it's getting hit by the police that deters such a behavior, or the nasty penalties that come along with attempting to resist arrest the deter this behavior? That you might get hit doing it, or that pretty much every legal consultant will strongly advice to cooperate because being uncooperative and attempting to resist is just going to make things much harder on yourself?
Great assumption to read into my position.
Perhaps, but there is still the fact that scientific evidence does not support the idea that corporal punishment is effective in deterring unwanted behaviors, but rather instead puts them at a higher risk for one of several negative outcomes. It's been a hugely studied topic, probably about as rigorously and frequently as the studies behind the alleged link between childhood vaccines and autism.
If you are sued, that does not make the person who sued you an evil person - rather it means it is likely you did something against the person suing you. Jesus said do not resist evil. If you are struck, turn the other check. If you're sued by law for your coat, give them your cloak. If someone compels you to walk a mile, go with him twain. If someone asks to borrow of thee, turn him not away. One of those deals directly with being attacked, by someone considered evil, and it was said to not resist them but turn the other cheek. The rest, especially being sued by law, cannot be said to be inherently evil.
That does absolutely nothing to address why violence was used in the first place, nor does it attempt to snuff those behaviors out. Rather, as you yourself have also mentioned, they will look for another target. Rather than making someone else the target a goal and outcome, the effort should be to extinguish those behaviors entirely instead of passing the problem of that onto someone else.
Then we should be like the police hit only as a last resort.
Forgive me for saying so, but this is a terrible post, and very badly argued. To begin with (as @Shadow Wolf pointed out above), the thread is about corporal punishment of children, not self-defence against bullies or enemies. And bullies and enemies don't learn from pain to be better persons, they learn to be subversive and look for less overt ways to accomplish their nefarious ends. (As the old wisdom goes, don't wound somebody you're terrified of -- you have to kill them to be safe.)