The Political Compass

[whyBish]

Beat or spank? Although in today's bleeding heart world the terms might mean the same, the are not.
-A
[right][snapback]95118[/snapback][/right]

Hence the "(or whatever the PC term is)" quote. I don't have enough of an idea about american culture to know what term to use.

Note to Doc, I only support the right to do it, no comment on the effectiveness.

[whyBish]

"Lol, I was expecting you to be in the high positives on both as well."

Economic positions are a little tough to judge. But if you were guessing Pete would come out on the high end of the authoritarian scale, you haven't been reading as attentively as you should.  ;)

-Jester
[right][snapback]95019[/snapback][/right]

Either that or I have a 'different' (incorrect is such a harsh word :P ) conception of what authoritarianism is :P

[Occhidiangela]

Either that or I have a 'different' (incorrect is such a harsh word :P ) conception of what authoritarianism is  :P
[right][snapback]95166[/snapback][/right]

I may not be able to enlighten you on authoritarian, but I think Pete uses one of the best anti authoritarian quips now and again when discussing laws, which I think is the context in which authoritarian is being considered by the graph. Pete's quip runs along these lines:

"If the law is designed to protect me from someone else, it's probably a good law, if it is designed to protect me from myself, it is a bad law."

That's not as full a definition or (anti-definition) of authoritarianism as one might like, but it is a good point of departure for why Pete didn't come up "authoritarian." His posts over the years strike me as having a streak of Libertarianism, or more nearly old fashioned Liberalism (empowerment of the individual) as a consistent theme.

New Model Liberals, or the American Democrats since a little while after Andrew Jackson, have been increasingly about well intentioned, allegedly benevolent authoritarianism -- "for your own good" -- to the point where credibility was lost. The maternalistic approach grates on free citizens. Why? Among other reasons, the promise can't be fulfilled, and there is no free lunch.

Our Social Security system is a good example of a poorly implemented, poorly designed, and blatantly gone astray "good idea for everyone's own good."

Occhi

[Doc]

"Spank me like a BAD DONKEY!"

Yeah. Spanking is a good idea. Gets them ready bright and early for all the fun sexual fetishes later. :P

Bugger. You can't link directly to a cartoon.

Go there and click on cartoons, select the Greenfields, episode II.

Bugger.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The mothers walking around with their filthy broods in Wal Mart. Some kid bawls for something and gets slapped in the back of the skull or has a hard slap on the ass.[right][snapback]95142[/snapback][/right]

Bah, you are still speaking of child abuse, not punishment. The examples you give are of idiots who couldn't housebreak a dog, much less raise a child.

First, you haven't established that these kids have done anything wrong. Being unhappy because some self centered b**** of a mother would rather cruise K-Mart than stay home for the kid's nap is not a fault on the kid's part. Any form of punishment under these circumstances is abuse.

Second, given that that same mother would no more explain to the kid why he deserves punishment be it by browbeating, by violence, or by boredom, all forms of punishment will fail equally. Without some understanding of why the punishment is necessary, neither a dog nor a child will improve. And that applies both to the well applied spanking and the psychological terrorism you prefer.

Finally, again, you insist on equating spanking with abuse. You even equate actions that are NOT spanking ("gets slapped in the back of the skull or has a hard slap on the ass.") with spanking. Clearly, you don't have a clue of what a spanking really is. To you, a spanking and a flogging are the same. That says less about the reality of the situation than it does about the warped eyes and mind you see it through.

--Pete

[Guest]

Petes right.(And hes no my first choice of people to side with.)


Spanking is not "harmful" in and of it self, neither physically or mentaly. You may choose to call it harmful. But by the ultimate standard it isnt.
The ultimate standard being it doesnt stop people from living full and healthy lives nor does it lead a society to a crash.

I have seen myself and pretty much all serious surveys agree that you can #$%& up your kid using almost any 'teaching" method and its been shown you can raise healthy well adjusted kids with or without spanking.



Once again we have Doc talking out of his butt, confusing his narrow perception with fact.