Tennessee: Execution of Christa Pike stayed!

[theprestige]

It was you who introduced the word "spanking" into a discussion of the relative severity of punishments meted out for crimes.

Yes, I introduced a relatively less severe punishment in a discussion about the relative severity of punishments. Steve then immediately decided that all punishments in that category had a singular absolute severity, and tried to mock me on that basis.

If you did not want it to be a factor in a discussion on that subject, it was, at best, careless.

If only. The sad fact is, I could still care less about whether Steve misunderstands me on purpose, and I probably should.

 

[arthwollipot]

Since I'm clearly applying a form of reasoning, it follows that I don't think flogging is equivalent to spanking, and that you reached a mistaken conclusion.

It's "equivalent" inasmuch as it involves infliction of pain as punishment.

 

[theprestige]

It's "equivalent" inasmuch as it involves infliction of pain as punishment.

All punishment involves human suffering of some kind. That's what makes it punishment.

Torture is inflicting pain for its own sake. Inflicting pain for the purpose of just punishment is not the same thing.

 

[arthwollipot]

All punishment involves human suffering of some kind. That's what makes it punishment.

Which is why I specified the infliction of pain, not generalised nonspecific suffering.

Torture is inflicting pain for its own sake. Inflicting pain for the purpose of just punishment is not the same thing.

Look at the definitions I posted. Punishment is included in the definition. It's exactly the same, ie. morally repugnant.

 

[arthwollipot]

 

[theprestige]

Which is why I specified the infliction of pain, not generalised nonspecific suffering.

Thanks, that clarifies that. I didn't realize you meant specifically physical pain.

So it *is* the corporal aspect of it, yes? That's where you draw the line? No punishment that causes physical pain?

Look at the definitions I posted. Punishment is included in the definition. It's exactly the same, ie. morally repugnant.

Thanks, I missed that. I apologize.

To be clear, your position is that inflicting physical suffering as a form of punishment is immoral, and that inflicting mental or emotional suffering as a form of punishment is moral. Do I have it correct now?

ETA: I remember now. I noted the "for punishment" clause at the time, but also noted the "excruciating" modifier. At the time, I inquired about the excruciating part.

My view is that inflicting excruciating suffering of any sort - physical, mental, or emotional - all counts torture, and all counts as immoral*. My view is that it's possible to inflict excruciating suffering on someone without laying a finger on them. My view is that it's also possible to inflict corporal punishment on someone without inflicting excruciating levels of suffering. I assume you agree that excruciating amounts of mental or emotional suffering, as punishment, would be immoral.

 

[arthwollipot]

To be clear, your position is that inflicting physical suffering as a form of punishment is immoral, and that inflicting mental or emotional suffering as a form of punishment is moral. Do I have it correct now?

As usual, no.

 

[theprestige]

As usual, no.

What did I get wrong?

 

[arthwollipot]

Why should I bother trying to explain? You'll just deliberately misrepresent what I say like you always do. Body of work, and all that.