because they dont get to define the scenario in the most favorable conditions if they are claiming violence is never appropriate. Doubly so when they include a bunch of condescension about how anyone who thinks violence has a place should seek therapy.
> because they dont get to define the scenario in the most favorable conditions if they are claiming violence is never appropriate.
The earlier poster was arguing that corporal punishment is never appropriate. When they said "better alternatives than violence", they were speaking in the context of punishment.
A scenario about an urgent intervention can't prove them wrong, because it's not related to what they were saying.
> Doubly so when they include a bunch of condescension about how anyone who thinks violence has a place should seek therapy.
Are you actually reading their comments, or are you too busy being righteously mad at them?
They didn't ask if you think violence "has a place". They asked if it's what normally happens for your interpersonal conflicts.
Im talking about corporal punishment too, or at least im not drawing a distinction. the commonality I was illustrating is that violence can be a solution of last resort when other methods have failed, and it is possible for other methods to fail.
>They didn't ask if you think violence "has a place". They asked if it's what normally happens for your interpersonal conflicts. Those two ideas are not at all close.
I think it was an intentionally loaded and insulting question. yeah, im sure the poster normally resorts to violence interpersonal conflicts when they cant agree on a move with their partner.
Plus, it is just a crappy argument. The parent wasn't arguing that corporal punishment should normally be the tool to resolve issues, so it is a faulty comparison.
