rationalskepticism.org

Nicko wrote:

Mick wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:So you smack the kid who has his hand on the dogs balls and this prevents the kid from getting bitten how?

I'd advise against spanking while the kid has his hand on the dog's testicles. I'd say that's a given.

And everyone here would agree with you. Where we are going to disagree is that the little talk about not grabbing the scrotum of an animal needs to be preceded by belting the kid.

The problem for your position is that, once you have removed the child from the situation requiring "immediate compliance", your claimed justification for spanking the child vanishes.

Fuck, beaten to it by Onyx8.

When I first proposed the dog-testicle scenario, I stated just how I understand immediate compliance:

"Immediate compliance can be understood in a few ways. It is to get them to stop whatever they are doing then and there, or it could be understood to securely get them to stop any such behaviour in the future."

I have a broad understanding of it. What's more, I don't view events as if they were chopped with the axe-they are much more fluid than that. The child could have grabbed the testicles, let go and was about to grab with his other hand, or grabbed and then let go only to better his grip, or because his attention went elsewhere for a moment. If a parent pushes his son's hands away and then quickly smacks it, and then says 'do not touch!', no one would think himself a wise philosopher for replying 'Well, at that exact instant, he was not touching the dog's balls, since you moved his hand.'