For me, if I ask for an unpopular opinion and you say something about pineapple on pizza I’m going to assume you have no personality.

  • EvenOdds@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    Strong disagree from me. Using violence as a deterrent teaches kids that it’s OK to use violence against others in the future. Does it work immediately? Yes. Does it do long term damage? Also yes.

    The subconscious correlation between “being right” and “being the strongest” is a source of a huge amount of problems.

    I never once threatened violence or used any sort of violence against my kids, and they never used violence as they grew up.

    This is probably the real unpopular opinion though, I don’t expect many people to agree with me on this one!

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 days ago

      I think that’s a reasonable take but I do disagree. Violence is necessary sometimes. You should always aim to avoid violence, but if the other party is not able to resolve conflicts without it, you have to be able and willing to use it as a fallback. If you examine how people operate in situations where nonviolence is not an option, you will notice they suddenly become okay with violence. What is pretty universally recognized as bad is using violence when it’s not necessary.

      TL;DR: Speak softly and carry a big stick

    • promitheas@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 days ago

      I’ll disagree with your point on violence teaching violence. I was spanked as a child, and even hit with belts etc (balkan parents) and yet now in my adult life I avoid violence whenever possible and believe it is wrong in 95% of cases. However that means theres 5% where it is unavoidable, and even necessary.

      Also I would counter this argument by saying that if we teach people that violence is never the answer, we raise them to be the kind of people who will let others step all over them (an extreme example is peaceful protestesters against corrupt/outright evil governments - unfortunately it doesnt work most of the time). Now does that mean we should teach that violence is the easy solution you should jump to from the get go? No. It should be stressed that it is only for situations where there is no alternative and the transgression is severe enough to warrant a severe reaction/consequences. So for example, no matter how many times a parent tells their child to do the laundry and they don’t, violence isnt the proportionate consequence. However if a parent catches their kid bullying or endangering others, then yes the “crime” is severe enough in my opinion to warrant a violent response if the child repeatedly engages in that behaviour.

    • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 days ago

      Using violence as a deterrent teaches kids that it’s OK to use violence against others in the future.

      Except as others have pointed out, there’s cases where a violent response (or the possibility of one) is necessary. There’s a couple of good adages on the subject:

      It’s better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war

      A man that is incapable of fighting isn’t peaceful, he’s helpless

      And like one of the other responders, I was spanked as a child but that didn’t lead me to resolving problems with violence as an adult.

      I never once threatened violence or used any sort of violence against my kids, and they never used violence as they grew up.

      Tbh, that sounds more like they were fortunate enough to never be in a situation that required violence