"Just to put my two-bob's worth in, to my way of thinking, this abuse part needs to broken down further into, -
a). Consequence
b). Outright abuse."
And of course, you give no reason why it should be "further broken down", nor do you give any logical reasoning as to how you arrived at your conclusion. Possibly because there can be no legitimate and logial reasoning to arrive at your conclusion.
This statement made Me quite sad. For all the potential of reasoning and education, you settle for the teachings of a society. The fact is that the actions in your (a) and (b) statements are exactly the same actions. The claimed intent of the person "giving" the abuse does not change that simple fact that it IS abuse.
In laymens terms : Of course, the real intent of the "disciplinarian" is NEVER to help anyone. This is not psychologically possible during the mental state that they are in while assaulting thier victim. The person doing the abuse ALWAYS has the primary psychological goal (usually sub-conscious) of relieving an emotionally or otherwise unpleasant mental state due to past negative experiances by using the abused subject as a poison container to cathartically revlieve their own torment.
The "disciplinarian" type abuser is genrally over-socialised, and has to generate false moral arguments to attempt to justify thier own actions, based on the actions of others "needing to be punished". These people need illusion of moral justification to vent thier suppressed cathartic rage.
It is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. It makes no sense.
So, your answer is incorrect.
"Consequences are the result of ones own chosen actions, we all know right from wrong, and we make the choice to cross that line, knowing there is a consequence, and in most cases what those consequencies are."
I will focus on only one of the many, many contradictions and other principaled philisophical errors in the above statement.
It does not matter if the person being abused knew what would happen or not. It is still abuse. The action is still the same, and the REAL motivational forces of the abuser are still the same.
Of course, if we are all responsible for our actions, then the person doing the "discipline" (ie abuse) must also be responsible for thier actions. How, then, can you claim that the actions of the person being abused were "her fault" or brought on herself?
I ask you : can't you see the paradoxial problem with your latter statement? You claim that it's alright to do something that you would in other circumstanes claim is wrong (i.e. "your (b) outright abuse" example) simply because the person being abused/disciplined did something "wrong" themselves. Your are virtually saying two wrong make a right, or to be more accurate, two wrongs make only one of the "wrongs" (the 2nd one) become right...only if the other person was wrong!
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I am sorry, but by your logic, it would be impossible to decide who was in the "wrong" at all with any logical consistancy. Of course, the end result would be that everyone would see each other as "in the wrong", and then think that they should abuse (oh, discipline) every-one else.
