"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Even if equality isn't the goal, didn't we effectively achieve equality? By making both boys loose all toys we effectively changed the units to something that does relate equally to both boys - TIME away from toys.
I don't disagree at all. Not one single bit. But it was obvious to you that an arbitrary number of toys is not effective, presumably since in the case of your kids, they have more than enough other toys to insulate themselves from the punishment. An earlier poster broke the toys down into a point value system - each person has the same number of points and those points are divided by the number of toys, showing the difference in personal value that each toy has. The reoccurring theme is that when the cost has the same availability to each person, the punishment is deemed fair. In the case here everybody goes with TIME - no toys is the same as timeouts - they are both TIME away from toys and both boys have roughtly the same amount of time to sacrifice. Is it perfect, no. Never will be. But it seems that we can do the same thing with fines that we are doing with toys - just not use them.As for the other argument...punishments between the wealthy and not wealthy will NEVER be fair. They CAN'T be. Good quote from the last Batman movie...."The rich don't even go broke the same...". And that's the truth. You could take away ALL of Warren Buffets money for speeding, and the man would be perfectly fine. He has access to resources the rest of us don't, by virtue of his wealth and reputation. There's no changing that, and all progressive fines will serve to do is make our legal system even worse, more expensive, and more jammed up. Imagine a world where rich people hire lawyers to fight every single fine or citation, instead of just paying them outright?
Taking away half of their toys does not deprive them of toys. A kid only needs one. I mean, if you had older kids, with a xbox or whatever, would taking away HALF of his video games REALLY hurt him? Not really. Sure, he'll wine for a few minutes, but then he'll realize he's perfectly fine picking up some game he hasn't played in a while. Same with kids and toys. It doesn't....hurt them. It's just not gonna deter them from acting up, the same way taking away ALL of their toys would. And for my money, timeout is SO MUCH EASIER.
First we'd have to have statistical data for this. But isn't it a red herring anyway? Why do we need to treat effectiveness and equality separately? If we just remove toys/fines, don't we end up with a system that is both more effective and more equal?Effective, yes, as evidenced by a lack of rich people speeding around all over the place...fair? No.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
I disagree. I understand people's need to have more realistic details, but that should be entirely unnecessary with abstract thinking. I'm an engineer and these are variables to me. The punishment is X. I don't need to know what X - because if X is the same on both sides of the equation, it simply cancels. For those that need a little more realism, I tell them both boys decided to play with their toys instead of doing homework. But that's all you get. You need to be able to imagine two completely equal boys in all ways accept for the number of toys. Is it realistic to imagine that you personally know two perfectly equal boys. Of course not, but that is not the focus - and the reality is that this abstract thinking parallels the aggregate very well. You might not be able to find two perfectly equal boys. But you could take two large groups of boys and do the exact same thing.Hypotheticals are poor debate fodder to begin with and vague hypotheticals are even worse. Why am I punishing the boys, not what action but why am I the arbiter? Are they both my boys, then why did I buy one so many more toys than the other? Is only one my boy, why am I punishing someone elses kid? Am I a teacher of the boys, what right do I have to take away their toys?
While "the basement" part is extreme - isn't that effectively "no toys"?
(I'm just kidding. Don't worry, I don't think spanking is a suitable punishment)
I would tailor my punishment to the particular boy. For example, one of the boys loves to play his musical instrument. I'd take that away. The other boy loves to play video games. Sorry, kid...the computer stays off.
-I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he's picking my pocket.- Time Enough For Love - Robert A Heinlein
My avatar created by Feliza Estrada email@example.com