TMF wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:01 pm
harryh wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:05 pm
TMF wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:50 pm
Let's see if I am up to speed:
Physical abuse can be heinous or valid depending on context.
Is that the short summary?
Hello....the search for clarity is commendable, but so is a realisation of the time to withdraw.
Right, you have not been around much recently.
But let's work on the logic construction:
Physical abuse can be heinous or valid depending on intent.
Drinking to excess with colleagues and pupils is bad or laudable depending on context.
Tolerance can be good or bad depending on context and whether that person is saying what one likes (or not) oneself.
The basic form is:
An [action or behavior] is [good or bad] because of [context or feelings]
Ready for the next lesson - please proceed (tolerantly).
Even though I'm not qualified in teaching special needs, let me try to explain to you one last time!
You must not over-simplify so grossly and you must refrain from twisting arguments to fit a twisted agenda.
The way it works in assessing harm done to another is this:
Case 1 - A person deliberately maliciously and with full intention sets out to inflict a harm (eg a specific physical injury) on another and succeeds. That (in normal English usage) can be described as 'heinous'.
Case 2 - A person intentionally sets out to inflict a minor harm (eg a non-injurious blow) upon another but the unintended consequence, by accident or miscalculation, is far worse than was originally intended (indeed the intention may have had a positive aim, eg to impose a necessary moderate discipline). Because there is a resultant harm but the harm was not intended, that act could be called 'reckless', the perpetrator may even call it accidental, but it cannot (in normal English usage) be described as 'heinous'.
Case 3 - A person inadvertently inflicts harm upon another, intending no such thing. This act we call 'accidental'.
It may be debatable in the case under examination whether it comes under 2 or 3; but it is blatantly obvious that it does not come under 1, and is not therefore 'heinous'. As to the term 'valid', which you have dragged in from somewhere, it does not fit in anywhere.
The law distinguishes between murder, manslaughter, and accidental death, etc. It does so for a reason and the consequences for person causing the death differ according to the intention. So intention and context are indeed 'all'.
If that still isn't clear, then there is no hope that you will ever understand.