1. Physically hurting someone in a way that causes damage to them is not better than simply restraining them.
2. Glad we're in agreement on this.
3. The article talks about electric shocks, which cause damage to the body. Why would it the amount of damage be different than if the shock was admistered on purpose? If there are studies that suggest that the amount and type of shock they're using causes less damage than this, where are the long-term studies that prove it? After all, frequent shocks will cause lots of little amounts of damage, which mount up.
4. My purpose was merely to counterpoint your argument and point out that for every person who advocates a system due to its purported advantages, there will be someone else who points out its flaws and possible negative effects, and brings your attention to the possible alternatives.
BTW I've eaten now so I'll see you at your house in 15 mins. *Kiss*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-10-12 04:29 pm (UTC)2. Glad we're in agreement on this.
3. The article talks about electric shocks, which cause damage to the body. Why would it the amount of damage be different than if the shock was admistered on purpose? If there are studies that suggest that the amount and type of shock they're using causes less damage than this, where are the long-term studies that prove it? After all, frequent shocks will cause lots of little amounts of damage, which mount up.
4. My purpose was merely to counterpoint your argument and point out that for every person who advocates a system due to its purported advantages, there will be someone else who points out its flaws and possible negative effects, and brings your attention to the possible alternatives.
BTW I've eaten now so I'll see you at your house in 15 mins. *Kiss*