the bear is getting desperate and throwing all his bitcions down? sweet!  The bull is like, I'll take 1,000... no wait 2,000!... Things are starting to heat up! |
|
|
|
Nonsense. Should I permit a toddler to stick his hand into the blue light on the top of the stove, so that he remembers not to do it again, or would the much less permanent harm that a spanking causes him help his young (and not very rational) mind to remember to leave the blue light alone? Sure, I can reason with an eight year old, and teach them a safe way to cross the street, but if a three year old is inclined to run away at any opprotunity, not using the non-permanent pain of a spanking in order to instill a healthy fear of vehicular traffic is the parental failure.
You do realize what you are actually teaching your child (using this example) is not to fear exploration for fear of harm to himself, but fear exploration for fear of harm from his parent? If the point is to make them remember this occurrence, what do you think will happen when they get old enough to leave the nest? I do realize this, actually, and I act accordingly. I use corporal punishment rather sparingly, far less than most I imagine; but I take offense to the implication that I'm not morally correct in doing so as a parent. You don't get to choose what is in the best interests of my children, I do. While its sad that you for some reason decided to have more kids than you can handle, it does not give you license to stagnate on the level of violence. You owe yourself and your children better. There is no justification for violence from a parent to a child. Period. Rationalize it all you want, but inside the deepest place in yourself, you know its true. I hope you do take offense and that (for yours and your childs sake) you are open enough to not stubbornly continue forward down your current path. Well of course having many children does not give me license to choose corporal punishment as a disiplinary option. It's the fact that they are mine that does so. And yes, they are mine. They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense. I created them, thus they are mine. I nurtured them, thus I have "comigiled" my human labor time with developing them into what they are today, thus they are mine. They are too young to express knowledge of, and therefore claim, human rights of self-ownership; thus they do not have self-ownership, and therefore my own cliams to ownership are superior to any others. Granted, I can't destroy my children, like I could for something that I really own, but there exists not one self-consistant philisophical definition of "human", "person" etc within any version of libertarian thought that deals with children younger than the age of reason. For that matter, none even have a cosnsitant way to determine whin a child has arrived at the "age-of-reason". A child that I can reason with is not a child anymore, but i remain responsible for their public failures until they are 18, so if I'm respnsible for them, in some fashion I still own them under the law. Let the bitching commence. This is either the saddest thing I've read in a long time or the global moderator of this forum is trolling. Maybe I am trolling a bit, maybe not. Find the flaws in my reasoning, and debate or admit that you don't have a rebuttal. There is nothing to rebut, you gave your opinion of what your kids are to you. I find that sad as hell as that's not what mine are to me, but it's an entirely subjective matter. I could offer my opinion of what mine are to me, but somehow I don't think you are terribly interested in that. |
|
|
|
Nonsense. Should I permit a toddler to stick his hand into the blue light on the top of the stove, so that he remembers not to do it again, or would the much less permanent harm that a spanking causes him help his young (and not very rational) mind to remember to leave the blue light alone? Sure, I can reason with an eight year old, and teach them a safe way to cross the street, but if a three year old is inclined to run away at any opprotunity, not using the non-permanent pain of a spanking in order to instill a healthy fear of vehicular traffic is the parental failure.
You do realize what you are actually teaching your child (using this example) is not to fear exploration for fear of harm to himself, but fear exploration for fear of harm from his parent? If the point is to make them remember this occurrence, what do you think will happen when they get old enough to leave the nest? I do realize this, actually, and I act accordingly. I use corporal punishment rather sparingly, far less than most I imagine; but I take offense to the implication that I'm not morally correct in doing so as a parent. You don't get to choose what is in the best interests of my children, I do. While its sad that you for some reason decided to have more kids than you can handle, it does not give you license to stagnate on the level of violence. You owe yourself and your children better. There is no justification for violence from a parent to a child. Period. Rationalize it all you want, but inside the deepest place in yourself, you know its true. I hope you do take offense and that (for yours and your childs sake) you are open enough to not stubbornly continue forward down your current path. Well of course having many children does not give me license to choose corporal punishment as a disiplinary option. It's the fact that they are mine that does so. And yes, they are mine. They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense. I created them, thus they are mine. I nurtured them, thus I have "comigiled" my human labor time with developing them into what they are today, thus they are mine. They are too young to express knowledge of, and therefore claim, human rights of self-ownership; thus they do not have self-ownership, and therefore my own cliams to ownership are superior to any others. Granted, I can't destroy my children, like I could for something that I really own, but there exists not one self-consistant philisophical definition of "human", "person" etc within any version of libertarian thought that deals with children younger than the age of reason. For that matter, none even have a cosnsitant way to determine whin a child has arrived at the "age-of-reason". A child that I can reason with is not a child anymore, but i remain responsible for their public failures until they are 18, so if I'm respnsible for them, in some fashion I still own them under the law. Let the bitching commence. This is either the saddest thing I've read in a long time or the global moderator of this forum is trolling. |
|
|
|
Generally speaking I completely agree with the conclusion of your response, but there is one point you make which is just flat out wrong: "The origin of money is barter. In fact, money derives directly and unavoidably from barter." Nowhere in recorded history has money ever derived from barter. It has always derived from credit or the need for mobilization of armies. http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867<cough> No sorry. Money is the most liquid good in a barter economy, and arises naturally. And it does so, so quickly that there is no recorded example of a stable barter economy; at least not in the sense that some form of commodity didn't function as the monetary "change" in a barter transaction. There are plenty of examples of societies that evolved money well before any need to raise or mobilize an army, even before the invention of writing in order to record same. Don't argue with me, argue with David Graeber and history. I don't have to do either. history is already on my side, just not in Graeber's mind. You made this reference, it's up to you to argue that it's correct. I don't personally care what you believe, but to just say "Graeber says this" is committing the 'appeal to authority' falacy using someone I do't even view as a an authority on the matter. For clarification - I said credit OR the mobilization of armies. I suppose we will agree to disagree on this point in general. I simply do not agree that there has ever been such a thing as a "barter economy" nor that it has escalated from such a thing to a monetary economy. I, like graeber choose to use physical evidence, rather than masturbatory intellectualism to fill in the blanks of history. |
|
|
|
|
I don't mind that you deleted the posts - I'll take that as acknowledgement rather than a clear abuse of power.
|
|
|
|
Nonsense. Should I permit a toddler to stick his hand into the blue light on the top of the stove, so that he remembers not to do it again, or would the much less permanent harm that a spanking causes him help his young (and not very rational) mind to remember to leave the blue light alone? Sure, I can reason with an eight year old, and teach them a safe way to cross the street, but if a three year old is inclined to run away at any opprotunity, not using the non-permanent pain of a spanking in order to instill a healthy fear of vehicular traffic is the parental failure.
You do realize what you are actually teaching your child (using this example) is not to fear exploration for fear of harm to himself, but fear exploration for fear of harm from his parent? If the point is to make them remember this occurrence, what do you think will happen when they get old enough to leave the nest? I do realize this, actually, and I act accordingly. I use corporal punishment rather sparingly, far less than most I imagine; but I take offense to the implication that I'm not morally correct in doing so as a parent. You don't get to choose what is in the best interests of my children, I do. While its sad that you for some reason decided to have more kids than you can handle, it does not give you license to stagnate on the level of violence. You owe yourself and your children better. There is no justification for violence from a parent to a child. Period. Rationalize it all you want, but inside the deepest place in yourself, you know its true. I hope you do take offense and that (for yours and your childs sake) you are open enough to not stubbornly continue forward down your current path. |
|
|
|
I'll bite, if some trusted member will act as an escrow.
ditto |
|
|
|
"Complete all of the required fields marked with an asterisk. Toward the bottom of the form you will be asked to enter your LG Smart TV model and serial number. Click "Submit" when you are done." Yep - wont work without purchase. Lol you don't need to purchase a tv I've redeemed these on 2 accounts. k - we're all waiting for the explanation of how.. ? |
|
|
|
Nonsense. Should I permit a toddler to stick his hand into the blue light on the top of the stove, so that he remembers not to do it again, or would the much less permanent harm that a spanking causes him help his young (and not very rational) mind to remember to leave the blue light alone? Sure, I can reason with an eight year old, and teach them a safe way to cross the street, but if a three year old is inclined to run away at any opprotunity, not using the non-permanent pain of a spanking in order to instill a healthy fear of vehicular traffic is the parental failure.
You do realize what you are actually teaching your child (using this example) is not to fear exploration for fear of harm to himself, but fear exploration for fear of harm from his parent? If the point is to make them remember this occurrence, what do you think will happen when they get old enough to leave the nest? |
|
|
|
Generally speaking I completely agree with the conclusion of your response, but there is one point you make which is just flat out wrong: "The origin of money is barter. In fact, money derives directly and unavoidably from barter." Nowhere in recorded history has money ever derived from barter. It has always derived from credit or the need for mobilization of armies. http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867<cough> No sorry. Money is the most liquid good in a barter economy, and arises naturally. And it does so, so quickly that there is no recorded example of a stable barter economy; at least not in the sense that some form of commodity didn't function as the monetary "change" in a barter transaction. There are plenty of examples of societies that evolved money well before any need to raise or mobilize an army, even before the invention of writing in order to record same. Don't argue with me, argue with David Graeber and history. |
|
|
|
"Complete all of the required fields marked with an asterisk. Toward the bottom of the form you will be asked to enter your LG Smart TV model and serial number. Click "Submit" when you are done." Yep - wont work without purchase. |
|
|
|
Generally speaking I completely agree with the conclusion of your response, but there is one point you make which is just flat out wrong: "The origin of money is barter. In fact, money derives directly and unavoidably from barter." Nowhere in recorded history has money ever derived from barter. It has always derived from credit or the need for mobilization of armies. http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867 |
|
|
|
Something will happen for sure this november, whether that move is up or down, is not clear at all.
death cross is down thanks, i was unclear about what direction that might indicate  you are again incorrect, first you said "up or down" where there is no UP, now you say "might indicate" again it indicate down, so there is incorrect to say "might indicate"  |
|
|
|
Something will happen for sure this november, whether that move is up or down, is not clear at all.
death cross is down thanks, i was unclear about what direction that might indicate |
|
|
|
|
Something will happen for sure this november, whether that move is up or down, is not clear at all.
|
|
|
|
btw when do you guys sleep  It's midnight here which means its wayyy past your bedtime if you are on the mainland  It's 11 in the morning here. (also time to sleep) omg, a euro! lol I just noticed what looks like a cat sitting on that guys back on your avatar. hilarious Wait. Are you in Samoa? Or Keweeland? close =) |
|
|
|
btw when do you guys sleep It's midnight here which means its wayyy past your bedtime if you are on the mainland It's 11 in the morning here. (also time to sleep) omg, a euro! lol I just noticed what looks like a cat sitting on that guys back on your avatar. hilarious |
|
|
|
btw when do you guys sleep It's midnight here which means its wayyy past your bedtime if you are on the mainland |
|
|
|
|
we're also nearly at the end of the bull flag (over the entire history of bitcoin) - less than 2 weeks away by my calc. that should spark a massive move - probably up. might go down once more before then though
|
|
|
|
Exponentials are crossing on the 12 hour. Could be nothing or could be  times  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
