When did this thread devolve into a red scare circle jerk   I find that picture hilarious, because open source (by subverting copyright's goal of monopolizing knowledge and turning it upside down) is probably the most fantastic example of a peaceful market of individual actors, working together for interests mutually aligned, in entirely voluntary non-coercive interactions. I love free software -- and free culture in general -- because it embodies voluntaryism. :-) Government-welfare-queen monopolist Microsoft, on the other hand... |
|
|
|
Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?
the government doesnt let me  (and i have to admit, personally, i am more of a sack&pillage kinda guy  ) Note the religious logic: "If God didn't exist to punish me, I would go about my life raping and murdering and stealing." congratulations! your perception has increased from 0 to 1! you are now able to the see walls up to 4m ahead, recognize when an ogre is eating your limbs and tell hamsters and strategic missiles apart - if they move. Classic sardonic religious believer non-response. |
|
|
|
I'm scanning over it as I get everything formatted, and all I can say is... wow. Well, that's not entirely true. I can say a great many other things, but they're not fit to print.
It will change the way you look at the world. Alice Miller has also done some great work along those lines: http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htmNice. I guess I'll be converting another book to ePub. And this one even has a decent cover. Thanks for your service to the world, my man. Stef has done the audiobook version of Origins of War -- that is how I "read" that particular book. Really fascinating stuff. |
|
|
|
I need to double check things but I'm pretty sure it's entirely within the power of states to do this.
Have you heard of a little thing called the Civil War? It paints a vivid picture of the Federal government's stance on state secession. I believe it's called "The War of Northern Aggression" ;-) |
|
|
|
Again, not every use of force is either criminal or unjustifiable. If you are trying to raise pascifists, you're on the easy path, but I'm not. That might be cultural, but again, you don't have any say in what culture I raise my children, either. I'm not saying that every use of force is criminal or unjustifiable. I'm saying initiating the use of force is criminal or unjustifiable. Especially against someone who cannot fight back. If your daughter should try to run into traffic, would you attempt to reason with her, or grab her hand to stop her and reason with her later? Obviously you would grab her hand and forcibly prevent her from harming herself, but you have just initiated force against her in order to do so. By your logic, you would then be an abuser yourself. The idea that I may be more proactive, and employ behavior conditioning (instead of attempting to reason with a two year old) in order to prevent a future repeat of this scene does not make me any more of a initiator of force than yourself. Your going to have to recognize that, no matter how opposed to the use of force against your own children you stand philosophically; you will employ force against your children at times. Now, your self-justifiable limit of acceptable force may be much lower than my own, but that certainly does not excuse your own use of force. The reality is that you will rationalize your level of force in exactly the same manner that I rationalize mine; that you don't agree that your level of force constitutes violence (as you define it) and that other adults who have another opinion have no say in your situation. I've already said that intervention in order to prevent harm is acceptable. Then you have already qualified some use of force, even initiation of force, against your own child for her own good. And you're deliberately blurring the definition of "force" to make grabbing the child the same as hitting. You know the libertarian usage of the word. Violence. I'd hardly call grabbing a hand - or even snatching the child up out of the street - using violence against the child. Striking the child is certainly violence, however. I agree, this underhanded blurring of the definition of "violence" is exactly what your interlocutor is doing. He wants to equate snatching a child out of traffic with beating him up after-the-fact, because he needs to find an ideological excuse to rationalize his own brutality and child abuse, so he can keep believing "See? I'm a good dad.". He's not a good dad. He is a shithead. |
|
|
|
Hehehe yeah it's important to point out the gun in the room. The irony is that most socialists/leftists are very much opposed to guns, yet their ideology requires institutionalized violent threat via gun.
It's it's very literal in another sense: only if you can't defend yourself from guns, are you ready for the enslavement that socialists want for you. Socialists saying "guns are bad" suddenly makes sense when you understand what they are not saying: "...except in our rulers' hands". |
|
|
|
Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?
the government doesnt let me (and i have to admit, personally, i am more of a sack&pillage kinda guy ) Note the religious logic: "If God didn't exist to punish me, I would go about my life raping and murdering and stealing." |
|
|
|
|
This thread is full of malevolent people who want to excuse, apologize, defend, disclaim or perpetrate violent abuse against children.
Come out of the woodwork already, child abusers and wannabes, so I can add you to a public shaming list (and my private ignore list).
|
|
|
|
What or who, beyond the parents or the authorities of the state could teach children to resort to violence?
Fail: Parents or State authority figures are not the only authority figures. Yes, fail. This guy has failed numerous times in this thread, especially with his complex pretense that I somehow have to "prove" an alleged "hasty generalization" -- to wit, that violent abusers are almost universally abuse victims themselves -- that has reams of documented evidence, already shared in this conversation thread, that he could consult if he wanted to. |
|
|
|
Since your claim is a hasty generalization,
No, no it's not. Criminals almost universally were victims of child abuse -- verbal violence, physical violence, sexual violence. You are only calling this a "hasty generalization" because you either don't know the facts surrounding violent individuals and their past abuse, or you don't want to acknowledge said facts. Regarding those facts, I've shared them in this thread. Consider your question answered. Oh, and please don't pursue this sophistry further -- not only will you get zero answers from me (you need none, you have the requisite information) you'll also get your account on another ignore list. |
|
|
|
You admitted that parents or authorities of the state taught that children to murder.
No, I never said that. I said that these murderers have surely been abused (to the point of damaging them and making them propense to murder). I didn't say anything to the effect of "they were explicitly taught to murder other people" or anything of the sort. Accordingly, I don't have to prove anything to you. This is your claim
Nope. What you see in the prison is the inevitable result of having taught these adolescents that violence was how you get your way -- they become violent individuals and use violence themselves. I have absolutely no doubt that every child in that prison was taught violence by authorities (probably their parents) on a first-hand basis, if you know what I mean. Go into a prison and interview violent offenders for their childhood, then tell us what the common thread in their lives is (spoiler: child abuse). See? Contrary to your insistence, nowhere here do I ever say that these murderers were taught to murder. I must assume that you are either mistaken (and willing to correct your allegations), or you don't have the capacity to parse what I'm saying (and therefore this conversation is futile), or you are deliberately trying to pervert my words to discredit me (in which case I see no reason why I should respond to a dishonest person). What is it going to be? |
|
|
|
To all those whining about the state of Wikipedia: It's free and open to anybody to fork it. In your fork you can try to get along without a hierarchy of admins. In fact I'm sure it could be done better but it gets me mad when open projects get bashing. Do it better. Please.
Ah, the standard "if you don't like it here, why don't you møøøøøøve". Very handy to excuse anything that's wrong, from slavery to lies to rape. |
|
|
|
I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate.
Because the going rate is based on irreversible payment methods. Credit card, PayPal? "Great, I received 20000 BTC, now it's time to call my credit card company/PayPal and tell them to reverse the charge because 'the goods weren't received' or 'I was hacked'! Then I can sell the BTC for gold and I'll be fucking rich!" Exactly. BTC x greenbacks is one thing, BTC x PayPal is another. You should not expect the price relationships between these parts to be the same. |
|
|
|
The number may be a little off, but for the most part of mankind, the time to be pregnant with child was beginning of adolescence. Don't let your modern cultural beliefs color the facts of history. :-)
reasonable values are likely 15-20. i just singled that out because it was just the most obvious part of a post that was "maybe a little off" about everything. talking about greece as a state that has failed again and again for about three thousand years is so totally absurd... It is "absurd"? How exactly? :-) greece, until conquered and systematically ruined by the ottoman empire, was among the most prosperous and developed regions of the world for almost two thousand years.
how the fuck does that constitute failure?
Greece, ruined by statism? NOOOOOOO, YOU DON'T SAY! |
|
|
|
It cannot be reasonablely argued that spanking a child does not work as a behavior modificaition method; Oh, it works, alright... Just not necessarily as intended. Since the intention is also not your perview, I assume that you are cheekily conceding this point? That spanking will modify the behavior of the child thus abused? Certainly I concede that.... The whip alters the behavior of the slave tout suite, as well. Doesn't make it moral, nor does it change the slave's perception of the action that got him whipped. But it sure drives home the point that Master doesn't want him to do it. Very well. Well. That's the creepiest thing I have ever had the misfortune to read from you. What did I tell you, my man... this guy is seriously fucked in the head. |
|
|
|
I'm fairly certain a two-year old understands that hitting is wrong. It's the whole "except when daddy does it" that confuses them.
Bolded, here rests the explanation for all scourges of mankind, including statist / nonstatist religions and other mafias. "X is wrong, except when I, a magical authority / stronger than you, do it". |
|
|
|
- The parents of that children did not taught the children to kill neither they used violence against them.
OK, so your claim is that "no one ever used violence against these children-turned-murderers, no one raped them, no one beat them up, no one yelled at them, in short, no one terrorized them enough to damage them and make them propense to violent acts including murder". (Did I get that right?) You're, in effect, disputing my contention that they were indeed abused. (I don't think you're disputing the contention that abuse leads to dysfunctional individuals, some of whom turn very violent. IF you were disputing that, you would be going against decades of medical and psychiatric evidence.). And that is excellent, because we're finally making progress (thanks for the grammar fixup, by the way!). Now prove that your claim is true. If you dispute this claim, you surely must have some evidence you're relying on. Let's have it, now. We'll get to asking you to prove your other claims later. |
|
|
|
|
Just as a note, I can't respond to user blahblahblah since he's in my ignore list. He landed there for exploding in verbal abuse after he couldn't or wouldn't respond to his interlocutor.
|
|
|
|
As far as I know, you originally asked me who taught these adolescents to commit murder, and I responded to you that it was authority figures (likely their parents) who taught them violence first-hand. I think that should resolve your question. Or maybe I got the question wrong?
If was not the parents or the authorities of the state who taught a child to murder, who or what was? OK, you repeated the same question with the same grammar. I will now assume that you mean: "If the murderer adolescents were not taught to murder by the parents or the authorities, then who taught them?" Where A = "the murderer adolescents were taught to murder by the parents or the authorities", and B = "who taught them?", your sentence I am parsing as "If not A, then B?" Assuming this is what you're asking me, then the answer to the question is the same I already gave you. A is true. These adolescents were most definitely taught violence by abusive authorities (likely their parents), and this abuse was obviously enough to turn them into murderers. Any other questions? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
