Well, since you clearly don't understand the language we're using to converse, I think we're done here. Come back when you understand English. How pathetic you are. Another ad hominem... Did you even read what you posted? The definition number 3 clearly express: "Caused by..." In the case of your own example, the bus did not hit the distracted walker. So no "violent" action happened neither any action "caused" harm or destruction. Then: Would you not call being hit by a bus "violent"? Considering the amount of force (physics) that would be channeled through his body should that occur, I would most certainly call it such. Since I can in no way stop the bus from moving through the space he occupies, I needs must remove him from that space. Of course, your pretension will not change the fact that "violent" in your statement means: violent
adjective
1. acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force: a violent earthquake.
2. caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death.
3. intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.
4. roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: violent passions.
5. furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.: violent haste. I've already said that intervention in order to prevent harm is acceptable. If you're walking out in front of a bus, certainly you would not object to my leaping across, knocking you to the ground in order to save your life. "If you're walking out in front of a bus violent". "If you're walking out in front of a bus acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force." Otherwise how would you justify that: "If you're walking out in front of a bus caused by injurious or destructive force." Back to your contradictory statement: In other words, defensive violence is a response to initiative violence. In the case we are speaking of, the man in the street "initiated" things by stepping out in front of the bus, requiring the use of force to defend him from his own inattention. "In other words, defensive violence is a response to initiative behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. In the case we are speaking of, the man in the street "initiated" things by stepping out in front of the acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force" Therefore: |
|
|
|
Would you not call being hit by a bus "violent"? Considering the amount of force ( physics) that would be channeled through his body should that occur, I would most certainly call it such. No, I would not. A bus is not a living entity with will of violence. Violence requires intention to harm: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/violence?q=violenceDefinition of violence
noun
[mass noun]
1 behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something: A bus do not have intention to harm. Moreover: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/force?q=forcePhysics: an influence tending to change the motion of a body or produce motion or stress in a stationary body. The magnitude of such an influence is often calculated by multiplying the mass of the body and its acceleration. Since I can in no way stop the bus from moving through the space he occupies, I needs must remove him from that space. That means, intention to "remove him from that space". This requires a small amount of defensive force ( violence) so as to protect him from the great deal of force ( physics) that would surely kill him. No, it required intentional amount of force because even an action of defense is intentional: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/defensive?q=defensiveDefinition of defensive
adjective
1 used or intended to defend or protect So back you your statment: 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. Regarding your own definition, your intention of "to protect him from the great deal of force" by "remove him from that space" is "criminal or unjustifiable". |
|
|
|
No, dictionary definitions do not convey the nuances of language which is learned from speaking a language natively.
To clarify: "The initiation of the use of force" does not mean "initiate" in the sense of "I started cooking," but rather in the sense of "He started the fight." This is redundant logic. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/start?q=startDefinition of start
verb
(...)
2 [with object] cause to happen or begin
(...)
noun
[usually in singular]
1 the point in time or space at which something has its origin; the beginning. In other words, defensive violence is a response to initiative violence. In the case we are speaking of, the man in the street "initiated" things by stepping out in front of the bus, requiring the use of force to defend him from his own inattention. Please, explain how a man stepping in front of a bus is being violent. In other words, how this man had initiated a violent action by walking distractedly in the street? Again, if you must consult a dictionary, you will come away with an over-narrow and literal sense of the word, which will damage your ability to convey and understand meaning in a conversation.
Consult a dictionary never damaged anyone's ability to understand the meaning of words. By the other way around, a dictionary is an essential reference to avoid the misuse of words. |
|
|
|
There is no use of force without an initiation, whatever is the intent of the initiator.
If you have to look up every word in the dictionary, you probably shouldn't be conversing in English. What is up? You cannot cope with your own definitions? It is not my fault that you do not use the dictionary. Typically, after the last ad hominem argument and after the last willful ignorance to answer my question, you are now pretending that I am not entitled to express my English language skills. I have something to declare: "Face it, man. You're fighting a losing battle, here, and you know it. Now, admit defeat, and go apologize to your tutors which taught your English language skills." |
|
|
|
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. You're also blurring the usage of initiate. To initiate the use of force against someone is to attack them when they have done nothing. Only defensive violence is justified. Initiatory is clearly wrong, and retributive is simply vengeance. There is no use of force without an initiation, whatever is the intent of the initiator. I've already said that intervention in order to prevent harm is acceptable. If you're walking out in front of a bus, certainly you would not object to my leaping across, knocking you to the ground in order to save your life. In accordance with your own definition you would be a criminal if you knocked down a person. You have to initiate the use of force to leap across the street and knock down a person. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/initiate?q=initiateDefinition of initiate
verb
1 cause (a process or action) to begin |
|
|
|
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. So provide evidence to prove your claim. You presented none. I have prepared evidence to support whatever claim I will do. Moreover, I am not disputing that criminals have not suffered child abuse. I am asking what are the other causes of violence rather than the ones you had proposed. Regarding those facts, I've shared them in this thread. Consider your question answered. No, you did not shared any facts. All you made was to provide a claim. 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.
Oh, classic... The ignore list blackmail. You are free to ignore me, but this is not going to substantiate your claim. |
|
|
|
I don't understand the drive of your question, given that the original statement was:
Given that, and the fact that you apparently latched on to "authorities" to mean "parents or government" - which has now been debunked - what's your point?
Are you going to answer the question as best you can or are you going to play the willful ignorant as Rudd-O? I reformulated the question with your definition of authority. That is not enough? What will be next excuse to not answer the question? My point is in the question. How many times I need to reformulate or to repeat the question before you decide to answer? Answer the question or admit that you are not able to provide evidence to support your claims. |
|
|
|
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. Other possibilities include: Grandparents, aunts and uncles, nannies and other caregivers (I include in this group private teachers and tutors, public school teachers are agents of the State), possibly even older siblings. Do You want to discuss that? I can include your definition in my question: What or who, beyond the parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, nannies, siblings, caregivers (including teachers and tutors) and authorities of the state, could teach children to resort to violence? |
|
|
|
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?
All right, I failed to use exactly one word of your claim: 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. Reformulated: Since your claim is a hasty generalization, I am challenging you to indicate to me who, beyond the parents or the authorities of the state, could teach the children to resort to violence. Your failure to present an alternative claim to answer my question indicates that you are unable to answer objectively. So there is no reason to further this discussion if you do not wish: 1. To substantiate your claim with appropriate evidence, which will prove that only parents or authorities of the state teach children to resort to violence, or 2. Provide an alternative claim which satisfy my question. Moreover, I provided another reference to you formulate an answer, but you ignored: (...) Regarding the video I presented and the news in the above quote: What or who, beyond the parents or the authorities of the state could teach children to resort to violence? |
|
|
|
|
I do not resort to fallacies or swearing to hold my arguments. I recognize my mistakes and I respect the right to anyone to disagree with my philosophical ideals. I do not ignore any user in this forum because I am always willing to read different opinions.
I just realized that after I started to participate in this thread, few users included my username in their ignore list. Those users which ignored me are equivalent to people which close their ears during a verbal debate. They are willing to express whatever they deem necessary, but they refuse to hear whatever they deem unnecessary.
Selective reasoning: "I only consider your argument when I can refute it."
Appeal to contradiction: "You do not accept my expression of freedom, thus I will ignore your freedom of expression."
|
|
|
|
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".
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.). No, I am not disputing that they may had suffered abuse. 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. You admitted that parents or authorities of the state taught that children to murder. This is your claim and you did not provide any reference to prove it. Your request to me prove what I did not claimed is a failed attempt of deception. 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). Since your claim is a hasty generalization, I am challenging you to indicate to me who, beyond the parents or the authorities of the state, could teach the children to murder. Your failure to present an alternative claim to answer my question indicates that you are unable to answer objectively. So there is no reason to further this discussion if you do not wish: 1. To substantiate your claim with appropriate evidence, which will prove that only parents or authorities of the state teach children to murder, or 2. Provide an alternative claim which satisfy my question. Moreover, I provided another reference to you formulate an answer, but you ignored: http://arazao.com.br/policia/menor-mata-homem-em-rosario-do-sul/The lesser of 15 years was apprehended by Police Civil Rosario South yesterday. He is accused of killing Alessandro Silva Moreira with an ax ritual with quite aggressive. In addition to the blows of the ax, the lowest Alessandro also assaulted with a filtered straw in the mouth with a serrated knife, which eventually reaching the throat.
In recognition of the scene, the lowest would have lifted the cloth covering the body and spat at the victim's face. By the time the Delegate Thiago Firppo worked with the hypothesis larceny. The smallest act of spitting on the victim caused the Delegate also works with the hypothesis Crime Passional. According to information gathered by the newspaper Gazeta de Rosario, the victim's girlfriend would be harassed less and this may have prompted the disagreement.
The crime, which happened on Sunday night at Rua Thedy Guimarăes, Ana Luiza in the neighborhood, when the minor, the victim and others consumed alcohol and crack. Ezequiel de Souza Rodrigues 21, was arrested as a co-author, for he was at the crime scene with those involved and did nothing to prevent crime. The delegate Thiago Firppo heard those involved in crime and two other witnesses.
The smaller the victim, the co-author and another girl who was with them moments before they would have sold to television with the victim's consent Noreira to consume more drugs. The cash machine was not found by police. Regarding the video I presented and the news in the above quote: What or who, beyond the parents or the authorities of the state could teach children to murder? |
|
|
|
On the contrary, Jurius Naturalis, the child has rights. If you are violating them, I will intervene just as if I see a mugging on the street or one adult beating up another. If it's not OK for you to beat someone who has the ability to fight back, what makes you think it's OK to do it to someone who does not?
If you intervene, then you failed to accept the natural right of the parent. That means, if the natural right of the child is only valid when the natural right of the parent is not valid, you are assuming a double standard. The natural right of both parent and child must be fully recognized or fully refuted. The concept of jurius naturalis have been extensively discussed more than a century ago. The perspective of various writers indicate that the parent is the only authority to act in behalf of his/her child: http://www.manchester.edu/kant/Home/indexRelated.htm§. 55.
Ergo parentalis potestas est tantum ius in actiones prolis, ideoque ius, actiones liberorum pro lubitu eatenus dirigendi, quatenus haec directio cum conservatione ipsorum consistere potest. Parentibus itaque in prolem competit ius affirmativum, §. 82, I. |
|
|
|
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?
I can only conclude from the above statement that you are intentionally using willful ignorance to not answer the question. Let's try again: - Few children in that prison are convicted murders. - The parents of that children did not taught the children to kill neither they used violence against them. - The authorities of the state did not taught the children to kill neither they used violence against them (at least, not before the imprisonment). Regarding the above premises, who taught that children to murder? It was not the parents. It was not the authorities of the state. Who or what beyond the parents and beyond the authorities of the state could teach the children to murder? |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
If a murder was not taught neither by the authorities of the state neither by it parents, who taught them?
Do you think this murder was motivated by his parents or by the state? If neither, who or what motivated the 15 years old boy to murder?
I don't want to be mean, but I answered this question already and I honestly don't feel like repeating myself. Maybe you're asking a different question? You did not answered the most important part of the question: if was not the parents neither the authorities of the state who taught the children to murder, who taught? Who or what motivated an underage human being to commit murder if he did not learned that from his parents or from the authorities of the state? Please, read the news I provided and formulate your argument to answer the question. |
|
|
|
Thanks, you're right and I appreciate your tolerance and understanding. I'm also free to agree with Myrkul's correct assessment of his observations. Thus, I did :-) You are welcome to pretend what is correct or not without the appropriate evidence to support it. Somehow I don't think copypasting a whole book along with all its citations would constitute acceptable behavior here. I pointed you to the book in question so you could afford yourself the information you're requesting right now. It's, of course, up to you to learn more by cracking it open. Your choice. You do not have to copy-and-paste the whole book. You can present the most consistent quotes and publish here, followed by a explanation of how that substantiate Myrkul statemets. I can also recommend to you the Bomb in the Brain series http://fdrurl.com/bib highly, highly recommended, especially if you are more audiovisual than lettery lettery (I'm pretty sure that the book I recommended was made into an audiobook by the same author of the Bomb in the Brain series, if you're into audiobooks -- that's how I got that book into my brain). I hope you enjoy this as well. Have a great day! :-) Thank you very much, but no, I am not interested to read or to listen a whole book only to understand an argument that you did not even made. I am asking you to present evidence, not to recommend books. This is a debate, not a review of books. |
|
|
|
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).
If a murder was not taught neither by the authorities of the state neither by it parents, who taught them? Do you think this murder was motivated by his parents or by the state? If neither, who or what motivated the 15 years old boy to murder? http://arazao.com.br/policia/menor-mata-homem-em-rosario-do-sul/The lesser of 15 years was apprehended by Police Civil Rosario South yesterday. He is accused of killing Alessandro Silva Moreira with an ax ritual with quite aggressive. In addition to the blows of the ax, the lowest Alessandro also assaulted with a filtered straw in the mouth with a serrated knife, which eventually reaching the throat.
In recognition of the scene, the lowest would have lifted the cloth covering the body and spat at the victim's face. By the time the Delegate Thiago Firppo worked with the hypothesis larceny. The smallest act of spitting on the victim caused the Delegate also works with the hypothesis Crime Passional. According to information gathered by the newspaper Gazeta de Rosario, the victim's girlfriend would be harassed less and this may have prompted the disagreement.
The crime, which happened on Sunday night at Rua Thedy Guimarăes, Ana Luiza in the neighborhood, when the minor, the victim and others consumed alcohol and crack. Ezequiel de Souza Rodrigues 21, was arrested as a co-author, for he was at the crime scene with those involved and did nothing to prevent crime. The delegate Thiago Firppo heard those involved in crime and two other witnesses.
The smaller the victim, the co-author and another girl who was with them moments before they would have sold to television with the victim's consent Noreira to consume more drugs. The cash machine was not found by police. |
|
|
|
I beg to differ, respectfully. I consider Myrkul's analysis and participation here to be a resounding success. I agree with Myrkul that statism, like any other religion or other authoritarian cult, can be understood as a disease characterized by humans abusing each other, mainly propagated from parent (or other authority figure) to child, when the authority figure beats or yells at the child "because I say so / for your own good". Regardless of the dictionary definition of statism. You are free to agree with whatever misinterpretation you accept as factual. There's incredible amounts of evidence supporting this view, too. If you're interested, Lloyd deMause's work "The origins of war in child abuse" will more than quell any thirst you might have for evidence supporting this observation. Please, present this "incredible amounts of evidence" which you claim to substantiate Myrkul statements. Political issues are really just the evolved manifestation of dysfunctional family issues, of course, in disguise.
What exactly do you mean by "political issues"? |
|
|
|
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.
Are you implying that for every underage murder inside that prison, the respective parents taught them to kill? If not, who taught them to resort to violence? |
|
|
|
It is my contention that Statism is a form of Stockholm Syndrome, You contention do not change the meaning of established words or concepts: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/statism?q=statismDefinition of statism
noun
[mass noun]
a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs The state is not a captor neither the state hold citizens hostage. The state is a system which represents an organized community. ...and that statists, to the extent that they defend the violent actions of the State, are engaging in behavior consistent with Stockholm Syndrome likewise people who defend their parent's violent actions. The legal institutions of a society cannot guarantee the utmost protection for its members if cannot resort to violence. A society free of violence is an utopia. Moreover, your comparison is incoherent. The Stockholm syndrome stem from the empirical experience between captor and captured, not from a political perspective between the individual and the state. I reluctantly bow to your force majeur. What a pleasure to read this admission... This is indeed a very good lesson to you understand that even here the authoritarian figure is necessary. If I consider the Bitcointalk forum a state, you are recognizing the respective authorities of this state and obeying what you despise very much. The goal of your thread completely failed. Statism is not a disease or a affection which requires a cure or a healing. Statism is just and solely a political perspective. You are, of course, free to disagree with any political perspective. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
