You completely misinterpreted what is Stockholm syndrome. What you wrote have not relation with Stockholm syndrome. Because your arguments have been torn apart, you are adapting what you pretend to be Stockholm syndrome to justify your failed assumptions:


No:


You do not know how many times I was hit and you do not know if that was cruel.

I was only hit ONE time, and that was enough to teach me that leave food on the plate after the meal is not PRODUCTIVE for the Brazilian society.


This is another assumption with no evidence to support it. Therefore is false.


My father allowed me to run away as much I could. He was aware that I was going nowhere and I would be back in few minutes. He even allowed me to climb high trees with him when I was strong enough to hold myself in the branches. I had a precious childhood with many freedoms and my father never try to suppress my natural behavior.


Yes, I was. My mother was who prepared my meals and who looked after my health.


I am becoming suspicious that you are acting intentionally stupid. You were not there and you do not know my parents. How can you conclude that I was terrorized and I could not escape if you were not even there?

Moreover, you do not know what terror means:


In no moment I expressed extreme fear in my description.


False.

I was raised in a very diverse parental environmental. My parents come from families with many relatives and always was grands, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews and cousins around.


I wonder how I was able to eat with my spoon if I was not allowed to move...


It is becoming obvious that your insistence to qualify that I suffer from a syndrome have the purpose to discredit my arguments.


The state is not a parental figure:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/state?q=state



Ad hominem: "Your argument is wrong because you have demonstrated to suffer from a psychological issue".

Please, present evidence to support your claims. You did not present any reference to help your argumentation.

From a famous Brazilian singer, Renato Russo, Legião Urbana:

"Your complain that your parents do not understand you".
"They are children like you are."
"What you will be when you grown up?"

No. That is a comment made by an user identified as Keyster. The author of that blog entry is Paul Elam.

This indicates that you do not even know how to examine data collected from the Internet.

You missed my original comment few lines bellow of Keyster comment.

Fail...

By the way, this is not a thread about my character. You can open your own thread about me, as CharlieContent did.

My argument remains the same if the bird is replaced by the human being:



No, I did not and you did not reformulated your incomprehensible argument. Answering a question with another questions does not count as argument.


If the best you can do to refute my argument is to use an offensive slang, you have already lost the moral ground to discuss what should or not should be acceptable for the education of a child.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Herp-a-derp



You qualified the condition of a new born as defective. That are your own words:


I realized that you modified your original statement but you did not recognized the flaw of your argument. That shows how dishonest you are to hold an failed argument.


No, it is not. You do not even understand what Stockholm syndrome means:

http://web2.iadfw.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/sss.html


Let's check:

- My father was my captor? No.
- My father terrorized me? No.
- My father was my only reference? No.
- My father prevented me to escape? No.

Let's check again:

- Did I perceived a threat to survive? No.
- Did I perceived terror as kindness? No.
- Did I felt isolated from other adults? No.
- Did I felt unable to escape? No.

Conclusion: your assumption is completely false and you cannot qualify my empirical experience as the cause of a Stockholm Syndrome.


You are implying in the above premises that children should not be raised to rely on the authorities, but at the same time you imply that well adjusted adults are the base of a functional polite society.

Please, present me a example of any society which does not rely over any kind of authority to exist:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/authority?q=authority


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/society?q=society

Yes, I donated as everyone else and the donation represents my merit. To pay for a certain status is also a matter of merit in case you do not know. The 50 BTC which I donated were obtained from my own effort.

You... Well... You paid 5 BTC for a person to design a truck with cherries and you did not obtained any merit with that.

 

I am the person with good relationships with the forum participants since my registration. I am sure that no one had included my username in an ignore list. I became a forum VIP member by my own merit. I have a great deal of respect for Theymos because his background and his actions. We even share same preferences for books, games and other activities.

You are completely the contrary of my character. Your relationship with the forum participants have been bad since your inception. You never donated for the welfare of this forum. Your username is present in various ignore lists. You have no respect for Theymos neither you share any preferences with him.

I recommend you to do a mirror check. I am sure Mircea Popescu can obtain one for you.

Would you please address this post? I wish to know what are your arguments regarding violence against children and teenagers.

No, my whole argument is based on the exactly meaning of your words.


Whatever you try to explain, you referred to life. I used a bird as example because a bird is also part of life.


Virtual identical to what? The above quote is completely inconsistent. Please, reformulate the argument.


There is not any misinterpretation. You argument was very easy to understand.

The state of life does not result from the progenitor actions, but from countless factors which are outside the control of the progenitor. The only result of the progenitor actions is the gestation (or pregnancy) and the birth. After such events, the state of life of the offspring becomes completely independent of the progenitor. That does not mean the progenitor is not responsible for its offspring. It means that all actions of the progenitor towards its offspring are voluntary.


Hitting a child is not abusive if is done with appropriate manner. It helps to teach the child to not repeat an action which could provoke a great harm to him.

Moreover, hitting could serve to different purposes. For example, when I was under 7 years old, my father used to hit my upper palm hand if I left any food on the plate after the meal. His goal was to teach me to not waste food. He completely succeed and I do not have any uncomfortable memory of his actions. By the other way around, I am very grateful for his actions, because since my childhood I always finish my meals without leave any leftovers.

So my empirical argument completely dismiss your argument that hitting a child is counter-productive.

Would you care to explain how the above quote relates to this thread?

Your life started when your father's spermatozoon penetrated your mother's egg, not when you left your parent's home.

Have a spliff and open a book about biology to get a feeling what is life.

I recommend the The Web of Life from Fritjof Capra as starting point:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42842538/Capra-Fritjof-The-Web-of-Life

You are not offering any reference to your customers.

No reference for any registration with Dutch authorities.

No reference for the details of your notary (complete name, contact details, etc.)

I had a short conversation with Theymos regarding this thread. From what was clarified to me, it is unlikely that Patrick will receive a scammer tag while he keeps trying to repay or to renegotiate his obligations. Since JoelKatz has already established that the mutual agreement was based on common mistake, and Mircea Popescu's spokesperson has already indicated that there is not a signed contract, the furthering discussion of this matter is useless.

Mircea Popescu is free to come to this forum and renegotiate his mutual agreement with Patrick.

Regarding the Kraken fund issue, I advise Patrick's investor to open another thread and provide evidence which indicates that he was trying to defraud or to deceive his investors.

My two brothers still live with my mother and both are very mature. Both are above 30 years old and single. One is a professional musician (he knows how to sing and how to play more than a dozen instruments) and owns a music school. The other works in his friend's restaurant (sushi bar) as manager and practice jiu-jitsu during the whole week. Both have they own vehicle and help my mother with the bills as much they can.

So your assumption is false.

There are many people still living with their parents. There is nothing wrong with this and is a very common aspect of the actual global economy. The old times of cheap property are gone. Moreover, people from my mother generation do not appreciate to live alone, at least in Brazil.

So if you are not willing to formulate an argument, I do not have any interest to debate with you. I will just ignore what you have already posted as I ignore the daily noise from a busy street.

Have a good time with Mr. Krugman.

Ownership does not stem from the mere existence of life. Ownership is the result of rational perception:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ownership?q=ownership


Notice that ownership require act, state or right to posses something. Only rational animals - human beings - recognize the meaning of act, state or right to posses something. To argue that life is a self-owner is completely incoherent.


This is a blatant flawed argument.

The incapacity of a living entity to act alone to survive is not derived from its progenitor, but from the natural forces which drives nature. When a bird generates another bird, is not the mistake of the progenitor which hinders the offspring to fly. It is the law of physics (gravity) and the biological structure (short wings) which prevent it to fly.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fault?q=fault


Moreover, the conditions which leads to a coma is completely different of the conditions which leads to birth.


Following your logic, every new born entity is the result of a mistake and his conditions are defective. This is very untrue. Childhood is not a defective state of life which needs to be remedied. By the other way around. Childhood is a state of life with strong potential for perfectness. That is why human beings like to admire children, because their innocence and they appearance represent pureness, even if the children have some kind of disability.


Every kind of life is empowered to act violently. This is nature design. All animals have a method to cause physical damage. But this does not entitle a human being to harm children without a reasonable intent.

Would you care to formulate your argument regarding the subject discussed in this thread and explain how is related to the above circular logic?

Your assumption is based on a false premise. There is not more or less rationality. Rationality is not qualified by a degree of quantity.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rational?q=rationality#rational__5

I wish to read arguments regarding this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZhxktkN7EI

This video shows scenes of a rebellion inside a special prison in Brazil for children which have committed violent crimes, including murder. The detainees are all under 18 years old. They made the  civil servants of the prison hostage after few adult visitants managed to sneak fire guns inside the prison to free part of the detainees with links to a criminal faction. Few civil servants were beat and one was shoot. The police force had to intervene with rubber bullet guns.

What are your arguments regarding violence against children in the context of the above video?

You cannot consider, but is still relevant. It shows that the will of violence not always arise from a rational decision. Human beings assumes different states of mind which weakens its rationality. For example, when the brain becomes affected by alcohol, it start to suppress all process which supports the rational state of mind. But the will of violence could arise from a very rational decision, which could be deemed extremely necessary over certain situations. A good example would be a police officer acting with violence to arrest a criminal threatening a hostage.

Therefore, I argue that violence cannot be dismissed completely. There will be always certain contexts where violence will be necessary.

This argument can be easily applied for this discussion. Every children presents a challenge in different contexts. There will be contexts where violence will be necessary, but there will be contexts where violence will not be necessary.

So I agree with most of your arguments because you have already demonstrated that you resort to violence as last resort, in the best interest of the children welfare.


It would excuse rape, but that does not mean that rape is an acceptable moral behavior. There are people which argues that rape arise from the lack of social conditioning. Moral behavior is a result of a rational decision since irrational animals cannot define the limits of what is acceptable or not acceptable. Therefore the natural instinct could justify the rape, but could not morally justify the act.

This is a false premise.

We, human beings, are all rational animals driven by certain natural instincts which are irrefutable and uncontrollable. We are made of powerful forces from nature and only rationality is what differ our species from others animals. Hence the natural tendency to resort to physical aggression, which is an observable aspect among many irrational animals. Therefore rationality is what allows our species to suppress the underlying and natural will of violence.

Moreover, the act of birth is a act of violence against the offspring which comes to exist outside the safe protection of its progenitor (at least in the case of mammals and other animals which host the offspring in a form of shell or womb).

Is interesting to note that no user in this discussion have argued from a naturalist point of view. There are many examples in nature which shows that certain species have to endure violence before to reach maturity and act outside the protection of its progenitor. That does not imply that every rational animal - human beings - should or could be violent. It only demonstrates that violence is not an unnatural aspect of human behavior.