Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money

[blablahblah]

My take on AnCap: "governments are bad because they gain and maintain their power by force. Therefore (and this is where it gets murky), they ought to be somehow^(strategy?) removed from power/starved of taxes/etc^{(common goals?)}. Afterwards, things will eventually settle down and market forces will enable everything that had been hitherto provided by the State (a few big question marks remain for things like a justice system). As long as everyone somehow^(how?) abides by the non-coercion principle, there won't be any cancerous government-like entity trying to fill the "top dog" niche."

There is no plan, nor any need for one.

When people stop believing that threatening other humans with violence is a valid way of solving social problems the State will end, just like how slavery ended when people stopped believing it was right to own other humans. When the State ends, people will find alternate ways to solve their problems, just like they found alternatives to slave labor. It's impossible to predict the precise form those alternative solutions will take, because making that prediction is equivalent to solving the economic calculation problem.

I don't believe one way or the other. I see empirical evidence that violence is a primitive form of communication and may be appropriate in some circumstances. For example, a parent might physically punish her ~2-year-old child for dangerous behaviour such as running across a road. Since the child is too young to understand complex things like "getting run over" or "psychological time-out for being naughty", yet they are able to associate simple actions with simple consequences, then perhaps that's the best option.

Expanding on this, it would seem that sometimes even adults are unable to see the error of their ways, and more polite means of communication can fail to get through to them.

The other side of the coin is that when violence is viewed as an occasionally necessary evil, then it becomes much clearer that society already has non-aggression principles. What's more, violence is usually a pretty important issue for everyone (it's not like AnCaps or Libertarians have superior morals and are the only ones who care...). The social contract and means of dealing with transgressions have evolved for generations.

People will never be civil enough to sustain ancap.

I concede that maybe you won't be civil enough.  I, my loved ones, and pretty much everyone I interact with on a daily basis, will be, because we are civil already, and we are civil not because but despite threats.  We civil human beings outnumber people like, perhaps, you, probably 25 to 1.

My observation to you: if you fear death in such a world order without violent authorities, perhaps you would like to learn to be civil before it takes place?  Since not being civil will certainly cost you your life in ancap society, it pays off to learn civility.

This is what I don't get: AnCap supporters are clearly not opposed to a "social contract" governing the acceptable behaviour of people in society, they just don't like governments being there to manage it. They would rather be vigilantes and do it themselves. That kind of attitude comes off as cavalier when these sorts of criticisms of AnCap remain unanswered:

From Wikipedia:

Moral criticisms

Some critics argue that anarcho-capitalism is an inherent miscarriage of justice because it turns justice into a commodity, thereby conflating justice with economic power. Another argument is that private defense and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[1] Many supporters of the non-aggression principle argue that anarcho-capitalism is immoral. They argue that it implies that the non-aggression principle is optional because the enforcement of laws is open to competition.

[1715393163]

1715393163

[1715393163]

1715393163

[1715393163]

1715393163

[1715393163]

1715393163

[Rudd-O]

AnCap supporters are clearly not opposed to a "social contract" governing the acceptable behaviour of people in society, they just don't like governments being there to manage it. They would rather be vigilantes and do it themselves.

I identify as anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist, and I can assure you none of this is true for me, especially the vigilantism part.  Ugh.

You know, it's hard to have a conversation about anything when the other person has already imputed me a number of false beliefs.  I can only imagine this is how it feels to be an atheist trying to talk with a religious person who is already convinced that the atheist has babies for breakfast.

---------------------------------------------

As for your observations on parenting and violence.  Allowing a child to run across the street is egregiously bad enough parenting as it is -- you are the parent, you are the one informed that cars can kill people, you are the responsible one, not the child.  On top of that parenting fail, brutalizing the child afterwards for your mistake is even worse parenting.  It only "works" insofar as terror "works".

Let's be fair: if you are doing any of this, you're not beating your child up to "teach" him anything.  You're beating him because you're angry at your failure and you have a sadistic streak in you: beating up your child feels good and it's easy to get away with it (your kid is too weak to bash your face in self-defense).  That's it, no high falutin' nonsense excuses about "discipline" needed.

As long as we have people thinking that beating children up qualifies as "education" or "discipline", we will have adults thinking that beating other adults up qualifies as "justice" or "law enforcement".

[justusranvier]

As long as we have people thinking that beating children up qualifies as "education" or "discipline", we will have adults thinking that beating other adults up qualifies as "justice" or "law enforcement".

The idea that parents are justified in using violence against children is the faulty premise upon which all false justifications for violence are derived.

[Rudd-O]

As long as we have people thinking that beating children up qualifies as "education" or "discipline", we will have adults thinking that beating other adults up qualifies as "justice" or "law enforcement".

The idea that parents are justified in using violence against children is the faulty premise upon which all false justifications for violence are derived.

Amen brother.  You said it better than I ever could.

[MoonShadow]

As for your observations on parenting and violence.  Allowing a child to run across the street is egregiously bad enough parenting as it is -- you are the parent, you are the one informed that cars can kill people, you are the responsible one, not the child.  On top of that parenting fail, brutalizing the child afterwards for your mistake is even worse parenting.  It only "works" insofar as terror "works".

Let's be fair: if you are doing any of this, you're not beating your child up to "teach" him anything.  You're beating him because you're angry at your failure and you have a sadistic streak in you: beating up your child feels good and it's easy to get away with it (your kid is too weak to bash your face in self-defense).  That's it, no high falutin' nonsense excuses about "discipline" needed.

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.

I shouldn't even have to use the "don't pee on the electrical outlet" example.  A toddler can not be reasoned with, as they have no more capacity to understand the risks than a puppy does.  How do I train the puppy to stay in the yard (and thus away from traffic and other harm)?  By using a collection of positive and negative results to it's actions via treats for desirable behaviors and judicious use of pain for undesireable behaviors.  The goal with children is to instil a rudimentary concept of consquences so that the child might just live to the age of reason unmaimed by his own actions, but the methods are similar.  This is not abuse.  To fail to do so, or at least attempt to do so, is neglect.

I really get tired of this kind of bs coming from people who obviously never had children.

[justusranvier]

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.

I shouldn't even have to use the "don't pee on the electrical outlet" example.  A toddler can not be reasoned with, as they have no more capacity to understand the risks than a puppy does.  How do I train the puppy to stay in the yard (and thus away from traffic and other harm)?  By using a collection of positive and negative results to it's actions via treats for desirable behaviors and judicious use of pain for undesireable behaviors.  The goal with children is to instil a rudimentary concept of consquences so that the child might just live to the age of reason unmaimed by his own actions, but the methods are similar.  This is not abuse.  To fail to do so, or at least attempt to do so, is neglect.

I really get tired of this kind of bs coming from people who obviously never had children.

Will you listen to this parent of a three year old disprove everything you just said?

[MoonShadow]

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.

I shouldn't even have to use the "don't pee on the electrical outlet" example.  A toddler can not be reasoned with, as they have no more capacity to understand the risks than a puppy does.  How do I train the puppy to stay in the yard (and thus away from traffic and other harm)?  By using a collection of positive and negative results to it's actions via treats for desirable behaviors and judicious use of pain for undesireable behaviors.  The goal with children is to instil a rudimentary concept of consquences so that the child might just live to the age of reason unmaimed by his own actions, but the methods are similar.  This is not abuse.  To fail to do so, or at least attempt to do so, is neglect.

I really get tired of this kind of bs coming from people who obviously never had children.

Will you listen to this parent of a three year old disprove everything you just said?

Well, I watched about half of it, and that is about all that I'm willing to take.  While I respect Stefan for his philisophical positions, on this one he is just full of shit.  He's presenting it as a failure (of the parent) to prepare.  While this might be true enough in certain (strawman) situations; such as the particualr one that started the video (i.e. How do I get my kid to leave teh playground without resorting to violence), it's quite impossible to predict all of the situations that your toddler might find hismeslf in.  It's also an unfair statement to state taht behavior conditioning in advance of life threatening conditions isn't a mannor of preperation, particularly when your the parent, in public, with five children.  Getting a toddler to leave a public playground due to a time constraint certainly doesn't qualify as conditoning for a life threatining situtation, and ultimately alswasy involves some degree of the use of force by the parent.  Even Stefan will eventually pick up his toddler (agaisnt his own will) and force him to abide, even if there is no physical pain involved.  From Stefan's own philosphical viewpoint, this is violence if it's one adult doing it to another, so it thus must be violence when done to a toddler as well.  Stefan, himself, is a bit of a contradiction in this point.  In the end, the differences between stefan (as a "non-violent" parent) and myself is simply a matter of degree, as he prefers not to use pain as a method of behavior conditioning.  That's his preference, and he is welcome to it.  But give him 5 kids, three in diapers, put him in a public place and make him responsible for their well being, and he might jsut reconsider his options due to the practical non-availability of other options (mostly due to time and attention).  Keep in mind that even though there are two children over the age of reason there to help, he can't really compell them to aid in his parental duties either.  That was, (and largely remains) my world (only two still in diapers, and that only because I've got a 3 year old boy who doesn't care to learn to use the toilet).

That said, we don't spank the two tots.  But this is because 1) they were adopted from an abusinve home (as in real abuse, arbitrary & severe violence) and 2) we have a contract witht he state to not employ corporal punishments; and we (obviously) don't spank the infant either, she can't get into anything anyway. (yet)  But make no mistake, chosing to remove corporal punishments from the toolbox is to deliberately remove an effective parenting tool for which parents do have the right to employ.  There is such a thing as justifiable use of force; and i will certainly use it, as a last resort, to condition my children to associate the memory of pain with dangerous endeavors.  Certainly, it would be preferable to be able to reason with them or otherwise keep them out of harms way without resorting to such conditioning, but that is not always possible

[MoonShadow]

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. 

[Rudd-O]

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.

I shouldn't even have to use the "don't pee on the electrical outlet" example.  A toddler can not be reasoned with, as they have no more capacity to understand the risks than a puppy does.  How do I train the puppy to stay in the yard (and thus away from traffic and other harm)?  By using a collection of positive and negative results to it's actions via treats for desirable behaviors and judicious use of pain for undesireable behaviors.  The goal with children is to instil a rudimentary concept of consquences so that the child might just live to the age of reason unmaimed by his own actions, but the methods are similar.  This is not abuse.  To fail to do so, or at least attempt to do so, is neglect.

I really get tired of this kind of bs coming from people who obviously never had children.

Will you listen to this parent of a three year old disprove everything you just said?

I think it is futile to try and persuade that guy, simply because he has already told us that it is okay to use brutality to "teach" children "lessons", that children are "irrational", and that our facts are "bullshit" because we "clearly don't have kids". This is obviously a guy who has doubled down on violence, so reason ain't going to do the trick. Do you think that a person who beats defenseless creatures up to get his way will understand reason?

Don't waste your time on that guy.

[lebing]

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.

[MoonShadow]

You don't get to choose what is in the best interests of my children, I do.

You don't get to will away the immorality of using violence against other people, nor that of asserting ownership over children.

Ah, now we are getting into some rarified philosophical air.  I'm going to have to split this thread.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[HostFat]

therefore, if you die ( as you are the owner ), will they become free? ( while  they are under 18 )

[justusranvier]

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.

Since they are your property can you use them for sex if you want?

[lebing]

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.

[fivemileshigh]

Thank you Rudd-o and Abels, you guys are incredible. Love you to the core , wish I were so articulate!

[MoonShadow]

therefore, if you die ( as you are the owner ), will they become free? ( while  they are under 18 )

That's a good question, care to expound upon it, or are you going to accept my statements as gospel?

[MoonShadow]

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.

[MoonShadow]

Thank you Rudd-o and Abels, you guys are incredible. Love you to the core , wish I were so articulate!

I wish they were as articulate as you seem to think that they are.  I've seen the documents that they are regurgitating, and they aren't even doing a partcularly good job of that.

[lebing]

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.

[MoonShadow]

How 'bout this one, the religious argument....

All children belong to God, and as the parent, I've been appointed by God to care for His property until they are of age.  So, while I cannot deliberately bring them (unjustifiable) harm, I must answer only to their true owner, God.  In His absence, I am the final arbitor of what is in the best interests of my own children.  Neither you guys, as individuals outside of my own family, nor society at large, has any authority over myself or my management of God's children in my care.  You literally have no 'standing' to interfere; not under your own philosophies or any other (except collectivism, but I hope that one is beyond consideration here, because I'd have a field day with anyone who is going to claim that my children belong to "the state" or "society").  This is because, while I don't own my children, I have a (supportable) claim to represent Him in this matter, while you do not.

The end result is exactly the same as if I used the (partial/economic) ownership-of-children theory, as is expressed well enough in The Diamond Age; or if I used the individual-rights-in-escrow theory expressed by a great many Libertarian philosophers in many different ways.  I, not you, gets to decide what is in the best interests of my own children.  Nor would I get to decide what is in the best interests of your children, once you have some.  I've personally seen (quite literally) dozens of young people express these same kind of ideological sentiments, only to toss it all out the window once their first child enters the "terrible twos" (which is really the terrible threes)

What you might consider emotionally terrifying or to be (unjustifiable) physical harm is entirely irrelevant.

[justusranvier]

There's no need to rebut a contradiction.

They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense.

Granted, I can't destroy my children, like I could for something that I really own

So do you really own them, in every philosophical sense, or do you not really own them?

Pick one and be consistent.

[MoonShadow]

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.

I wouldn't consider it subjective, but you are free to ignore me all you like.  Still, I've made a claim that I can actually argue, although I haven't really tried yet.  You're the kind of person who makes a statement like it's obvious and anyone who disagrees must be Holocaust Denier material, and then you scutter off with your moral certitude.

If I am really wrong, wouldn't you have a moral obligation to, at a minimum, attempt to correct me?

[MoonShadow]

There's no need to rebut a contradiction.

They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense.

Granted, I can't destroy my children, like I could for something that I really own

So do you really own them, in every philosophical sense, or do you not really own them?

Pick one and be consistent.

I can't, that's the point.  Neither can you.  Believe it or not, we share a (general) philosophy; but it's an incomplete one.  Libertarianism (and all of it's variants) are based upon two central principles.

1) Property rights are paramount, are necessary for the functioning of a free society, are the roots of economic success, as well as the roots of all human rights because....

2) I own myself.

But why do I own myself?  Because I'm a rational, thinking adult; and therefore capable of understanding my rights & property, I'm capable of expressing those rights and demanding them from others, and responsible enough to respect those same rights in other people.

But children before a certain age cannot do these things.  So who owns them?  The question is not academic, and it's not one easily solved or ignored.  Literally speaking, it's easy enough to say that they own themselves even before they can assert that, but then who represents them until then?  This rabbit hole is deep.  If they own themselves as infants, and their parents hold their rights in escrow, who owns them before birth?  It's getting dark down here, isn't it?

[Rudd-O]

It was just a contrived example. Perhaps the child wriggled out of reach, or did something else like crawled onto a glass coffee table for the first time and started jumping on it? The point was that it was something dangerous for the child,

...it falls onto you, the adult, to be the responsible one and make sure that the child develops in an environment where these calamities are not possible, to the extent that is humanly possible and any reasonable person would or could have guessed that a calamity could take place.  Letting your child run through a busy street, letting your child crawl onto a breakable deadly thing, those are miserable failures on your part as a parent.  This should not happen to you, and I feel sorry for your child if he lives in an environment where these deadly calamities might happen.

Frankly, it baffles me that adults would ask me these questions about child-rearing.  I don't know if they're playing dumb or just are dumb.  "But how will I prevent my child from putting metal things in power sockets, if I cannot terrorize him with physical violence?"  Ummmm, if you're asking this question, either you're not qualified to be a parent because you can't Google elementary things about child safety, or you're not qualified to be a parent because you're looking for shitty reasons to beat your child up.

verbal communication or understanding was impossible due to age, whereas a simple "smack on the bottom", if deemed appropriate by the parent, would communicate everything the child needed to know

Translation from "everything the child needed to know": I better act differently because otherwise this big giant who could murder me will inflict pain and terror on me.

Is it any wonder that statism is rampant these days?

Where does Anarchy and Capitalism come into it?

At the risk of playing Captain Obvious here:

That which you are doing to your kid, when you brutalize him and terrorize him when he disobeys you, is exactly what the State does to you when you disobey the State.

If you can't see it, it's because you were abused enough times and with enough intensity to come to the conclusion that said abuse is "normal".

[justusranvier]

I can't, that's the point.

That would be a fine admission in other circumstances. If you can't be consistent then what you are asserting can't be true, which moves it into the category of opinions. This would be fine, except that you presume to impose your opinion on other people.

Neither can you.  Believe it or not, we share a (general) philosophy; but it's an incomplete one.  Libertarianism (and all of it's variants) are based upon two central principles.

I'm not a Libertarian and I do not accept those premises as axioms.

[niko]

Slavoj Žižek explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjEtmZZvGZA#t=1m45s

[MoonShadow]

It was just a contrived example. Perhaps the child wriggled out of reach, or did something else like crawled onto a glass coffee table for the first time and started jumping on it? The point was that it was something dangerous for the child,

...it falls onto you, the adult, to be the responsible one and make sure that the child develops in an environment where these calamities are not possible, to the extent that is humanly possible and any reasonable person would or could have guessed that a calamity could take place.  Letting your child run through a busy street, letting your child crawl onto a breakable deadly thing, those are miserable failures on your part as a parent.  This should not happen to you, and I feel sorry for your child if he lives in an environment where these deadly calamities might happen.

Frankly, it baffles me that adults would ask me these questions about child-rearing.  I don't know if they're playing dumb or just are dumb.  "But how will I prevent my child from putting metal things in power sockets, if I cannot terrorize him with physical violence?"  Ummmm, if you're asking this question, either you're not qualified to be a parent because you can't Google elementary things about child safety, or you're not qualified to be a parent because you're looking for shitty reasons to beat your child up.

I bet you consider this to be a rational perspective, perhaps even an argument.

I consider it to be the seed of the tyrannical state.  What you are saying here is, "if I were king, you would be locked up or have your children removed from your home because I disagree with your parenting methods and consider you a bad parent."

Care to grow a bit, and approach this topic from an adult viewpoint?

[lebing]

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.

I wouldn't consider it subjective, but you are free to ignore me all you like.  Still, I've made a claim that I can actually argue, although I haven't really tried yet.  You're the kind of person who makes a statement like it's obvious and anyone who disagrees must be Holocaust Denier material, and then you scutter off with your moral certitude.

If I am really wrong, wouldn't you have a moral obligation to, at a minimum, attempt to correct me?

We are getting to deep into moral relativity waters and the interwebs are simply not made for this type of discourse. I'm not going to try and prove you wrong. I respect your opinion, though in a potentially pompous way, I find it sad.

[MoonShadow]

I can't, that's the point.

That would be a fine admission in other circumstances. If you can't be consistent then what you are asserting can't be true, which moves it into the category of opinions. This would be fine, except that you presume to impose your opinion on other people.

Do I really need to point out that it's the lot of you guys that have been trying to impose your opinions of my parenting methods upon me?

Neither can you.  Believe it or not, we share a (general) philosophy; but it's an incomplete one.  Libertarianism (and all of it's variants) are based upon two central principles.

I'm not a Libertarian and I do not accept those premises as axioms.

Fine.  Come up with others, I'm willing to engage you on any front.

[MoonShadow]

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.

I wouldn't consider it subjective, but you are free to ignore me all you like.  Still, I've made a claim that I can actually argue, although I haven't really tried yet.  You're the kind of person who makes a statement like it's obvious and anyone who disagrees must be Holocaust Denier material, and then you scutter off with your moral certitude.

If I am really wrong, wouldn't you have a moral obligation to, at a minimum, attempt to correct me?

We are getting to deep into moral relativity waters and the interwebs are simply not made for this type of discourse. I'm not going to try and prove you wrong. I respect your opinion, though in a potentially pompous way, I find it sad.

I know full well that you don't respect my opinion, although you might respect my right to express same.  I question even that, but you don't have any power to prevent it, so there it is.

That said, I can accept your concession.

[Rudd-O]

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.

There you go.  MoonShadow considers his children to be chattel or equivalents thereof.  I called it earlier today.

It used to be that negroes, women and children were chattel.  Then that changed to include only women and children.  Then that changed to include only children, and you're witnessing the last vestiges of this bigoted discrimination in MoonShadow's words of "I have a right to beat up my children because I own them".

It's called moral progress and we're two down, one to go.  Woohoo!

Of course, MoonShadow's children won't be saved from the feudo-medieval beliefs he holds.  They will, unfortunately, be beaten up by this man.  And that pains me, honestly... but there's nothing much we can do about it right now -- the man has violent beliefs, he is anonymous on the Internet, he is refusing to listen to reason, the practical effect is that we cannot influence his behavior.  All that remains is to wish that, perhaps, one or more of his children will recognize that MoonShadow is an abuser and will grow up to not be an abuser themselves.

[Rudd-O]

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.

Since they are your property can you use them for sex if you want?

Of course.  Isn't that what slaveowners used to do, when negroes were property too?

MoonShadow, I hope you enjoy those sexy children you have there, in full compliance with your belief system that your children are yours.

[Rudd-O]

There's no need to rebut a contradiction.

They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense.

Granted, I can't destroy my children, like I could for something that I really own

So do you really own them, in every philosophical sense, or do you not really own them?

Pick one and be consistent.

He can't, because doublethink.  On one hand he wants to justify his brutal and violent behavior against his children by saying "they're mine, so it's okay to beat them up like any other beast of burden I might have".  On the other hand, he knows full well that his children aren't his property because observable reality, so he has to disclaim that belief somehow.  To rescue his own self-image of an "upstanding father", doublethink must necessarily ensue.

You've taken his beliefs and torn them apart quite well.  I congratulate you for putting this child abuser in his proper place.

[justusranvier]

Do I really need to point out that it's the lot of you guys that have been trying to impose your opinions of my parenting methods upon me?

That's not the case at all.

If I witnessed you attempting to murder someone and I acted to stop you my intervention would not be justified on opinion, but on the fact that your actions violate an ethical standard which is provably universal. Ethics are the opposite of subjective personal preferences.

This is not at all about anyone imposing their opinions on you, but the legitimacy of you imposing your opinions on children which are completely unable to defend themselves. It is you who bears the burden of proof that your actions are not abusive.

Fine.  Come up with others, I'm willing to engage you on any front.

Ethics, defined as defined as universally preferable behavior, is a valid concept.

[Rudd-O]

I bet you consider this to be a rational perspective, perhaps even an argument.

I consider it to be the seed of the tyrannical state.

Well, you're a tyrant with defenseless creatures, so of course you would be terrified at the idea that a bigger tyrant could put you in your place in regards to your abhorrent behavior with children.  The "seed of the tyrannical state" is obviously a threat to the "seed of the tyrannical MoonShadow".

[lebing]

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.

I wouldn't consider it subjective, but you are free to ignore me all you like.  Still, I've made a claim that I can actually argue, although I haven't really tried yet.  You're the kind of person who makes a statement like it's obvious and anyone who disagrees must be Holocaust Denier material, and then you scutter off with your moral certitude.

If I am really wrong, wouldn't you have a moral obligation to, at a minimum, attempt to correct me?

We are getting to deep into moral relativity waters and the interwebs are simply not made for this type of discourse. I'm not going to try and prove you wrong. I respect your opinion, though in a potentially pompous way, I find it sad.

I know full well that you don't respect my opinion, although you might respect my right to express same.  I question even that, but you don't have any power to prevent it, so there it is.

That said, I can accept your concession.

I hope someday you look back and are able to laugh at the angry man you left behind

[Rudd-O]

Fine.  Come up with others, I'm willing to engage you on any front.

Nah, you're not willing to engage with anyone.  You're only attempting to excuse your parental abuse (or wishes thereof).  That's why you say (appalling) nonsense and contradict yourself at every turn.

[Rudd-O]

I know full well that you don't respect my opinion, although you might respect my right to express same.  I question even that, but you don't have any power to prevent it, so there it is.

That said, I can accept your concession.

I hope someday you look back and are able to laugh at the angry man you left behind

And be able to look straight at the angry adults he raised, who will hate him.

[MoonShadow]

Do I really need to point out that it's the lot of you guys that have been trying to impose your opinions of my parenting methods upon me?

That's not the case at all.

If I witnessed you attempting to murder someone and I acted to stop you my intervention would not be justified on opinion, but on the fact that your actions violate an ethical standard which is provably universal. Ethics are the opposite of subjective personal preferences.

Indeed, ethics are the opposite of subjective personal preferences.  So back up your statement and attempt to establish that my "actions violate an ethical standard which is provably universal".  That's going to be a trick, since it's pretty easy for me to show that your position is far from a universal standard, but I'd love to see you try.

This is not at all about anyone imposing their opinions on you, but the legitimacy of you imposing your opinions on children which are completely unable to defend themselves. It is you who bears the burden of proof that your actions are not abusive.

Perhaps, but I certainly don't have to prove that to you.

Fine.  Come up with others, I'm willing to engage you on any front.

Ethics, defined as defined as universally preferable behavior, is a valid concept.
[/quote]

I don't even have to look at that one before I can undermine your use of it.  It's called universally preferable behavior.  No matter how well argued it might be, it's ultimately and expression of the author's preferances.  Mine, or your's, could be different without violating any ethical principles.

[MoonShadow]

Fine.  Come up with others, I'm willing to engage you on any front.

Nah, you're not willing to engage with anyone.  You're only attempting to excuse your parental abuse (or wishes thereof).  That's why you say (appalling) nonsense and contradict yourself at every turn.

Nor are you willing to engage in an adult conversation, instead you desire to spew unsubstantiated claims about myself based upon little evidence.  I expect that you are attempting to provoke an over-reaction, but you overestimate my consideration of your opinion.

[justusranvier]

I don't even have to look at that one before I can undermine your use of it.

What you've done is extremely intellectually dishonest but I can help but aesthetically admiring such an exquisite example of sophistry.

Since you're going to play word games with the book title instead of actually examining the arguments there is no possibility for further discussion.

[scribe]

guys guys I just lamped my 2 year old so he wouldn't break my stuff and now he hates me what's the best way to hit him to make him like me again? URGENT THX

[TheButterZone]

At what point does this get fairly locked, since the mod always has the last word before the lock?

[Rudd-O]

I don't even have to look at that one before I can undermine your use of it.

What you've done is extremely intellectually dishonest but I can help but aesthetically admiring such an exquisite example of sophistry.

Since you're going to play word games with the book title instead of actually examining the arguments there is no possibility for further discussion.

You are, once again, correct.  MoonShadow does not want to have any kind of honest discussion -- he just wants to keep his beliefs so that he can feel good about beating children up.

[Rudd-O]

guys guys I just lamped my 2 year old so he wouldn't break my stuff and now he hates me what's the best way to hit him to make him like me again? URGENT THX

Hahaha! /thread!

[Rudd-O]

Taking onboard earlier arguments that small children are not chattel, that they are their own person, to take your argument to its logical conclusion, you're basically suggesting that parents are slaves.

No.  The dichotomy "either children are chattel or parents are slaves" is false.

I seem to recall making the analogy in the first place. However, your interpretation seems really emotional and black-and-white. EITHER it's "brutal sadistic terrorism", OR it's not.

Ah, so now you have a problem with "my emotions".  Derailing for Dummies tactic engaged!  http://www.derailingfordummies.com/emotion.html

So, what happens if we remove the parents from the equation altogether, as per AnCap? Lord of the Flies, much?

If I had a Bitcoin for every time someone in favor of beating children up has told me "If I accept that using violence against children is very wrong, then the world will turn into Lord of the Flies", I'd own the entire Bitcoin economy.

This is a variation on the theme "If we're not allowed to beat Negroes up, we'd have insanity, cats marrying dogs, white people miscegenation, and degeneration on an epic scale".  Yeah, great "argument".

[Lethn]

I only took one glance at this and immediately knew what it was about though I read through just to be sure, the problem with these 'corporal punishment' advocates is they assume they are correct in what they are teaching their children, they aren't, in a lot of cases I've seen parents use violence against their children they are nothing more than power tripping cuntbags. You should check out one of George Carlins video where he rants entirely correctly about how children should be taught to question what they read and how parents won't teach them to question anything because they're afraid their own bullshit will be questioned as well.

This is all it is, it's power tripping, in most cases the parents are wrong and children are far more intelligent than adults are ever willing to admit, haven't you ever wondered why in a lot of criminal cases etc. involving children or in documentaries about children there often isn't a child to be found? Or for that matter if they are talked to it's usually with a bloody parent hovering over them making sure they don't say anything they don't like. It's a bit like with how stupid parents blame video games for their children's violence yet what they do is leave their child alone for ages, never talking to them and so the child only really has a video game to go on when it comes to what the real world is like.

If you need violence to communicate words then you're a fucking moron who shouldn't have had kids in the first place, ever tried speaking to your child? Or are you so thick you can't form a coherent sentence?

[MoonShadow]

I don't even have to look at that one before I can undermine your use of it.

What you've done is extremely intellectually dishonest but I can help but aesthetically admiring such an exquisite example of sophistry.

Since you're going to play word games with the book title instead of actually examining the arguments there is no possibility for further discussion.

Sure there is.  You could attempt to summerize the arguements you would like to make, instead of attempting to send your opposition off to read some tome you believe supports your case.  You have to present a case before you can reference outside sources.  Thus far, you have failed to actually present a case at all.  All that the lot of you have been doing is declare myself (and by extension, anyone who might even consider corporal punsishment a valid parental tool) to be violent abusers

[MoonShadow]

At what point does this get fairly locked, since the mod always has the last word before the lock?

Why would I lock it?  I really don't mind them trolling me.  It's why I split the thread.

[MoonShadow]

I only took one glance at this and immediately knew what it was about though I read through just to be sure, the problem with these 'corporal punishment' advocates is they assume they are correct in what they are teaching their children, they aren't, in a lot of cases I've seen parents use violence against their children they are nothing more than power tripping cuntbags.

Another person who can't form an argument.

I only took one glance at this and immediately knew what it was about though I read through just to be sure, the problem with these 'corporal punishment' Anti-spanking advocates is they assume they are correct in what they are teaching their children telling other parents how they should act, they aren't, in a lot of cases I've seen parents use violence insulting languate against their children parents they don't know, they are nothing more than power tripping cuntbags.

There, I fixed that for you.

You should check out one of George Carlins video where he rants entirely correctly about how children should be taught to question what they read and how parents won't teach them to question anything because they're afraid their own bullshit will be questioned as well.

Did you really just reference a George Carlin comedy routine?  Do you think that helps the case you haven't presented yet?

This is all it is, it's power tripping, in most cases the parents are wrong and children are far more intelligent than adults are ever willing to admit, haven't you ever wondered why in a lot of criminal cases etc. involving children or in documentaries about children there often isn't a child to be found? Or for that matter if they are talked to it's usually with a bloody parent hovering over them making sure they don't say anything they don't like. It's a bit like with how stupid parents blame video games for their children's violence yet what they do is leave their child alone for ages, never talking to them and so the child only really has a video game to go on when it comes to what the real world is like.

If you need violence to communicate words then you're a fucking moron who shouldn't have had kids in the first place, ever tried speaking to your child? Or are you so thick you can't form a coherent sentence?

You guys are continuing to prove my point.

[MoonShadow]

If I had a Bitcoin for every time someone in favor of beating children up has told me "If I accept that using violence against children is very wrong, then the world will turn into Lord of the Flies", I'd own the entire Bitcoin economy.

You'd have, at most 3 BTC.

[DeathAndTaxes]

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.

Since they are your property can you use them for sex if you want?

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.

Since they are your property can you use them for sex if you want?

Or sell them to someone who wants children?
Or use them for slave labor?
Or havest them for compatible organ replacements?

The idea than any human being owns any other human being at any point for any reason is an utter abomination.   I would have imagined that we would (collectively) evolved beyond such thinking by now.  

I would point out that even the state disagrees with the assertion that parents "own" their children.   Until the age of majority parents acts as guardians, acting (hopefully) in the best interest of children but they never own them.

[cunicula]

You should require them to steal all the food they eat and then brutally beat them if they get caught (Spartan Style). Otherwise you will raise a dependent statist.

[Did I get this right or should I go back to the reeducation thread?]

[MoonShadow]

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.

Since they are your property can you use them for sex if you want?

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.

Since they are your property can you use them for sex if you want?

Or sell them to someone who wants children?
Or use them for slave labor?
Or havest them for compatible organ replacements?

The idea than any human being owns any other human being at any point for any reason is an utter abomination.   I would have imagined that we would (collectively) evolved beyond such thinking by now.  

I have presented many other theories of parental rights, and every one of them has been expressed by libertarian thinkers as one point or another.  This isn't about how you feel about it, make a real argument.  Please!  Hell, I can do better than this arguing your side, but your side isn't mine.

I would point out that even the state disagrees with the assertion that parents "own" their children.   Until the age of majority parents acts as guardians, acting (hopefully) in the best interest of children but they never own them.

You are correct, from the state's perspective, the state owns them and you.  Are you guys just spouting off without reading what I've already wrote about this topic?  If so, you should go back and read the arguments presented, all of which are in support of the idea that children are owned, and all of them are libertarian arguments.  My opposition has yet to offer anything other than an emotional appeal.

[MoonShadow]

I have presented many other theories of parental rights, and every one of them has been expressed by libertarian thinkers as one point or another.  This isn't about how you feel about it, make a real argument.  Please!  Hell, I can do better than this arguing your side, but your side isn't mine.

...Are you guys just spouting off without reading what I've already wrote about this topic?  If so, you should go back and read the arguments presented, all of which are in support of the idea that children are owned, and all of them are libertarian arguments.  My opposition has yet to offer anything other than an emotional appeal.

Permit me to recite question number 1 from Rudd-O's very curious flowchart, https://i.imgur.com/DEhIC.jpg :

Can you envisage anything that will change your mind on this topic?

I guess not! I tried to present an argument along the lines:

A government's supposed 'violence' against its citizens is analogous to a parent physically disciplining their child. In much the same way that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, (as long as there is some kind of 'social contract' based on culture and evolution), the government's actions can be seen as correct and legitimate, and no violation took place."


Silly me! I thought it would be pretty simple: describe a clear-cut case where a parent pretty much had to physically discipline their child because all the other options were worse. I even spelled out the circumstances: a dangerous situation for the child; the child's young age, that communication was essential to prevent further danger, and that it was impossible to communicate the danger using non-physical methods.

People could have argued the point:
-that the analogy was crap, that it doesn't hold true for some other reason.
-They could argue that adult crimes are not comparable to childhood antics,
-or that the analogy misses some key difference between criminals who can't be reasoned with, as opposed to small children who can't be reasoned with.
-Or they could have presented some clever non-physical alternative, which, by extension might also provide some kind of breakthrough in our horrible, violent society.

But no, what do we get instead? Accusations of abuse, psychoanalysis, and repetition that physical discipline is evil because it's evil because it's EVIL!...

The true irony is that I don't agree with your analogy because of your second point; but the nature of government force is no longer the topic here.

[myrkul]

They are their own property at birth. As the person who gave them that property, it is your responsibility to educate them on how to properly use it so as to not destroy it.

The "hot stovetop" example was used early on in this thread. It is morally acceptable to intervene to prevent damage to their property (ie, slap their hand away) but not to punish them after the fact. If your child is jumping (or about to) on a glass tabletop, it is acceptable to intervene to prevent damage by grabbing them off the table, but not to then spank them after the fact. Children are smarter than you think. As soon as they can talk, you can reason with them. You may have to use simpler concepts, but if you can talk to them, and they can talk to you, reasoning is possible.

Tell me, what does spanking a child after they have endangered themselves do, besides instill a fear not of the dangerous situation, but of the parent? The child very much wants you to be happy with him or her, and simply telling him or her that going out into the road like that could get them hurt, and their getting hurt would make you sad will amply drive the point home that running out into the street is not something Mommy and Daddy approve of.

If you want to raise self-owning adults, you should treat them as self-owning children.

[justusranvier]

They are their own property at birth.

If ownership is defined as exercising exclusive control over a scarce, tangible resource then children own their bodies as soon as they develop a nervous system capable directing the actions of their body. This would place the beginning of self-ownership prior to being born.

That also shows why parents can't be said to own their children. Only the child can control his own body and parents are restricted to persuading, threatening or physically coercing the child into taking or refraining from actions. This is prima facie evidence of who actually owns the child's body.

[myrkul]

They are their own property at birth.

If ownership is defined as exercising exclusive control over a scarce, tangible resource then children own their bodies as soon as they develop a nervous system capable directing the actions of their body. This would place the beginning of self-ownership prior to being born.

That also shows why parents can't be said to own their children. Only the child can control his own body and parents are restricted to persuading, threatening or physically coercing the child into taking or refraining from actions. This is prima facie evidence of who actually owns the child's body.

Bingo. I think you may have also defined a good cut-off point for abortion.

[justusranvier]

Bingo. I think you may have also defined a good cut-off point for abortion.

That's possible, but because there are other issues involved (the mother also owns her body) the issue requires further scrutiny.

[Lethn]

Another person who can't form an argument.

What's the point in arguing with someone who thinks using violence to get their way is perfectly acceptable in life? You're just an arrogant imbecile and nothing more.

[hashman]

They are their own property at birth.

If ownership is defined as exercising exclusive control over a scarce, tangible resource then children own their bodies as soon as they develop a nervous system capable directing the actions of their body. This would place the beginning of self-ownership prior to being born.

That also shows why parents can't be said to own their children. Only the child can control his own body and parents are restricted to persuading, threatening or physically coercing the child into taking or refraining from actions. This is prima facie evidence of who actually owns the child's body.

I guess another relevant question is at what point do you own the neighbor and his kid and have the right/obligation to step in.

Russell Peters makes a good counterargument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn5jlrxcpkI

 enjoy

[Lethn]

At what point does this get fairly locked, since the mod always has the last word before the lock?

Yep, this is probably what's going to happen in the end, the only way the moderator is going to be able to keep any moral high ground is if he keeps this thread open otherwise he'll have proved me right

One final thing I will say though before giving up on this stupid conversation, all these pro-corporal punishment advocates, I wonder if they have ever been on the receiving end of a punch? Or any other kind of physical pain? This I suspect is what enables them to be so arrogant about what they believe and think it's okay, I'd be very surprised if anyone who has experienced physical abuse would say it works as a method of disciplining children.

Before you go ranting about how great 'corporal punishment' is, try getting on the receiving end and experience it yourself first.

[Rudd-O]

I only took one glance at this and immediately knew what it was about though I read through just to be sure, the problem with these 'corporal punishment' advocates is they assume they are correct in what they are teaching their children, they aren't, in a lot of cases I've seen parents use violence against their children they are nothing more than power tripping cuntbags. You should check out one of George Carlins video where he rants entirely correctly about how children should be taught to question what they read and how parents won't teach them to question anything because they're afraid their own bullshit will be questioned as well.

This is all it is, it's power tripping, in most cases the parents are wrong and children are far more intelligent than adults are ever willing to admit, haven't you ever wondered why in a lot of criminal cases etc. involving children or in documentaries about children there often isn't a child to be found? Or for that matter if they are talked to it's usually with a bloody parent hovering over them making sure they don't say anything they don't like. It's a bit like with how stupid parents blame video games for their children's violence yet what they do is leave their child alone for ages, never talking to them and so the child only really has a video game to go on when it comes to what the real world is like.

If you need violence to communicate words then you're a fucking moron who shouldn't have had kids in the first place, ever tried speaking to your child? Or are you so thick you can't form a coherent sentence?

You are brilliant and 100% correct.

[Rudd-O]

For the record, user blahblahblah is on my ignore list -- I can't read what he says, and that's deliberate -- because not a few hours ago he exploded on a gratuituous tirade of verbal abuse and insults (standard statist response to being out of arguments).

[Rudd-O]

They are their own property at birth.

If ownership is defined as exercising exclusive control over a scarce, tangible resource then children own their bodies as soon as they develop a nervous system capable directing the actions of their body. This would place the beginning of self-ownership prior to being born.

That also shows why parents can't be said to own their children. Only the child can control his own body and parents are restricted to persuading, threatening or physically coercing the child into taking or refraining from actions. This is prima facie evidence of who actually owns the child's body.

This is true.  However, don't get your hopes up and think that "my children are my chattel" believers will be persuaded by this evidence.

[Rudd-O]

Another person who can't form an argument.

What's the point in arguing with someone who thinks using violence to get their way is perfectly acceptable in life? You're just an arrogant imbecile and nothing more.

I have to agree.  Whoever said "Another person who can't form an argument" in response to an argument (I saw the argument, and I concur, it is an argument and it is valid) is clearly trying to derail and discredit ideas he can't meaningfully respond to.

[Rudd-O]

One final thing I will say though before giving up on this stupid conversation, all these pro-corporal punishment advocates, I wonder if they have ever been on the receiving end of a punch? Or any other kind of physical pain?

I'm pretty sure they have been abused so extensively as to conclude that abuse is okay.  Every child abuser was a child abuse victim himself.  There is no such thing as the mythical beast that abuses children but wasn't abused himself.

The difference between a person who beats up children and a person who doesn't beat up children is simple: the brain of the person who beats up children was damaged by abuse beyond the point of self-repair.  Those of us who were abused (yelled, beat up, or sexually) but didn't buy the bullshit "for your own good / it's a necessary evil" are the ones that got saved from repeating the cycle of abuse.

(Note: I want you all to notice how closely the excuses for belief in child abuse resemble the excuses for belief in statism.)

[Lethn]

I still have things to learn about that sort of thing, I did watch a very interesting video just recently, it has a lot of emotional argument as you'd expect but it did make an interesting point about the trauma that physical abuse from parents causes to children as well as actual damage to the brain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NrVMGmsHmo

I'll have to look up more stuff about this, it was about the Judge William Andrews case where he beat his disabled daughter allegedly for filesharing.

[Rudd-O]

I still have things to learn about that sort of thing, I did watch a very interesting video just recently, it has a lot of emotional argument as you'd expect but it did make an interesting point about the trauma that physical abuse from parents causes to children as well as actual damage to the brain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NrVMGmsHmo

I'll have to look up more stuff about this, it was about the Judge William Andrews case where he beat his disabled daughter allegedly for filesharing.

http://fdrurl.com/bib

[asdf]

Child does something I don't like... the only solution is violence.

[myrkul]

I guess another relevant question is at what point do you own the neighbor and his kid and have the right/obligation to step in.

You never "own" the neighbor, or his kid. But third-party defense is the same whether the victim is an adult or a child, and whether or not the aggressor is his parent.

Of course, like any third-party defense situation, you're likely to end up having to defend yourself, too.

As to Sv. Peters' "counterargument," there's plenty of operating space between "Somebody gonna get hurt real bad." and "Fuck you, mom!" Just because you shouldn't beat them doesn't mean you should let them run all over you. It is, after all, your house, not theirs.

[scribe]

There's an interesting thread in here somewhere. As a quick straw poll, who here actually has kids?

It's interesting to me as I'm raising a 2-year-old at the moment, and persuading them to do or not do things is a fascinating challenge. I tend away from using extreme physical power not because I'm ethically against it, but because I don't believe it's an effective teaching tool. In other words, I don't believe that tying together a particular target (the child) in a particular situation with physical force from a particular person (me) encourages the child to think for themselves. And at the end of the day, there's no way I have time or patience to tell them what they should or shouldn't do as new situations come up.

But that's also a general issue around judgement. I do not believe judgement should be assessed from an "imaginary" point of view, ie. imagining what someone else would like us to do. Survival requires adaptation and learning. Experimentation and subtle, Bayesian-style feedback is far more important than the social judgement invoked whenever one person directly uses extreme force - physical or mental - on another.

Obviously, though, I have to use some kind of "force" to influence my child's behaviour, otherwise they probably would get run over indeed. However, the key point is that this force is always appropriate force - appropriate to avoiding a situation getting worse.

Crossing the road is a good example. You could spank your child to be afraid of running into roads. Or you could introduce them to roads in a safer manner - even hand-holding is a form of "corporal" power in this case (as it physically restricts a person's movements), as is putting a child on your shoulders. However, they have far subtler effects and side-effects than extreme physical power.

This spectrum between the child doing what it wants, and forcing them to do otherwise, is what I would call "civility" but obviously that's just a personal definition. The child is free to explore within limits, and in doing so understands why those limits exist through experimentation over time. And pushes through those limits.

It has nothing to do with "ownership" and "rights". It is merely finding an effective way to ensure the longevity of one organism within an environment. From an effectiveness perspective, "owning" your own body is not as useful as knowing how to take care of it. I own a car, but it still gets dirty and runs out of oil. Would I feel more responsibility for it if I was borrowing it? Or would I feel more if I wanted, for some reason, the car to be running in 5 years' time, regardless of who owned it?

To bring that back to the purpose of money, I believe the essential point to be whether money allows us, as its users, to exist in the long-term in our environment. The interaction that decides how our monetary system(s) judge our behaviour as a whole, and what feedback we receive for our actions, is really what we're discussing here.

More later maybe.

[MoonShadow]

I'm glad to see a couple of thinking adults have joined the coversation.

They are their own property at birth. As the person who gave them that property, it is your responsibility to educate them on how to properly use it so as to not destroy it.

Okay, if they are their own property at birth, why is it my responsibility to do anything?  I know, rationally, that they exist as a result of my own actions, and that they will likely perish without my parenting.  But if they are my responsibility, how am I not the slave, then?  And what about my religious perspective argument "All children are God's children, and I'm his representative"?

Again, I'm not pulling these arguments out of my rear.  All versions of the pro-corporal punishment argument that I have thus far presented have already been argued extensively by libertarian philosophers for decades.  Pre-age-of-reason children remain an unresovled issue.

The "hot stovetop" example was used early on in this thread. It is morally acceptable to intervene to prevent damage to their property (ie, slap their hand away) but not to punish them after the fact. If your child is jumping (or about to) on a glass tabletop, it is acceptable to intervene to prevent damage by grabbing them off the table, but not to then spank them after the fact. Children are smarter than you think. As soon as they can talk, you can reason with them. You may have to use simpler concepts, but if you can talk to them, and they can talk to you, reasoning is possible.

Why is behavior conditioning not morally acceptable?  You know, Myrkul, that stating your position, even repeatedly, doesn't an arguement make.  As for reasoning with a toddler, this is possible & desireable under ceratin conditions and with certain children; but it does not apply to all situations or all children.  I'm arguing that corporal punishment, used sparingly, is an effective method of behavior modification and that it's use (as a last resort) does not qualify as abuse.  Others are arguing that corporal punishiment is always and in every situation abuse.  That's an absolute position to take, and there are very few absolutes in the real world.

Tell me, what does spanking a child after they have endangered themselves do, besides instill a fear not of the dangerous situation, but of the parent? The child very much wants you to be happy with him or her, and simply telling him or her that going out into the road like that could get them hurt, and their getting hurt would make you sad will amply drive the point home that running out into the street is not something Mommy and Daddy approve of.

But what if simply telling them does not drive that point home?  What then?  If you do exactly as you say, and never utilize corporal punishment as behavior modification despite the fact that your child repeatedly ignores your verbal warnings of the potential for great harm, and he finally runs out in front of traffic and is killed.  Have you, then, not failed as a parent?  How is that not neglect?

If you want to raise self-owning adults, you should treat them as self-owning children.

Certainly as soon as that is possible.  But what if it's not?

[MoonShadow]

They are their own property at birth.

If ownership is defined as exercising exclusive control over a scarce, tangible resource then children own their bodies as soon as they develop a nervous system capable directing the actions of their body. This would place the beginning of self-ownership prior to being born.

That also shows why parents can't be said to own their children. Only the child can control his own body and parents are restricted to persuading, threatening or physically coercing the child into taking or refraining from actions. This is prima facie evidence of who actually owns the child's body.

Bingo. I think you may have also defined a good cut-off point for abortion.

Oh, but wait!  Why are they only self-owned at birth?  If they own themselves at birth, dispite lacking the capacity to reason, converse or even eat without aid; why don't they own themselves the day before?  Why not the month before?  Why not nine months before?  Why not a month before conception?  If the potential to be a human being with self-ownership (by the logic of being able to reason, or any other logic) why don't they have such rights across time?  Wouldn't contraceptives be akin to murder?

[MoonShadow]

There's an interesting thread in here somewhere. As a quick straw poll, who here actually has kids?

I have five.

It's interesting to me as I'm raising a 2-year-old at the moment, and persuading them to do or not do things is a fascinating challenge. I tend away from using extreme physical power not because I'm ethically against it, but because I don't believe it's an effective teaching tool. In other words, I don't believe that tying together a particular target (the child) in a particular situation with physical force from a particular person (me) encourages the child to think for themselves. And at the end of the day, there's no way I have time or patience to tell them what they should or shouldn't do as new situations come up.

Indeed, it's certainly preferable to talk it out with your child whenever that is a practical option.  I don't and haven't contested that.  As I mentioned before, I very rarely use corporal punishment and never do with my adopted children, but for different reasons that relate only to them.  But that doesn't mean that corporal punishment isn't a vaild method, when others fail.  And I assure you, they will fail sometimes. 

But that's also a general issue around judgement. I do not believe judgement should be assessed from an "imaginary" point of view, ie. imagining what someone else would like us to do. Survival requires adaptation and learning. Experimentation and subtle, Bayesian-style feedback is far more important than the social judgement invoked whenever one person directly uses extreme force - physical or mental - on another.

Obviously, though, I have to use some kind of "force" to influence my child's behaviour, otherwise they probably would get run over indeed. However, the key point is that this force is always appropriate force - appropriate to avoiding a situation getting worse.

No, the bigger question is who gets to determine what level of force is appropriate.  I say it's (almost) always the parent.  These other guys seem to think that they get to decide for me, and don't consider that statism.

Crossing the road is a good example. You could spank your child to be afraid of running into roads. Or you could introduce them to roads in a safer manner - even hand-holding is a form of "corporal" power in this case (as it physically restricts a person's movements), as is putting a child on your shoulders. However, they have far subtler effects and side-effects than extreme physical power.

True enough, but again, corporal punsishment is a sliding scale; a matter of relative degree and not an absolute.  Is it corporal punishment for me to slap the hand of my child before he puts his hand into the blue flame?  Yes, and it does hurt; but it is both less harmful and far less lasting than a third degree burn.  Yet, what if, instead, I grab his hand to prevent the contact, and then smack his hand?  ave I just commited a crime against my child?  While it's possible that he might associate fear of parent with the stovetop, and that is undesireable, is that not still more desireable than a third degree burn next time?

[myrkul]

I'm glad to see a couple of thinking adults have joined the coversation.

They are their own property at birth. As the person who gave them that property, it is your responsibility to educate them on how to properly use it so as to not destroy it.

Okay, if they are their own property at birth, why is it my responsibility to do anything?  I know, rationally, that they exist as a result of my own actions, and that they will likely perish without my parenting.  But if they are my responsibility, how am I not the slave, then?  And what about my religious perspective argument "All children are God's children, and I'm his representative"?

Again, I'm not pulling these arguments out of my rear.  All versions of the pro-corporal punishment argument that I have thus far presented have already been argued extensively by libertarian philosophers for decades.  Pre-age-of-reason children remain an unresovled issue.

To my mind, it has been resolved, and all those previous arguments are an attempt at rationalizing away the cognitive dissonance caused by the realization that using force is wrong and the fact that their parents (whom they consider to be quite good) used force upon them. Another form of Stockholm Syndrome.

As to why it is your responsibility to teach them how to operate their body without causing harm to themselves or others, as you pointed out, it's your doing. If you break a window, it's your responsibility to see that the owner of that window is compensated for its loss. If you create a person, it's your responsibility to make sure that person is civilized. Likewise, the child's care and feeding until such time as it can take care of those operations itself is your responsibility the same as though you had caused a person to become incapable of doing those themselves - because you did. You created a person who is incapable of taking care of themselves. Now, it's possible to delegate that responsibility, for either case. In the case of causing an adult to lose those capacities - say, by putting them into a coma in a car accident - this delegation is called "paying their hospital bills." In the case of a child, it's called "hiring a nanny." the end result is the same.

The "hot stovetop" example was used early on in this thread. It is morally acceptable to intervene to prevent damage to their property (ie, slap their hand away) but not to punish them after the fact. If your child is jumping (or about to) on a glass tabletop, it is acceptable to intervene to prevent damage by grabbing them off the table, but not to then spank them after the fact. Children are smarter than you think. As soon as they can talk, you can reason with them. You may have to use simpler concepts, but if you can talk to them, and they can talk to you, reasoning is possible.

Why is behavior conditioning not morally acceptable?

Because, as I said below, you're not conditioning the child to be afraid of the situation. You're conditioning the child to be afraid of you. While the surface results are the same (the child no longer runs out into the street), in one case it is because they know it is dangerous, and potentially harmful, and in the other it's simply because you said not to, and they're afraid you'll hit them again if they do.

Tell me, what does spanking a child after they have endangered themselves do, besides instill a fear not of the dangerous situation, but of the parent? The child very much wants you to be happy with him or her, and simply telling him or her that going out into the road like that could get them hurt, and their getting hurt would make you sad will amply drive the point home that running out into the street is not something Mommy and Daddy approve of.

But what if simply telling them does not drive that point home?  What then?  If you do exactly as you say, and never utilize corporal punishment as behavior modification despite the fact that your child repeatedly ignores your verbal warnings of the potential for great harm, and he finally runs out in front of traffic and is killed.  Have you, then, not failed as a parent?  How is that not neglect?

Indeed it is, because you have failed to impress upon the child how dangerous walking into the street unescorted can be. Perhaps you should not have just told him. Perhaps you should have been more proactive, and showed him, and demonstrated the correct way to do it. Just because you can't hit him doesn't mean you can't teach him.

If you want to raise self-owning adults, you should treat them as self-owning children.

Certainly as soon as that is possible.  But what if it's not?

Then what you have is an animal, not a human being.

They are their own property at birth.

If ownership is defined as exercising exclusive control over a scarce, tangible resource then children own their bodies as soon as they develop a nervous system capable directing the actions of their body. This would place the beginning of self-ownership prior to being born.

That also shows why parents can't be said to own their children. Only the child can control his own body and parents are restricted to persuading, threatening or physically coercing the child into taking or refraining from actions. This is prima facie evidence of who actually owns the child's body.

Bingo. I think you may have also defined a good cut-off point for abortion.

Oh, but wait!  Why are they only self-owned at birth?  If they own themselves at birth, dispite lacking the capacity to reason, converse or even eat without aid; why don't they own themselves the day before?  Why not the month before?  Why not nine months before?  Why not a month before conception?  If the potential to be a human being with self-ownership (by the logic of being able to reason, or any other logic) why don't they have such rights across time?  Wouldn't contraceptives be akin to murder?

What you have quoted above is the revision of my position of "at birth" to "at the point of neurological development sufficient to control their limbs." This, by the way, is just prior to the start of the third trimester, so, not far from the legal abortion cut-off anyway. Prior to this point, they are effectively an organ, a part of the mother's body.

Contraceptives (and pre-25th week abortions) kill cells. Not a person. I'm against abortion in general, but using the above cutoff, I can't legitimize using force to stop a woman from excising an organ from her body. Would you violently prevent an appendectomy?

Oh, and I have twin daughters, whom I will be raising in this manner. I'll let you know how they turn out.

[MoonShadow]

To my mind, it has been resolved,

Not an argument, Myrkul.  I've come to expect much more from you than this.  You can argue the finer points of ancap theories and Austrian economic theories, but you can't present something here better than "I believe" or "I feel"?

 and all those previous arguments are an attempt at rationalizing away the cognitive dissonance caused by the realization that using force is wrong and the fact that their parents (whom they consider to be quite good) used force upon them. Another form of Stockholm Syndrome.

Perhaps I do have some cognitive dissonance here.  So show me, I'll listen.

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.

No, sorry.  But no stockholm sysndrome here.  Parental cruelty has little to do with the methods employed.

As to why it is your responsibility to teach them how to operate their body without causing harm to themselves or others, as you pointed out, it's your doing. If you break a window, it's your responsibility to see that the owner of that window is compensated for its loss. If you create a person, it's your responsibility to make sure that person is civilized.

Strange, an AnCap arguing that I have a responsibility to serve someone that I have not harmed nor agreed to serve.  If I have zero ownership, I have zero responsibility.  I don't owe
 them anything, do I?  If I do, how did I incure such a debt?  If you don't yet see where I'm going with this, it's you that has cognative dissonance.

Likewise, the child's care and feeding until such time as it can take care of those operations itself is your responsibility the same as though you had caused a person to become incapable of doing those themselves - because you did. You created a person who is incapable of taking care of themselves. Now, it's possible to delegate that responsibility, for either case. In the case of causing an adult to lose those capacities - say, by putting them into a coma in a car accident - this delegation is called "paying their hospital bills." In the case of a child, it's called "hiring a nanny." the end result is the same.

I commited an action that resulted in a new life.  I commited that act for my own reasons, the life that resulted was a secondary event.  What harm have I committed against that life?  None that I can think of.  So therefore, to whom do I owe this debt/obligation of responsibility?

Tell me, what does spanking a child after they have endangered themselves do, besides instill a fear not of the dangerous situation, but of the parent? The child very much wants you to be happy with him or her, and simply telling him or her that going out into the road like that could get them hurt, and their getting hurt would make you sad will amply drive the point home that running out into the street is not something Mommy and Daddy approve of.

But what if simply telling them does not drive that point home?  What then?  If you do exactly as you say, and never utilize corporal punishment as behavior modification despite the fact that your child repeatedly ignores your verbal warnings of the potential for great harm, and he finally runs out in front of traffic and is killed.  Have you, then, not failed as a parent?  How is that not neglect?

Indeed it is, because you have failed to impress upon the child how dangerous walking into the street unescorted can be. Perhaps you should not have just told him. Perhaps you should have been more proactive, and showed him, and demonstrated the correct way to do it. Just because you can't hit him doesn't mean you can't teach him.

You dodged the point, and you know it.  You know, intuitively, that not every child will have the capacity at an early age, towards reason or towards recognizing hazards, even after all of your efforts.  Yet, you also know, intuitively, that as the parent I have an obligation to do all that I can to protect this child until he is old enough to reason.  To whom, then, do i owe this obligation (debt)?  You know that answer intutively also, you just can't bring yourself to say it.  Cognative dissonance, indeed.

If you want to raise self-owning adults, you should treat them as self-owning children.

Certainly as soon as that is possible.  But what if it's not?

Then what you have is an animal, not a human being.

What is the difference?  What if a chimp taught sign language was able to communicate an understanding of individual rights, self-awareness and reason via said sign language.  Would that chimp still be a animal, owned by a zoo?  Not free to choose to return to the jungles?

Oh, and I have twin daughters, whom I will be raising in this manner. I'll let you know how they turn out.

Then you should consider yourself lucky in this regard, and I'm sure that you will do fine.  Most of the time, a strict no-spanking parentling style would work well enough, and is actually unlikely to expose the child to a great many hazards in our modern & hyper-vigilant & safety consious society.  But I'm not taling about the rule, I'm talking about the exceptions.

Girls are also easier to raise in this regard, until about 14.  It's usually the boys that are truely "fearless".

[augustocroppo]

Then what you have is an animal, not a human being.

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

I considered that perspective, actually, but chose not to go there mostly because simply restating the position from the religious and libertarian/ownership perspectives created a lot of confusion.  I also don't consider the 'naturalness' of the use of force to be a particularly relevent point, one that I'm not willing to attempt to defend.  I'd lose anyway.  After all, the instinct to reproduce is a very natural drive, but that would not in any fashion excuse a rape.

[cunicula]

but that would not in any fashion excuse a rape.

I'm sorry, but I thought you recognized these children as your property. How is it different from 'raping a fleshlight'? Do I sense statist backsliding?

I also find it really ironic that this religious wacko is a libertarian. Accept some personal responsibility like god wants you to, LOL.

[augustocroppo]

I also don't consider the 'naturalness' of the use of force to be a particularly relevent point, one that I'm not willing to attempt to defend.  I'd lose anyway.  After all, the instinct to reproduce is a very natural drive, but that would not in any fashion excuse a rape.

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.

After all, the instinct to reproduce is a very natural drive, but that would not in any fashion excuse a rape.

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.

[MoonShadow]

but that would not in any fashion excuse a rape.

I'm sorry, but I thought you recognized these children as your property. How is it different from 'raping a fleshlight'? Do I sense statist backsliding?

I also find it really ironic that this religious wacko is a libertarian. Accept some personal responsibility like god wants you to, LOL.

Well, hello Cunicula.  Am I out of the penalty box, or did you lift your ignore just for this special occasion?

As for the children as property statement, I don't actually regard my children as property, I was presenting that argument because it's a common atheist/libertarion one with regard to the reality of children in the absence of any recognition of a God.  The religious argument being quite different, and as you pointed out, being a religious wacko I tend towards that one; yet I don't consider that one intelletually satisfying either.  Still, you don't even have a coherent philosophical perspective here to cling to.  What has Paul Krugman said about this topic?  You'd better go check.

[augustocroppo]

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?

[Rudd-O]

To my mind, it has been resolved,

Not an argument, Myrkul.

For the record, Myrkul did provide a valid argument, unlike Mr. "Children are Chattel" MoonShadow claims.

Srsly, after all the horrible things he has said, this feller still has the gall to say that "adults have joined the conversation" as a demeaning jab to those of us who have participated in the conversation with some semblance of sense and empathy.  I would be angry if it wasn't so ironically funny.

You beat your children up, dude, and you have five kids.  That's five kids you have abused.  Jizzing five times inside a vagina does not make you an adult -- treating other human beings, including your children, like human beings, qualifies you as an adult.  You are the very last person in this forum qualified to tell anyone what adulthood is about.

[Rudd-O]

but that would not in any fashion excuse a rape.

I'm sorry, but I thought you recognized these children as your property. How is it different from 'raping a fleshlight'? Do I sense statist backsliding?

I also find it really ironic that this religious wacko is a libertarian. Accept some personal responsibility like god wants you to, LOL.

Well said.

Five kids.  FIVE kids.  He wants to beat children, he thinks children are chattel, and he has five kids.

Totally what a religious wacko would do.  How did I miss the religious (translation: child abuse) connection, I have no idea.  But Abraham would be proud of his follower here.

[cunicula]

but that would not in any fashion excuse a rape.

I'm sorry, but I thought you recognized these children as your property. How is it different from 'raping a fleshlight'? Do I sense statist backsliding?

I also find it really ironic that this religious wacko is a libertarian. Accept some personal responsibility like god wants you to, LOL.

Well, hello Cunicula.  Am I out of the penalty box, or did you lift your ignore just for this special occasion?

As for the children as property statement, I don't actually regard my children as property, I was presenting that argument because it's a common atheist/libertarion one with regard to the reality of children in the absence of any recognition of a God.  The religious argument being quite different, and as you pointed out, being a religious wacko I tend towards that one; yet I don't consider that one intelletually satisfying either.  Still, you don't even have a coherent philosophical perspective here to cling to.  What has Paul Krugman said about this topic?  You'd better go check.

The thread was too rich for me to resist.

I don't justify my decisions using a 'coherent philosophical perspective.' Therefore, I am not troubled that I don't have one to cling to.

[cunicula]

Moral behavior is a result of a rational decision since irrational animals cannot define the limits of what is acceptable or not acceptable.

How do you know that you are 'more rational' than other animals? Do you speak fish?

莊子與惠子游於濠梁之上。莊子曰：「鯈魚出游從容，是魚之樂也。」 惠子曰：「子非魚，安知魚之樂？」莊子曰：「子非我，安知我不知魚之樂？」 惠子曰：「我非子，固不知子矣；子固非魚也，子之不知魚之樂，全矣。」 莊子曰：「請循其本。子曰『汝安知魚樂』云者，既已知吾知之而問我。 我知之濠上也。」
Zhuangzi and Huizi had strolled on to the bridge over the Hao, when the former observed, "See how the small fish are darting about! That is the happiness of the fish." "You not being a fish yourself," said Huizi, "how can you know the happiness of the fish?" "And you not being I," retorted Zhuangzi, "how can you know that I do not know?" "If I, not being you, cannot know what you know," urged Huizi, "it follows that you, not being a fish, cannot know the happiness of the fish." "Let us go back to your original question," said Zhuangzi. "You asked me how I knew the happiness of the fish. Your very question shows that you knew that I knew. I knew it on this bridge."

[augustocroppo]

How do you know that you are 'more rational' than other animals? Do you speak fish?

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

Definition of rational
adjective

1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic:
I’m sure there’s a perfectly rational explanation

(...)

rationality

adverb

[cunicula]

How do you know that you are 'more rational' than other animals? Do you speak fish?

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

Definition of rational
adjective

1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic:
I’m sure there’s a perfectly rational explanation

(...)

rationality

adverb

莊子與惠子游於濠梁之上。莊子曰：「鯈魚出游從容，是魚之樂也。」 惠子曰：「子非魚，安知魚之樂？」莊子曰：「子非我，安知我不知魚之樂？」 惠子曰：「我非子，固不知子矣；子固非魚也，子之不知魚之樂，全矣。」 莊子曰：「請循其本。子曰『汝安知魚樂』云者，既已知吾知之而問我。 我知之濠上也。」
Zhuangzi and Huizi had strolled on to the bridge over the Hao, when the former observed, "See how the small fish are darting about! That is the happiness of the fish." "You not being a fish yourself," said Huizi, "how can you know the happiness of the fish?" "And you not being I," retorted Zhuangzi, "how can you know that I do not know?" "If I, not being you, cannot know what you know," urged Huizi, "it follows that you, not being a fish, cannot know the happiness of the fish." "Let us go back to your original question," said Zhuangzi. "You asked me how I knew the happiness of the fish. Your very question shows that you knew that I knew. I knew it on this bridge."

[myrkul]

To my mind, it has been resolved,

Not an argument, Myrkul.  I've come to expect much more from you than this.  You can argue the finer points of ancap theories and Austrian economic theories, but you can't present something here better than "I believe" or "I feel"?

Of course it's not an argument. The arguments come later. To sum up, the argument is this: You made a life. That life is a self-owner. That life is not capable of taking care of itself. That condition is your fault, just as if you had put an adult into a coma. The responsibility is on you to protect it and ensure that it learns the skills required to remedy that condition. That responsibility does not empower entitle you to beat or otherwise torture that life.

and all those previous arguments are an attempt at rationalizing away the cognitive dissonance caused by the realization that using force is wrong and the fact that their parents (whom they consider to be quite good) used force upon them. Another form of Stockholm Syndrome.

Perhaps I do have some cognitive dissonance here.  So show me, I'll listen.

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.

No, sorry.  But no stockholm sysndrome here.  Parental cruelty has little to do with the methods employed.

So, you were caged instead of beaten. Authoritarian behavior, as you point out, comes in many forms.

As to why it is your responsibility to teach them how to operate their body without causing harm to themselves or others, as you pointed out, it's your doing. If you break a window, it's your responsibility to see that the owner of that window is compensated for its loss. If you create a person, it's your responsibility to make sure that person is civilized.

Strange, an AnCap arguing that I have a responsibility to serve someone that I have not harmed nor agreed to serve.  If I have zero ownership, I have zero responsibility.  I don't owe them anything, do I?  If I do, how did I incur such a debt?  If you don't yet see where I'm going with this, it's you that has cognitive dissonance.

Hmm... You didn't have the option of birth control? No condoms? No pills? No snip-snip? No abortion? (Granted, you're the male, you have less choice in the matter - that's been discussed in other threads) Remember, sex doesn't have to result in a pregnancy. Because you let it, it's your responsibility.

Likewise, the child's care and feeding until such time as it can take care of those operations itself is your responsibility the same as though you had caused a person to become incapable of doing those themselves - because you did. You created a person who is incapable of taking care of themselves. Now, it's possible to delegate that responsibility, for either case. In the case of causing an adult to lose those capacities - say, by putting them into a coma in a car accident - this delegation is called "paying their hospital bills." In the case of a child, it's called "hiring a nanny." the end result is the same.

I committed an action that resulted in a new life.  I committed that act for my own reasons, the life that resulted was a secondary event.  What harm have I committed against that life?  None that I can think of.  So therefore, to whom do I owe this debt/obligation of responsibility?

Why, the child, of course. He is only here because of your actions - actions that you admit were taken carelessly. Those actions did not need to result in that new life. So guess who's responsibility it is that it did?

_{(hint: Mom and Dad)}

Tell me, what does spanking a child after they have endangered themselves do, besides instill a fear not of the dangerous situation, but of the parent? The child very much wants you to be happy with him or her, and simply telling him or her that going out into the road like that could get them hurt, and their getting hurt would make you sad will amply drive the point home that running out into the street is not something Mommy and Daddy approve of.

But what if simply telling them does not drive that point home?  What then?  If you do exactly as you say, and never utilize corporal punishment as behavior modification despite the fact that your child repeatedly ignores your verbal warnings of the potential for great harm, and he finally runs out in front of traffic and is killed.  Have you, then, not failed as a parent?  How is that not neglect?

Indeed it is, because you have failed to impress upon the child how dangerous walking into the street unescorted can be. Perhaps you should not have just told him. Perhaps you should have been more proactive, and showed him, and demonstrated the correct way to do it. Just because you can't hit him doesn't mean you can't teach him.

You dodged the point, and you know it.  You know, intuitively, that not every child will have the capacity at an early age, towards reason or towards recognizing hazards, even after all of your efforts.  Yet, you also know, intuitively, that as the parent I have an obligation to do all that I can to protect this child until he is old enough to reason.  To whom, then, do i owe this obligation (debt)?  You know that answer intuitively also, you just can't bring yourself to say it.  Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

Indeed you do have an obligation to protect the child from harm. Why, then, do you include harming the child in the list of tools to do so? If you don't want your kid to run out into the street, and he's too young to understand why not, you don't let him. You don't beat him if he does, because, again, it doesn't condition him to fear the situation, but you. If he does run out, you let him know how scared you were were when he did that. Let him see how much you fear the situation, and he'll pick up on that. You want to teach him to fear running out in the road, that's the way to do it, not teaching him to fear you.

If you want to raise self-owning adults, you should treat them as self-owning children.

Certainly as soon as that is possible.  But what if it's not?

Then what you have is an animal, not a human being.

What is the difference?  What if a chimp taught sign language was able to communicate an understanding of individual rights, self-awareness and reason via said sign language.  Would that chimp still be a animal, owned by a zoo?  Not free to choose to return to the jungles?

I'd say no. If a Chimp can prove an understanding of, and both demand and respect individual rights, he's got 'em. Of course, They can't, so that's the difference. Reason.

[cunicula]

I'd say no. If a Chimp can prove an understanding of, and both demand and respect individual rights, he's got 'em. Of course, They can't, so that's the difference. Reason.

That's why child rape is permitted. They can't prove shit, so they lay down and think of England and we pound their asses ad libitum. That is natural law.

Some people prefer to use their cock and others prefer to use their hand or a paddle. That is freedom of choice.

[Do I have it right yet? Or is it back to the reeducation forum?]

[augustocroppo]

Zhuangzi and Huizi had strolled on to the bridge over the Hao, when the former observed, "See how the small fish are darting about! That is the happiness of the fish." "You not being a fish yourself," said Huizi, "how can you know the happiness of the fish?" "And you not being I," retorted Zhuangzi, "how can you know that I do not know?" "If I, not being you, cannot know what you know," urged Huizi, "it follows that you, not being a fish, cannot know the happiness of the fish." "Let us go back to your original question," said Zhuangzi. "You asked me how I knew the happiness of the fish. Your very question shows that you knew that I knew. I knew it on this bridge."

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

[cunicula]

Zhuangzi and Huizi had strolled on to the bridge over the Hao, when the former observed, "See how the small fish are darting about! That is the happiness of the fish." "You not being a fish yourself," said Huizi, "how can you know the happiness of the fish?" "And you not being I," retorted Zhuangzi, "how can you know that I do not know?" "If I, not being you, cannot know what you know," urged Huizi, "it follows that you, not being a fish, cannot know the happiness of the fish." "Let us go back to your original question," said Zhuangzi. "You asked me how I knew the happiness of the fish. Your very question shows that you knew that I knew. I knew it on this bridge."

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

No.

[augustocroppo]

Of course it's not an argument. The arguments come later. To sum up, the argument is this: You made a life. That life is a self-owner...

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

Definition of ownership
noun
the act, state, or right of possessing something

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.

...That life is not capable of taking care of itself. That condition is your fault, just as if you had put an adult into a coma...

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

Definition of fault
noun

(...)

2 [mass noun] responsibility for an accident or misfortune:

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

...The responsibility is on you to protect it and ensure that it learns the skills required to remedy that condition...

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.

...That responsibility does not empower you to beat or otherwise torture that life.

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.

[augustocroppo]

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

No.

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.

[myrkul]

Of course it's not an argument. The arguments come later. To sum up, the argument is this: You made a life. That life is a self-owner...

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

90% of your objections come your misinterpretation of my use of vague terms so as to not be overly specific. The last one (entitle over empower) is a valid one, though, and I've altered the text to show that.

To argue that life is a self-owner is completely incoherent.

I did not say "life." I said "that life." It's a minor distinction, to be sure, but an important one, since it specifies the life that was created by the act of human procreation, and not say, a bird.

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.

Ahh, but some animals are ready to go, right out of the womb. The shark, for instance, actually fights and consumes it's siblings in the womb, until there are only one or two left. It is the nature of human young to be almost completely helpless, and knowing that, it is the responsibility of the parents that created that human child that it is in that state. The conditions which lead to the state (a human incapable of caring for itself) are irrelevant, since the state is virtually identical.

Following your logic, every new born entity is the result of a mistake and his conditions are defective.

Following your misinterpretation of my logic, perhaps. The goal of parenthood is a functional, self-sufficient human being. Since the beginning state is a completely dependent human being, and that state is the result of the parent's actions, it is the responsibility of the parent to develop the child into that self-sufficient human being. (This part of the argument, by the way, I do not feel is in dispute... parents are responsible for their children) Hitting (or otherwise abusing) that child (regardless of intent) is not conducive to that goal - in fact, it is our argument that it is counter-productive.

[MoonShadow]

The goal of parenthood is a functional, self-sufficient human being. Since the beginning state is a completely dependent human being, and that state is the result of the parent's actions, it is the responsibility of the parent to develop the child into that self-sufficient human being. (This part of the argument, by the way, I do not feel is in dispute... parents are responsible for their children)

Ah, but why is a functional, self-sufficient human being the goal of parenthood?  Who gets to decide this?  You?  Society?  The State?  To whose ends does this goal contribute?  I know you have it in you, Myrkul; all you have to do is admit it.  You know you will not be satisfied with any other supporting logic without going there first.

Hitting that child is not conducive to that goal - in fact, it is our argument that it is counter-productive.

First of all, not all forms of corporal punishment involve striking a child.  Occasionally, there is a need to resort to a memorable level of pain in order to condition a child to act in a safe manner.  Is this statement in dispute, Myrkul?  Can you not imagine any child, or any situation, that the judicious use of low levels of pain can be justified by the reduction in risk?  If not, your imagination function is broken.  I can, in fact, think of dozens.  So can the established case law, BTW.

Beyond that, whether or not you consider, or can reasonablely argue that corporal punishment is often or usually counter-productive is irrelevant.  The root question is, who gets to determine that?

Is it you, Myrkul?

[myrkul]

The goal of parenthood is a functional, self-sufficient human being. Since the beginning state is a completely dependent human being, and that state is the result of the parent's actions, it is the responsibility of the parent to develop the child into that self-sufficient human being. (This part of the argument, by the way, I do not feel is in dispute... parents are responsible for their children)

Ah, but why is a functional, self-sufficient human being the goal of parenthood?  Who gets to decide this?  You?  Society?  The State?  To whose ends does this goal contribute?  I know you have it in you, Myrkul; all you have to do is admit it.  You know you will not be satisfied with any other supporting logic without going there first.

This is an interesting line of inquiry. I'm not sure where you're trying to lead me. (That's the main reason it's interesting.) The reason I consider it to be the goal of parenthood is that it is the best way to have a properly functioning society. Simple logic states that if you have a group of self-sufficient, healthy individuals, the society thus formed will be likewise self-sufficient and healthy. A society formed of authority dependent, damaged individuals will likewise be authority dependent and damaged.

Hitting that child is not conducive to that goal - in fact, it is our argument that it is counter-productive.

First of all, not all forms of corporal punishment involve striking a child.  Occasionally, there is a need to resort to a memorable level of pain in order to condition a child to act in a safe manner.  Is this statement in dispute, Myrkul? 

You'll notice I amended my statement, above. It now reads " Hitting (or otherwise abusing) that child (regardless of intent) is not conducive to that goal." Now, by "memorable pain," what exactly are you referring to? I've read stories of children being burnt with irons, curlers, hot pans, even stovetops (somewhat ironically) by their parents as a means of correction. Is that what you mean? Or perhaps you mean more psychological pain? Being publicly called "poopie pants" or other names so as to shame them for having an accident? Or perhaps you are referring to being stuck in a corner and ignored (or even forgotten), like you yourself were? The psychological torture so effective that your sister begged for a beating?

No, I can imagine many things, but nothing in which punishment is the optimal way to instil a lesson - unless that lesson is to fear the parent.

[Rudd-O]

No, I can imagine many things, but nothing in which punishment is the optimal way to instil a lesson - unless that lesson is to fear the parent.

...or have the victim develop a certain form of Livestockholm Syndrome where he grows up to love his abusers.

[TheButterZone]

So can the established case law, BTW.

Let's not bring established case law into this, when established case law shows justices bending over backward to support the violation of the widest spectrum of enumerated constitutional/civil/human rights.

[Rudd-O]

So can the established case law, BTW.

Let's not bring established case law into this, when established case law shows justices bending over backward to support the violation of the widest spectrum of enumerated constitutional/civil/human rights.

Correct.  According to established "case law" (opinions and orders written in magical papers), six million Jews committed suicide.

[augustocroppo]

90% of your objections come your misinterpretation of my use of vague terms so as to not be overly specific. The last one (entitle over empower) is a valid one, though, and I've altered the text to show that.

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

I did not say "life." I said "that life." It's a minor distinction, to be sure, but an important one, since it specifies the life that was created by the act of human procreation, and not say, a bird.

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

Ahh, but some animals are ready to go, right out of the womb. The shark, for instance, actually fights and consumes it's siblings in the womb, until there are only one or two left. It is the nature of human young to be almost completely helpless, and knowing that, it is the responsibility of the parents that created that human child that it is in that state. The conditions which lead to the state (a human incapable of caring for itself) are irrelevant, since the state is virtually identical.

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

Following your misinterpretation of my logic, perhaps. The goal of parenthood is a functional, self-sufficient human being. Since the beginning state is a completely dependent human being, and that state is the result of the parent's actions, it is the responsibility of the parent to develop the child into that self-sufficient human being.

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 (or otherwise abusing) that child (regardless of intent) is not conducive to that goal - in fact, it is our argument that it is counter-productive.

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.

[augustocroppo]

(...)

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

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?

[myrkul]

I did not say "life." I said "that life." It's a minor distinction, to be sure, but an important one, since it specifies the life that was created by the act of human procreation, and not say, a bird.

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

Herp-a-derp. I used "that life." Specifically, "that life which is the result of human procreation" - ie: a human life. If you'll re-read my summation, you'll see that. Unless, of course, you think sex between two humans can result in the birth of a bird?

Ahh, but some animals are ready to go, right out of the womb. The shark, for instance, actually fights and consumes it's siblings in the womb, until there are only one or two left. It is the nature of human young to be almost completely helpless, and knowing that, it is the responsibility of the parents that created that human child that it is in that state. The conditions which lead to the state (a human incapable of caring for itself) are irrelevant, since the state is virtually identical.

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

Did you forget your own argument already?

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

Once again, Herp-a-derp.

Following your misinterpretation of my logic, perhaps. The goal of parenthood is a functional, self-sufficient human being. Since the beginning state is a completely dependent human being, and that state is the result of the parent's actions, it is the responsibility of the parent to develop the child into that self-sufficient human being.

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.

I never said they weren't. You keep misinterpreting (intentionally, I must assume) my words.

Hitting (or otherwise abusing) that child (regardless of intent) is not conducive to that goal - in fact, it is our argument that it is counter-productive.

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.

Yes, this is perfectly consistent with Stockholm syndrome. I'm sorry to hear about your abuse.

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

Counter-productive to creating an authority-dependent, damaged slave? No, you're right there, it's perfect for that.
Counter-productive to creating a healthy, well-adjusted adult capable of functioning in polite society? Yes, yes it is.

[MoonShadow]

Myrkul, I agree that he understands your argument as well as I do.  You don't seem to have one, because if fails a simple logical proof. 

You claim to no understand where I'm trying to lead you, so the cognative dissonance is significant.

Answer this simple question.

If I were to hire a hooker while on vacation, knock her up, and go home. 

What harm have I caused that child?

[myrkul]

Answer this simple question.

If I were to hire a hooker while on vacation, knock her up, and go home. 

What harm have I caused that child?

Not once have I claimed you have harmed the child by fathering it. You can incur responsibility without doing damage.

Assuming the prostitute keeps the child, which is decidedly not a given, you have incurred no responsibility, since when you left to go home, you left the decision entirely in her hands. She, however, has incurred a responsibility to raise the child. Do you dispute that?

[augustocroppo]

Herp-a-derp. I used "that life." Specifically, "that life which is the result of human procreation" - ie: a human life. If you'll re-read my summation, you'll see that. Unless, of course, you think sex between two humans can result in the birth of a bird?

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

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 human being generates a baby, is not the mistake of the progenitor which hinders the baby to walk. It is the law of physics (gravity) and the biological structure (short legs) which prevent it to walk.

Did you forget your own argument already?

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

Once again, Herp-a-derp.

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

Herp-a-derp
Another, lesser known name for a special person. Meant to be as offensive as the word retard. Though it can be used as universally as the word "fuck" such as "Quit being a such herp-a-derp" or "go be a herp-a-derp somewhere else". however the word can be butchered to be simply "herp" or "derp". Although some "herp-a-derps" will reverse the word and say "Derp-a-herp". Saying "Herp-a-derp" as a question changes the meaning to "A retard?" or "That Retard?".

I never said they weren't. You keep misinterpreting (intentionally, I must assume) my words.

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

(...) That condition is your fault, just as if you had put an adult into a coma. The responsibility is on you to protect it and ensure that it learns the skills required to remedy that condition. (...)

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.

Yes, this is perfectly consistent with Stockholm syndrome. I'm sorry to hear about your abuse.

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

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

The term, Stockholm Syndrome, was coined in the early 70's to describe the puzzling reactions of four bank employees to their captor. (...)

Virtually anyone can get Stockholm Syndrome it the following conditions are met:

- Perceived threat to survival and the belief that one's captor is willing to act on that threat
- The captive's perception of small kindnesses from the captor within a context of terror
- Isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor
- Perceived inability to escape.

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.

Counter-productive to creating an authority-dependent, damaged slave? No, you're right there, it's perfect for that.

Counter-productive to creating a healthy, well-adjusted adult capable of functioning in polite society? Yes, yes it is.

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

Definition of authority
noun (plural authorities)
1 [mass noun] the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience

(...)

[often with infinitive] the right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another

(...)

2 (often authorities) a person or organization having political or administrative power and control

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

Definition of society
noun (plural societies)
1 [mass noun] the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community:

(...)

- the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations:

[MoonShadow]

Answer this simple question.

If I were to hire a hooker while on vacation, knock her up, and go home.  

What harm have I caused that child?

Not once have I claimed you have harmed the child by fathering it. You can incur responsibility without doing damage.

Progress, indeed.  So assuming that I have not harmed my child by fathering it, nor do I owe the mother any further compensation assuming that the contract was paid as negotiated, how would a father become 'responsible' for a child without declaring that responsibility for himself (in an ancap society, for consistancy)?  If he has caused no harm, nor accepts the responsibility upon himself, who/what can impose that responsibility upon him?  Here's a hint, there is no root difference between the terms "responsibility", "obligation", "duty" and "debt" except in how they are commonly used; their core meanings are interchangable.  If you doubt that, simply try to describe one of these in your own words, and then swap out any of the others in every place you use that term, and you will see that they are, in their meaning, interchangable.

Now, to be clear, I do agree that any parent has a difficult to define responsibility to his/her children; regardless of the conditions that resulted in that child.  I'm just trying to guide you to the source of that responsibility.

Assuming the prostitute keeps the child, which is decidedly not a given, you have incurred no responsibility, since when you left to go home, you left the decision entirely in her hands. She, however, has incurred a responsibility to raise the child. Do you dispute that?

Actually, I do.  This is a contradictory position, but we will get into that later.

[MoonShadow]

Conclusion: You suffer from stockholm syndrome, and are currently rationalizing your parents' violent behavior towards you as loving, when in fact it was abusive. Furthermore, you seek other parental figures to tell you what to do, in the form of a state. Should this parental figure disappear, you are afraid you will be unable to act in a peaceable manner toward other human beings. I am truly sorry for your damaged condition. You should seek psychological help.

This is not an argument, Myrkul; this is trolling.  While I don't mind a humorous jab every now and again, this doesn't qualify.  You have literally just attempted to undermine your opposition by accusing him of a psychological condition that would presume to affect his objectivity.  It's an ad hominem.

Do not do this again.

[myrkul]

 So assuming that I have not harmed my child by fathering it, nor do I owe the mother any further compensation assuming that the contract was paid as negotiated, how would a father become 'responsible' for a child without declaring that responsibility for himself (in an ancap society, for consistancy)?

Well, the simple answer is that you can't. Of course, there's a much more complex answer, and that involves the fact that without claiming responsibility for the child, you can't claim parental privileges to it, either. If you wish to take any part in the rearing of the child, you must take responsibility to do so. In other words, if it's your child, you are responsible for it. If you wish to not be responsible for it, it's not your child.

If he has caused no harm, nor accepts the responsibility upon himself, who/what can impose that responsibility upon him?

As I said above, only his desire to take a hand in raising the child. It's a privilege/responsibility "package deal." It can be argued that since a child is a financial liability (a fact which I quite well understand), a father has financially burdened the mother, and should pay recompense.

Of course, in modern society, the mother is not required to keep the child, or even bring it to term. She can abort the pregnancy prior to 25 weeks, or place the child up for adoption after birth. So a single mother really, only has herself to "blame" for the financial burden, and she can always seek another person to help provide for the child. Again, in today's society many men, or even women, are willing to accept responsibility and care for another's biological child. (The father, should he find himself single, of course has this option as well.)

Now, to be clear, I do agree that any parent has a difficult to define responsibility to his/her children; regardless of the conditions that resulted in that child.  I'm just trying to guide you to the source of that responsibility.

I don't think it's hard to define, or determine where the responsibility comes from. Your responsibility is to raise the child so that it will not cause harm to itself or others, and the source of that responsibility is that it is your child. You made it, you have to see that it is raised properly, for it's own sake. (Ultimately, the source of the responsibility is the child itself.)

Now, as I said earlier, responsibilities can be delegated, in this case either by hiring a nanny/baby sitter/etc, and making sure that they are teaching your child correctly, or you can give up the responsibilities and privileges by handing the child off to an adoption agency or other form of child care.

The father can delegate this responsibility entirely to the mother (as you did in your example) but unless the father is unaware (or, as in the case of your example, has already relinquished any privileges/responsibilities as part of the original hire contract), this is seen as socially unacceptable. A "dick move," if you will. If he sticks around, however, he has accepted that responsibility, and if he wishes to delegate it later, it must be done somewhat more formally.

The mother, if she chooses to carry the child to term, has accepted that responsibility, and must then carry it out, either by raising the child herself, or delegating the responsibility in one of the above fashions. (Perhaps, even, completely to the father, if he stuck around, and she does not wish to - I'm sad to say my sister took this option not once, but twice. It's no less of a "dick move" when the mother does it.)

Assuming the prostitute keeps the child, which is decidedly not a given, you have incurred no responsibility, since when you left to go home, you left the decision entirely in her hands. She, however, has incurred a responsibility to raise the child. Do you dispute that?

Actually, I do.  This is a contradictory position, but we will get into that later.

Which part do you dispute, that the mother has incurred responsibility, or that the father has not?

[augustocroppo]

(...)

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:

Were you subjected to physical abuse to correct your behavior? Yes.

No:

Definition of abuse

2 treat with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly:

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.

Did you have other parental figures? If so, they all backed your father on his decisions.

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

Did your father allow you to run away? No.

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.

Were you able to survive without your father's aid? No.

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

As to perceiving terror as a kindness, you demonstrated that earlier:

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.

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:

terror

Definition of terror
noun
1 [mass noun] extreme fear:

In no moment I expressed extreme fear in my description.

Isolated from other adults, perhaps not, but certainly you were isolated from other perspectives. This is commonly referred to as "raising my kids up right"

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.

Of course you felt unable to escape. You were not allowed to move out.

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

Conclusion: You suffer from stockholm syndrome, and are currently rationalizing your parents' violent behavior towards you as loving, when in fact it was abusive.

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

Furthermore, you seek other parental figures to tell you what to do, in the form of a state.

The state is not a parental figure:

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

Definition of state

2a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government

(...)

3 the civil government of a country

Should this parental figure disappear, you are afraid you will be unable to act in a peaceable manner toward other human beings. I am truly sorry for your damaged condition. You should seek psychological help.

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.

[MoonShadow]

Now, to be clear, I do agree that any parent has a difficult to define responsibility to his/her children; regardless of the conditions that resulted in that child.  I'm just trying to guide you to the source of that responsibility.

I don't think it's hard to define, or determine where the responsibility comes from. Your responsibility is to raise the child so that it will not cause harm to itself or others, and the source of that responsibility is that it is your child. You made it, you have to see that it is raised properly, for it's own sake. (Ultimately, the source of the responsibility is the child itself.)

Fail.  That logic is circular.  The source of the responsibility cannot be the child itself, if the source of the child is the parent(and I have caused the child no harm by creating it).  The fact that I made it, whether or not I claim it, is irrelevent within your own ancap philosophies.  If I don't agree that I have such responsibilities, then I don't; except I do.  Why is that?  You know the truth, just pause, breath, and type.  All you have to do is admit it.

Now, as I said earlier, responsibilities can be delegated, in this case either by hiring a nanny/baby sitter/etc, and making sure that they are teaching your child correctly, or you can give up the responsibilities and privileges by handing the child off to an adoption agency or other form of child care.

This is an irrelevant point.  No one has contested that parental responsibilites can be delegated, nor have I contested that such responsibilites can be assumed by adults other then the parents.  This is a non issue.

The father can delegate this responsibility entirely to the mother (as you did in your example) but unless the father is unaware (or, as in the case of your example, has already relinquished any privileges/responsibilities as part of the original hire contract), this is seen as socially unacceptable. A "dick move," if you will.

And why do you think this is so?  I assure you, my root premises do not rest upon as social convention.

If he sticks around, however, he has accepted that responsibility, and if he wishes to delegate it later, it must be done somewhat more formally.

I contest that one.  By what logic do you make such a statement?  The fact that I don't leave is an acceptance of some undefined obligation?

Assuming the prostitute keeps the child, which is decidedly not a given, you have incurred no responsibility, since when you left to go home, you left the decision entirely in her hands. She, however, has incurred a responsibility to raise the child. Do you dispute that?

Actually, I do.  This is a contradictory position, but we will get into that later.

Which part do you dispute, that the mother has incurred responsibility, or that the father has not?

That the father has not.

[myrkul]

Now, to be clear, I do agree that any parent has a difficult to define responsibility to his/her children; regardless of the conditions that resulted in that child.  I'm just trying to guide you to the source of that responsibility.

I don't think it's hard to define, or determine where the responsibility comes from. Your responsibility is to raise the child so that it will not cause harm to itself or others, and the source of that responsibility is that it is your child. You made it, you have to see that it is raised properly, for it's own sake. (Ultimately, the source of the responsibility is the child itself.)

Fail.  That logic is circular.  The source of the responsibility cannot be the child itself, if the source of the child is the parent(and I have caused the child no harm by creating it).  The fact that I made it, whether or not I claim it, is irrelevent within your own ancap philosophies.  If I don't agree that I have such responsibilities, then I don't; except I do.  Why is that?  You know the truth, just pause, breath, and type.  All you have to do is admit it.

I do not see where you're trying to lead me, so you'll have to make the claim yourself.

Either you take responsibility for your actions, or you fail to. "Delegation" is a form of taking responsibility by ensuring that someone else takes care of the child. If you refuse to see that your actions can have consequences that incur responsibility, I can't continue the conversation with you.

Now, as I said earlier, responsibilities can be delegated, in this case either by hiring a nanny/baby sitter/etc, and making sure that they are teaching your child correctly, or you can give up the responsibilities and privileges by handing the child off to an adoption agency or other form of child care.

This is an irrelevant point.  No one has contested that parental responsibilities can be delegated, nor have I contested that such responsibilities can be assumed by adults other then the parents.  This is a non issue.

Ah, but it's not. It is the issue. Your responsibility to the child is caused by your actions in bringing it into this world. The mother can refuse that responsibility, but only prior to 25 weeks of gestation. The father can only refuse that obligation at or before the time of coitus. After that time, the responsibility must be delegated.

The father can delegate this responsibility entirely to the mother (as you did in your example) but unless the father is unaware (or, as in the case of your example, has already relinquished any privileges/responsibilities as part of the original hire contract), this is seen as socially unacceptable. A "dick move," if you will.

And why do you think this is so?  I assure you, my root premises do not rest upon as social convention.

Actually, allow me to revise my position a bit. This is not a delegation, but an abandonment of the responsibility. He is not seeing to it that someone else will properly take care of the child, he's simply bugging out. (Thus the perception - quite correct, IMO - that it's a dick move.)

If he sticks around, however, he has accepted that responsibility, and if he wishes to delegate it later, it must be done somewhat more formally.

I contest that one.  By what logic do you make such a statement?  The fact that I don't leave is an acceptance of some undefined obligation?

Actually, as I stated above, he really should delegate it more formally even before term, since it's his actions in fathering the child that caused the obligation. And it's hardly undefined. It's the subject of this conversation: Parental duties and privileges.

Assuming the prostitute keeps the child, which is decidedly not a given, you have incurred no responsibility, since when you left to go home, you left the decision entirely in her hands. She, however, has incurred a responsibility to raise the child. Do you dispute that?

Actually, I do.  This is a contradictory position, but we will get into that later.

Which part do you dispute, that the mother has incurred responsibility, or that the father has not?

That the father has not.

Interesting.  We'll definitely get to that later, then, though as I say, it's inherent in the original prostitution deal, "understood," as it were, that the prostitute is responsible for anything that comes of the act. After all, how is she supposed to know which of possibly hundreds of johns that week fathered the kid?

[myrkul]

Conclusion: You suffer from stockholm syndrome, and are currently rationalizing your parents' violent behavior towards you as loving, when in fact it was abusive. Furthermore, you seek other parental figures to tell you what to do, in the form of a state. Should this parental figure disappear, you are afraid you will be unable to act in a peaceable manner toward other human beings. I am truly sorry for your damaged condition. You should seek psychological help.

This is not an argument, Myrkul; this is trolling.  While I don't mind a humorous jab every now and again, this doesn't qualify.  You have literally just attempted to undermine your opposition by accusing him of a psychological condition that would presume to affect his objectivity.  It's an ad hominem.

Do not do this again.

It is my contention that Statism is a form of Stockholm Syndrome, 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. But, since you're the moderator, and have the "big guns," I reluctantly bow to your force majeur.

Consider that line of argument closed.

[TheButterZone]

I love the term Livestockholm syndrome.

[MoonShadow]

Now, to be clear, I do agree that any parent has a difficult to define responsibility to his/her children; regardless of the conditions that resulted in that child.  I'm just trying to guide you to the source of that responsibility.

I don't think it's hard to define, or determine where the responsibility comes from. Your responsibility is to raise the child so that it will not cause harm to itself or others, and the source of that responsibility is that it is your child. You made it, you have to see that it is raised properly, for it's own sake. (Ultimately, the source of the responsibility is the child itself.)

Fail.  That logic is circular.  The source of the responsibility cannot be the child itself, if the source of the child is the parent(and I have caused the child no harm by creating it).  The fact that I made it, whether or not I claim it, is irrelevent within your own ancap philosophies.  If I don't agree that I have such responsibilities, then I don't; except I do.  Why is that?  You know the truth, just pause, breath, and type.  All you have to do is admit it.

I do not see where you're trying to lead me, so you'll have to make the claim yourself.

<sigh>  I had high hopews for you Myrkul

I claim that any parent has a responsibility to attend to the well being of his/her offsspring due to Jurius Naturalis.  The natural laws.  If you are religious, (which I know that you are not, yet you adhear to an ethic/morality that you cannot completely define) then the source of this obligation is adherance to God's providence, because all chidlren belong to God and parents are entrusted with their upbringing.  Whether or not such an obligation is respected by the parents themselves is a different issue, but as you noted, to fail to do so is regarded as a "dick move" for more than social convention.  However, even if you are an atheist, then this still rings true because humanity (being an animal) is naturally encoded (or programmed) to not simply procreate, but also to care for it's offspring.

Either path arrives at the same end.  The goal of parenthood is to raise adults, but how civilized they are is secondary to the simple fact that they are adults.  Therefore, the root goal of parenthood is to increase the odds of the child's survival to adulthood, by any and all methods possible.  It cannot be reasonablely argued that spanking a child does not work as a behavior modificaition method; thus if the goal is to keep the kid away from the traffic in the street, even at the potential cost of the relationship between parent and child, the end of survival literally justifies the means in some cases.  The key here is that I don't have to argue the relative effectiveness of corporal punishment as behavior modification compared to other options, I'm simply arguing that a parent has the right to choose that option if all others known have been exausted, and that you don't have teh right to interfere with that decision.

Either you take responsibility for your actions, or you fail to. "Delegation" is a form of taking responsibility by ensuring that someone else takes care of the child. If you refuse to see that your actions can have consequences that incur responsibility, I can't continue the conversation with you.

Now your'e setting up to exit this debate, pretending that we aren't having one.  That's an exit stragedy that others of lessor minds have employed in the past, but I expect more from you Myrkul.  If you simply can't continue to argue your position, either find a position that you can, or admit that you refuse to conceed the point.  Anything else is dishonorable.

Now, as I said earlier, responsibilities can be delegated, in this case either by hiring a nanny/baby sitter/etc, and making sure that they are teaching your child correctly, or you can give up the responsibilities and privileges by handing the child off to an adoption agency or other form of child care.

This is an irrelevant point.  No one has contested that parental responsibilities can be delegated, nor have I contested that such responsibilities can be assumed by adults other then the parents.  This is a non issue.

Ah, but it's not. It is the issue. Your responsibility to the child is caused by your actions in bringing it into this world. The mother can refuse that responsibility, but only prior to 25 weeks of gestation. The father can only refuse that obligation at or before the time of coitus. After that time, the responsibility must be delegated.

Your side remark about responsibilites being delegatable was the irreelevent point.  IT remains so, as it is still not in contest.  IT's a distraction.  Let it go.

[Rudd-O]

Oh, hi!

(...)

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

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?

Using aggressive violence to obtain anything from anyone (obedience, money, whatever) is not only malevolent but also destructive, especially when the victims are children or adolescents

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.

[Rudd-O]

Conclusion: You suffer from stockholm syndrome, and are currently rationalizing your parents' violent behavior towards you as loving, when in fact it was abusive. Furthermore, you seek other parental figures to tell you what to do, in the form of a state. Should this parental figure disappear, you are afraid you will be unable to act in a peaceable manner toward other human beings. I am truly sorry for your damaged condition. You should seek psychological help.

This is not an argument, Myrkul; this is trolling.  While I don't mind a humorous jab every now and again, this doesn't qualify.  You have literally just attempted to undermine your opposition by accusing him of a psychological condition that would presume to affect his objectivity.  It's an ad hominem.

Do not do this again.

It is my contention that Statism is a form of Stockholm Syndrome, 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. But, since you're the moderator, and have the "big guns," I reluctantly bow to your force majeur.

Consider that line of argument closed.

I agree with Myrkul that MoonShadow is exhibiting the telltale "apologizing on behalf of the aggressor" behavior characteristic of Livestockholm Syndrome.  I'm almost sure that MoonShadow was abused as a child, came to believe that the abuse was "for his own good", and is now repeating the same appalling relationship dynamic with people he has physical power over.

Abuse victims who identify the abuse as abuse rather than a good thing, don't end up abusing others.  The acknowledgement of abuse as such, is the key, well-studied, confirmed, scientifically validated difference between an abuse victim that goes on to abuse others, and an abuse victim that goes on to live a peaceful and happy life.

Oh, one more thing: People with brain damage cannot be persuaded with arguments -- those only work on healthy brains.  Want an effective tactic to deal with abusers?  Just point their damage out and then ostracize them.

[augustocroppo]

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=statism

Definition 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.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93868.0

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.

[Rudd-O]

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=statism

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.

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.

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.

Political issues are really just the evolved manifestation of dysfunctional family issues, of course, in disguise.

[augustocroppo]

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?

[Rudd-O]

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?

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).

[augustocroppo]

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"?

[Rudd-O]

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.

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 :-)

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.

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.

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!  :-)

[augustocroppo]

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 Guimarães, 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.

[myrkul]

<sigh>  I had high hopews for you Myrkul

I claim that any parent has a responsibility to attend to the well being of his/her offsspring due to Jurius Naturalis.  The natural laws.

Then, your child has rights? Believe it or not, we are actually in agreement here. The problem comes in when you attempt to protect those rights by violating them. (This may be a familiar argument.) Why do you disrespect those rights by hitting them, or otherwise abusing the child?

Either path arrives at the same end.  The goal of parenthood is to raise adults, but how civilized they are is secondary to the simple fact that they are adults.

It could be argued (and this is in fact, my argument) that an uncivilized "adult" is not grown up, but merely grown larger.

Therefore, the root goal of parenthood is to increase the odds of the child's survival to adulthood, by any and all methods possible.

Were we simple beasts, I would agree with you. Of course, humanity is not a simple beast, we are a reasoning creature (most of us, anyway). The root goal of parenthood is to raise offspring worthy of having offspring themselves. Given that rape is not an acceptable manner of procreation, a parent is therefor obliged to raise a child that is socially acceptable to the opposite sex.

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.

thus if the goal is to keep the kid away from the traffic in the street, even at the potential cost of the relationship between parent and child, the end of survival literally justifies the means in some cases. 

It truly pains me to see a libertarian utter the phrase "the ends justify the means." You should know as well as I do that the means determine the ends.

The key here is that I don't have to argue the relative effectiveness of corporal punishment as behavior modification compared to other options, I'm simply arguing that a parent has the right to choose that option if all others known have been exausted, and that you don't have the right to interfere with that decision.

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?

[augustocroppo]

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.

[Rudd-O]

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?

[MoonShadow]

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=statism

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.

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.

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.

I'm not interested in another appeal to authority faliacy, no.

And you can have any opinoin you wish, so long as you don't try to impose that opinion upn me and claim it's reason.

[Rudd-O]

I'm not interested in another appeal to authority faliacy, no.

For starters, I wasn't talking to you, so your reply is alien to me.

Moving on.  You've already established that you, MoonShadow, have a particular form of brain damage (product of child abuse in all likelihood) that makes you impervious to reason.  It's no wonder that you'd reinterpret an offer for a book on child abuse as "appeal to authority fallacy" -- you can't stand to think about the topic, and you will do everything in your power to derail it, because you would rather die than admit that you're a child abuser.

And you can have any opinoin you wish, so long as you don't try to impose that opinion upn me and claim it's reason.

Despite your paranoia, no one is doing that here, or planning to do that.  All I personally did is informing you that what you do with your children and what you believe about your activities is wrong and malevolent.  More than that, I cannot do.  The therapy you need isn't in these forums -- it's in the hand of a well-studied professional.

And now, I've had far too much crazy and animosity to digest from you, so you've been added to my ignore list.  Good bye and good riddance.

[augustocroppo]

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.

[Rudd-O]

if was not the parents neither the authorities of the state who taught the children to murder

I'm really sorry, I can't even parse this sentence, so I don't know what is it that you mean to give you a meaningful response.

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?

[augustocroppo]

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?

[MoonShadow]

<sigh>  I had high hopews for you Myrkul

I claim that any parent has a responsibility to attend to the well being of his/her offsspring due to Jurius Naturalis.  The natural laws.

Then, your child has rights? Believe it or not, we are actually in agreement here. The problem comes in when you attempt to protect those rights by violating them. (This may be a familiar argument.) Why do you disrespect those rights by hitting them, or otherwise abusing the child?

If you wish to debate this topic from the perspective of the rights of the child, I'm okay with that, so long as you're willing to refrain from confusing my statements from one perspective with this one, like Rudd-O did so ineffectively before.

But before we run this line down, there is a necessary tangent here.  We must first establish the origins of human rights, just so we are working from the same page.  Do you prefer Jurius Naturalis, or some other proof?

Either path arrives at the same end.  The goal of parenthood is to raise adults, but how civilized they are is secondary to the simple fact that they are adults.

It could be argued (and this is in fact, my argument) that an uncivilized "adult" is not grown up, but merely grown larger.

You could follow that tact, to be sure.  But you do realise I'd just undermine that position by bringing up the very real condition of the mentally incapcitated adult (by genetic retardation, or tramatic accident, does not matter) who still has his rights, but then must have someone else to demand them as well as excercise them on his behalf because his is physically incapable of doing so for himself; and then we will get where we are headed much quicker.  I'm okay withthat as well.

Therefore, the root goal of parenthood is to increase the odds of the child's survival to adulthood, by any and all methods possible.

Were we simple beasts, I would agree with you. Of course, humanity is not a simple beast, we are a reasoning creature (most of us, anyway).

We are both, actually.  I refer you back to the signing ape example I provided before.  But if you don't like that one, what about an alien encounter?  Does a spacefaring alien race not rate rights?  But of course they would.  What about if we were the spacefaring race encountering a sentient race on thier home turf?  They still have rights by reconning, you should tell me if you disagree.  Thus, rights are not rooted in our 'humanity', they are rooted in our capacity to reason those rights out, understand them, express them, demand them, and support them in others.  The pre-age-of-reason child cannot do these thing, yet.  But we assume that he will, so we recognise that he will have rights in the future, and thus he has them now.  But if he needs reson to use his rights, who represents him (and his rights) in the meantime.  By default, that would be his parents.  And just like an adult can choose to be "abused" by joining a fight club or joining the USMC, the child's representative can also choose training that the child might not, at the time, favor himself.  And just like August's example of mild pain training to not waste food, that child ratifies the parents' decisions in adulthood, or he does not, but it's not your place to decide for the child at the time, it's the parents'.

The root goal of parenthood is to raise offspring worthy of having offspring themselves. Given that rape is not an acceptable manner of procreation, a parent is therefor obliged to raise a child that is socially acceptable to the opposite sex.

Not a causeal link.  There is exactly zero emperical evidence (or any other kind) that corporeal punishment (or not) trends either for or against real criminal tendencies.  Now I'm sure that you are giong to try to show that abuse leasds to abuse or violence, but corporeal punishment is not abuse, whihc is the cause of theis thread, so you may not assume the conclusion in the premise, don't try that one.

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?

thus if the goal is to keep the kid away from the traffic in the street, even at the potential cost of the relationship between parent and child, the end of survival literally justifies the means in some cases.

It truly pains me to see a libertarian utter the phrase "the ends justify the means." You should know as well as I do that the means determine the ends.

I do know that, yes.  That statement, albet true, doesn nothing to  alter my point.  Did you intend to counterpoint?

The key here is that I don't have to argue the relative effectiveness of corporal punishment as behavior modification compared to other options, I'm simply arguing that a parent has the right to choose that option if all others known have been exausted, and that you don't have the right to interfere with that decision.

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?

Because I, the parent, am both His representative on Earth, and my child's representative in all matters, unless and until it can be proven that I actually do not have my child's own interests at heart (I.E. I'm actually a sadist, or some such) in front of a jury of my peers or until my child is old enough to demand his rights back.  At no point would you represent my child in any fashion, and if you did any such thing to me in a public place I'd be more than justified to respond to you with deadly force for attempting to remove my child from my custody.  Whether or not I'm spanking my child in public, if you attempt to remove him from my presence and I don't know who you are, I'd shoot you without question or remorse; for (again) there is a such thing as justifiable use of force, and defending my child from starngers is ceratinly one of them.  Do not tell me that you would intervene under such an event, because we both know that would be escalation from an uncomfortable situation to a potientially lethal enounter.  And calling the po-po because you are uncomfortable with how other parents use their rights is no more noble, and I know you know why.

[MoonShadow]

I'm not interested in another appeal to authority faliacy, no.

For starters, I wasn't talking to you, so your reply is alien to me.

It's not relevent who you intended the remark for, it's still an appeal to authority.

Moving on.  You've already established that you, MoonShadow, have a particular form of brain damage (product of child abuse in all likelihood) that makes you impervious to reason.  It's no wonder that you'd reinterpret an offer for a book on child abuse as "appeal to authority fallacy" -- you can't stand to think about the topic, and you will do everything in your power to derail it, because you would rather die than admit that you're a child abuser.

Ad hominem attack.

And you can have any opinoin you wish, so long as you don't try to impose that opinion upn me and claim it's reason.

Despite your paranoia, no one is doing that here, or planning to do that. All I personally did is informing you that what you do with your children and what you believe about your activities is wrong and malevolent.  More than that, I cannot do.  

Informing me of your opinion without support for that position other then the opinions of others

The therapy you need isn't in these forums -- it's in the hand of a well-studied professional.

Repeated ad hominem

And now, I've had far too much crazy and animosity to digest from you, so you've been added to my ignore list.  Good bye and good riddance.

And there it is, the final argument of the unrepentant and uneducated.  Departure.  I declare that by the rules of civil debate, Rudd-o was never actually involved, and probably never intended to be involved, in a rational, intellectual conversation.  All your arguments (if you had presented any) were never presented in good faith, and thus wholely without merit.

Goodbye and good riddance.  I question whether you wil actually be able to stay away, however.  So when you see this response because you can't help yourself, let it be known that I very much would like to know how much this pissed you off.  Of course, since you have already declared myself someone to be ignored, you can't ever permit me the satisfaction of knowing that you read this, so now you will have to stay quiet forever.

Shame.

[Rudd-O]

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?

[Rudd-O]

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.

[MoonShadow]

Shame.

Hi MoonShadow! I just wanted to say, welcome to the Twilight Zone!

I'm sure we might have many differences on various topics, but I suspect that we're both having a "WTF?!" moment right now. Perhaps it's something in the water? I've been spending way too much time in front of the linux box battling dragons, but when people meet IRL, shots tend to get fired a bit wide for some reason. I'm still trying to figure out why.

Not really having that moment because I had it decades ago.  These guys are far from the first to disagree with me on this topic, and I'd be shocked if the were to come up with a new argument.

[myrkul]

We are both, actually.  I refer you back to the signing ape example I provided before.  But if you don't like that one, what about an alien encounter?  Does a spacefaring alien race not rate rights?  But of course they would.  What about if we were the spacefaring race encountering a sentient race on thier home turf?  They still have rights by reconning, you should tell me if you disagree.  Thus, rights are not rooted in our 'humanity', they are rooted in our capacity to reason those rights out, understand them, express them, demand them, and support them in others.  The pre-age-of-reason child cannot do these thing, yet.  But we assume that he will, so we recognise that he will have rights in the future, and thus he has them now.  But if he needs reson to use his rights, who represents him (and his rights) in the meantime.  By default, that would be his parents.  And just like an adult can choose to be "abused" by joining a fight club or joining the USMC, the child's representative can also choose training that the child might not, at the time, favor himself.  And just like August's example of mild pain training to not waste food, that child ratifies the parents' decisions in adulthood, or he does not, but it's not your place to decide for the child at the time, it's the parents'.

I think this paragraph gets to the heart of the matter rather well... You are the child's representative. Your obligation is to protect him from harm, until such time as he claims his rights. You choose for him a method of behavioral modification that, he would perhaps not choose for himself at the time. Does that sum up your position well?

Before I respond to it, I have some questions, to clarify:
How will you know when he is capable of claiming his rights?
How will he do so?
When he does so, will you then allow him to make those decisions you were previously making?

Now I'm sure that you are giong to try to show that abuse leasds to abuse or violence, but corporeal punishment is not abuse, whihc is the cause of theis thread, so you may not assume the conclusion in the premise, don't try that one.

Your claim certainly is that corporal punishment is not abuse. My claim is that it is. Perhaps we should explore that in more detail?

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.

thus if the goal is to keep the kid away from the traffic in the street, even at the potential cost of the relationship between parent and child, the end of survival literally justifies the means in some cases.

It truly pains me to see a libertarian utter the phrase "the ends justify the means." You should know as well as I do that the means determine the ends.

I do know that, yes.  That statement, albet true, does nothing to  alter my point.  Did you intend to counterpoint?

If you know that, Why do you use violent means? Violent means results in violent ends - ie, another person who sees violence as a valid way to get what they want.

The key here is that I don't have to argue the relative effectiveness of corporal punishment as behavior modification compared to other options, I'm simply arguing that a parent has the right to choose that option if all others known have been exausted, and that you don't have the right to interfere with that decision.

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?

Because I, the parent, am both His representative on Earth, and my child's representative in all matters, unless and until it can be proven that I actually do not have my child's own interests at heart (I.E. I'm actually a sadist, or some such) in front of a jury of my peers or until my child is old enough to demand his rights back.  At no point would you represent my child in any fashion, and if you did any such thing to me in a public place I'd be more than justified to respond to you with deadly force for attempting to remove my child from my custody.  Whether or not I'm spanking my child in public, if you attempt to remove him from my presence and I don't know who you are, I'd shoot you without question or remorse; for (again) there is a such thing as justifiable use of force, and defending my child from starngers is ceratinly one of them.  Do not tell me that you would intervene under such an event, because we both know that would be escalation from an uncomfortable situation to a potientially lethal enounter.  And calling the po-po because you are uncomfortable with how other parents use their rights is no more noble, and I know you know why.

Oh, I have no intention of attempting to kidnap your child, nor of calling the police (or in an AnCap society, a defense agency) on you. But I am for damn sure going to step in and stop you from beating your child in front of me. We would likely have something of this very conversation, right there in the street.

[augustocroppo]

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?

[MoonShadow]

I think this paragraph gets to the heart of the matter rather well... You are the child's representative. Your obligation is to protect him from harm, until such time as he claims his rights. You choose for him a method of behavioral modification that, he would perhaps not choose for himself at the time. Does that sum up your position well?

That is the position that I'm arguing under the 'rights of the child' perspective.  Again, I can argue this from many directions, but doing so at the same time is confusing to certain minds.

Before I respond to it, I have some questions, to clarify:
How will you know when he is capable of claiming his rights?

When he is capable of expressing that he knows that he has them.  The same way that I know you have rights, because you know that you have them.  If you don't know that you have them, you don't have any.

How will he do so?

By opening is mouth and forming coherent sentences, demonstrating that he is capable of reasoned thought.  It's a progression, though, so it's not so simple as him memorizing what I have to say and repeating same.

When he does so, will you then allow him to make those decisions you were previously making?

Some of them, yes.  Again, it's a progression, and doesn't happen suddenly.  The age of reason isn't a particular age or easily defined event, but once it's past it is easy enough to recognize; like art.  Still, most children are well past it by a certain age, and we can assume that once a child is old enough for high school they are past that point unless particular circumstances imply otherwise.

I do know where you're trying to lead with this, and it's still not relevent to the question unless you're going to attempt to prove that every two year old is already past this point and I simply cannot see it.

Now I'm sure that you are giong to try to show that abuse leasds to abuse or violence, but corporeal punishment is not abuse, whihc is the cause of theis thread, so you may not assume the conclusion in the premise, don't try that one.

Your claim certainly is that corporal punishment is not abuse. My claim is that it is. Perhaps we should explore that in more detail?

Ceratinly, but we have yet to establish a baseline on the topic first.  I intend to prove, via reason, that a parent does have teh right to consider corporal punishment in order to achieve his/her goal of parenthood. I also intend to show that your personal opinion on my parental choices are not relevant.  Once we're done there, I would be willing to debate the finer points about the blurry line between harsh corporal punishment and abuse, but not until I'm done proving that not any use of force against my children is criminal any more than any use of force against a tresspasser is not criminal.

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.

thus if the goal is to keep the kid away from the traffic in the street, even at the potential cost of the relationship between parent and child, the end of survival literally justifies the means in some cases.

It truly pains me to see a libertarian utter the phrase "the ends justify the means." You should know as well as I do that the means determine the ends.

I do know that, yes.  That statement, albet true, does nothing to  alter my point.  Did you intend to counterpoint?

If you know that, Why do you use violent means? Violent means results in violent ends - ie, another person who sees violence as a valid way to get what they want.

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.

The key here is that I don't have to argue the relative effectiveness of corporal punishment as behavior modification compared to other options, I'm simply arguing that a parent has the right to choose that option if all others known have been exausted, and that you don't have the right to interfere with that decision.

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?

But I am for damn sure going to step in and stop you from beating your child in front of me. We would likely have something of this very conversation, right there in the street.

  Practially speaking, we could not have this debate at that time on the street, because one or both of us would be dead or dying.

[Rudd-O]

- 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.

[augustocroppo]

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.

[myrkul]

I think this paragraph gets to the heart of the matter rather well... You are the child's representative. Your obligation is to protect him from harm, until such time as he claims his rights. You choose for him a method of behavioral modification that, he would perhaps not choose for himself at the time. Does that sum up your position well?

That is the position that I'm arguing under the 'rights of the child' perspective.  Again, I can argue this from many directions, but doing so at the same time is confusing to certain minds.

Indeed, doublethink is something few minds can handle. That yours is one of those is ceasing to be a surprise.

Before I respond to it, I have some questions, to clarify:
How will you know when he is capable of claiming his rights?

When he is capable of expressing that he knows that he has them.  The same way that I know you have rights, because you know that you have them.  If you don't know that you have them, you don't have any.

I see. And what would you consider an expresion of the knowledge and desire to have those rights respected? Would "No, daddy, don't spank me!" count, or would he have to include "Hitting is wrong!"?

How will he do so?

By opening his mouth and forming coherent sentences, demonstrating that he is capable of reasoned thought.  It's a progression, though, so it's not so simple as him memorizing what I have to say and repeating same.

Well, clearly.

When he does so, will you then allow him to make those decisions you were previously making?

Some of them, yes.  Again, it's a progression, and doesn't happen suddenly.  The age of reason isn't a particular age or easily defined event, but once it's past it is easy enough to recognize; like art.  Still, most children are well past it by a certain age, and we can assume that once a child is old enough for high school they are past that point unless particular circumstances imply otherwise.

I do know where you're trying to lead with this, and it's still not relevent to the question unless you're going to attempt to prove that every two year old is already past this point and I simply cannot see it.

Well, as you say, it's a progression. Certainly, before the child is in highschool, you let him dress himself, yes? 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.

Now I'm sure that you are giong to try to show that abuse leasds to abuse or violence, but corporeal punishment is not abuse, whihc is the cause of theis thread, so you may not assume the conclusion in the premise, don't try that one.

Your claim certainly is that corporal punishment is not abuse. My claim is that it is. Perhaps we should explore that in more detail?

Certainly, but we have yet to establish a baseline on the topic first.  I intend to prove, via reason, that a parent does have the right to consider corporal punishment in order to achieve his/her goal of parenthood. I also intend to show that your personal opinion on my parental choices are not relevant.  Once we're done there, I would be willing to debate the finer points about the blurry line between harsh corporal punishment and abuse, but not until I'm done proving that not any use of force against my children is criminal any more than any use of force against a tresspasser is not criminal.

It's not a blurry line at all. Hitting your kid is abuse. End of story. Unless you are going to claim that the child has somehow committed an act of aggression by disobeying you?

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.

thus if the goal is to keep the kid away from the traffic in the street, even at the potential cost of the relationship between parent and child, the end of survival literally justifies the means in some cases.

It truly pains me to see a libertarian utter the phrase "the ends justify the means." You should know as well as I do that the means determine the ends.

I do know that, yes.  That statement, albet true, does nothing to  alter my point.  Did you intend to counterpoint?

If you know that, Why do you use violent means? Violent means results in violent ends - ie, another person who sees violence as a valid way to get what they want.

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.

But I am for damn sure going to step in and stop you from beating your child in front of me. We would likely have something of this very conversation, right there in the street.

  Practially speaking, we could not have this debate at that time on the street, because one or both of us would be dead or dying.

Lovely. First the slave comment, and now you've stated that you will defend your "right" to abuse your child with deadly force. You're really starting to disgust me.

[TheButterZone]

<sigh>  I had high hopews for you Myrkul

I claim that any parent has a responsibility to attend to the well being of his/her offsspring due to Jurius Naturalis.  The natural laws.

Then, your child has rights? Believe it or not, we are actually in agreement here. The problem comes in when you attempt to protect those rights by violating them. (This may be a familiar argument.) Why do you disrespect those rights by hitting them, or otherwise abusing the child?

"They who can take away essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve no power to govern liberty or safety."
-Benny Frankel

But I am for damn sure going to step in and stop you from beating your child in front of me. We would likely have something of this very conversation, right there in the street.

  Practially speaking, we could not have this debate at that time on the street, because one or both of us would be dead or dying.

Lovely. First the slave comment, and now you've stated that you will defend your "right" to abuse your child with deadly force. You're really starting to disgust me.

This sounds a lot like the "if guns weren't banned, all road rage incidents would end in fatalities!" Criminals' Union meme. As if people converse with only gunshots to the head.

[Rudd-O]

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".

[Rudd-O]

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.

[augustocroppo]

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 Guimarães, 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?

[Rudd-O]

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?

[augustocroppo]

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."

[augustocroppo]

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?

[myrkul]

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.

[augustocroppo]

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?

[myrkul]

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 don't understand the drive of your question, given that the original statement was:

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).

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?

[MoonShadow]

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.

I thought your concession was more than a little creepy as well, but I didn't desire to drag it out longer than necessary since it was still a concession.  Great going, there.

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.  

But I am for damn sure going to step in and stop you from beating your child in front of me. We would likely have something of this very conversation, right there in the street.

 Practially speaking, we could not have this debate at that time on the street, because one or both of us would be dead or dying.

Lovely. First the slave comment, and now you've stated that you will defend your "right" to abuse your child with deadly force. You're really starting to disgust me.

The slave comment was your's, and I do have the right to defend my child with deadly force whether or not you perceive my actions as abuse or not.  Your perspectives could justify your actions against me, but my perspectives would also justify my actions against you.  If you are honestly starting to feel disgust, that's progress, because that's projection.

[augustocroppo]

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.

[TheButterZone]

The slave comment was your's, and I do have the right to defend my child with deadly force whether or not you perceive my actions as abuse or not.

Except that myrkul said "We would likely have something of this very conversation". So you would NOT be defending your child with deadly force, you would be responding to myrkul's mere vocalizations towards you with lead traveling at high velocity at his vital organs. That is a disproportionate response. How the frack can you justify killing a man for merely speaking to you? Jeezus...

[Rudd-O]

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.

[myrkul]

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. 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. However, if I then turned you over my knee and proceeded to spank you for wandering into traffic, I feel fairly confident you would object, no matter how strenuously I stated that it was "for your own good."

You say you are "proactive" in your use of force. What do you mean by that? Is it as opposed to "reactive"? If so, then yes, you are indeed initiating force, not to prevent harm, but merely to "teach a lesson." The only justified use of force is to prevent (or prevent further) harm. The other component of justified force is it's proportionality. If you use "force" to restrain a child from going into the street - or to remove them from it - then that is the amount of force needed to prevent harm. Continuing the use of force - by beating the child - is no more justified than shooting a pickpocket dead.

The slave comment was your's, and I do have the right to defend my child with deadly force whether or not you perceive my actions as abuse or not.  Your perspectives could justify your actions against me, but my perspectives would also justify my actions against you.  If you are honestly starting to feel disgust, that's progress, because that's projection.

Uh huh. Sure. "Hey, stop hitting your kid!" *BANG* Yup, that's "defending your child." I am disgusted not because you would shoot me to prevent my kidnapping your child, but because you would shoot me in order that you may continue to beat your child. I'm sure a rapist feels perfectly justified in shooting a would-be rescuer of his rape victim, but that doesn't make it so.

[Rudd-O]

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.

[Rudd-O]

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).

[TheButterZone]

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

[augustocroppo]

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.

[MoonShadow]

The slave comment was your's, and I do have the right to defend my child with deadly force whether or not you perceive my actions as abuse or not.

Except that myrkul said "We would likely have something of this very conversation". So you would NOT be defending your child with deadly force, you would be responding to myrkul's mere vocalizations towards you with lead traveling at high velocity at his vital organs. That is a disproportionate response. How the frack can you justify killing a man for merely speaking to you? Jeezus...

Because his intervention doesn't imply a polite conversation, but him grabbing my child in public.  That makes him the aggressor, from my perspectives.  Hence, my potential response.  He knows why and so do you, this bs argument is a distraction.

[MoonShadow]

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.  This is exactly the same as the classic story of the professor asking a female student if she'd sleep with him for $1 million, then half a milllion, then $200K, and when she says, "what kind of girl do you think that I am?!"  "Miss, we have already established that, now we are just haggling on a price."

We have already established that you are willing to accept the initiation of some degree of force against your own child, in the interests of protecting her from harm.  Now we are just haggling just how much force you would consider justifiable before we cross your threshhold of acceptability.  And that is the point; your's is not only different than mine, it's different than everyone else's as well.  There are certainly people in this world that could justify to themselves that forcing their children to go outside and choose their own switch is acceptable, while I would not; the difference between us is that I recognize that I'm not the one who gets to decide for them, no matter how uncomfortable I might be with it.

[myrkul]

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. Furthermore, even if grabbing the child is violence (and it's not), recall that there are three types of violence: initiatory, defensive, and retributive. Only defensive violence is justified. Initiatory is clearly wrong, and retributive is simply vengeance.

Are you really saying that vengeance against your child for disobeying you is acceptable?

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. The child is endangering herself. That justifies a limited amount of defensive force - just enough to rescue her from harm. As I said before, continuing after that point is simply retribution. The rule of thumb is that if you can justifiably do something to an adult in the same situation, you can - probably - justifiably do it to a child.

Are you really saying that vengeance against your child for endangering herself is acceptable?

Face it, man. You're fighting a losing battle, here, and you know it. Now, admit defeat, and go apologize to your kids.

[cunicula]

admit defeat, and go apologize to your kids.

It is more likely that he will smack them around because he feels defeated.
When the home football team loses, wives and kids get beaten http://www.nber.org/papers/w15497.

[augustocroppo]

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=initiate

Definition of initiate
verb

1 cause (a process or action) to begin

[myrkul]

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.

[augustocroppo]

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."

[myrkul]

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?

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."

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.

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.

[augustocroppo]

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=start

Definition 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.

[myrkul]

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.

See, this is what I'm talking about. A native speaker would understand the difference between those two phrases.

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?

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. 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. MoonShadow suggests that I should then use retributive force (punishment) so as to make sure he is conditioned to pay more attention, but I consider that to be abuse. I would also at the very least offer some assistance up, and if I have damaged him or his property, restitution for that. But that's just me. Many would be content to have saved his life.

[augustocroppo]

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=violence

Definition 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=force

Physics: 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=defensive

Definition 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".

[myrkul]

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:

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.

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

I'm not the one blurring anything.  Force is required.  The only
difference between you grabbing your child's hand and the cop grabbing
your hand is intent. I find it depressing to see you continue to deny that
which you already know.

You know the libertarian usage of the word. Violence.

Nonsense, violence is simply the qualifier.  An escalation of the force
used, along a continueum.  Again it's the degree of force that you
are arguing is criminal; not it's employment.

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. Furthermore, even if grabbing the child
is violence (and it's not), recall that there are three types of
violence: initiatory, defensive, and retributive. Only defensive
violence is justified. Initiatory is clearly wrong, and retributive is
simply vengeance.

You initiated the force you used when you grabbed her hand.  You can not
claim defensive use of force against your child, because your child was
not threatening yourself, nor did you use force against the traffic that
threatened your daughter.  You might be able to claim defensive use
of force on the idea that your daughter was threatening herself, but then
so can I, so that point is moot.

Are you really saying that vengeance against your child for disobeying you
is acceptable?

Of course not. Are you saying that the cop's use of a taser against you
for 'resisting' is acceptable?  You still don't seem to understand that we
are not really arguing whether or not the use of force is justifyable, but
simply how much force is prudent.  Therefore every strawman argument you
present applies to your position as well.  That's cognative dissonance.

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. The
child is endangering herself. That justifies a limited amount of
defensive force - just enough to rescue her from harm. As I said
before, continuing after that point is simply retribution. The rule of
thumb is that if you can justifiably do something to an adult in the same
situation, you can - probably - justifiably do it to a child.

There it is, your intellectual admission that "limited" force is justifiable.  The distinction between our perspectives is just a question of intent.  You claim that attempting to condition my child to associate negative events to running into traffic must be retribution due to the delayed timing involved.  This is not a rational mindset.  You certaily know that you cannot, as a third party observer, determine my motives via one encounter.  You're projecting, and that is what is upsetting you.  You are afraid that, if you agreed with me and ever decided to utilise corporel punishment that you might take it too far.

[MoonShadow]

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:

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.

I though he was doing quite well, myself, considering English is a second language for him.  His understanding of the term "inititation" is apparently better tuned than your own.

[myrkul]

There it is, your intellectual admission that "limited" force is justifiable.  The distinction between our perspectives is just a question of intent.  You claim that attempting to condition my child to associate negative events to running into traffic must be retribution due to the delayed timing involved. 

Tsk, tsk... I expected better of you, MoonShadow. Corporal punishment (hell, punishment itself) is retributive. It's even in the definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment

Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment

Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person, animal, organization or entity in response to behavior deemed unacceptable by an individual, group or other entity.

Surely you're not going to claim it's in defense?

[MoonShadow]

There it is, your intellectual admission that "limited" force is justifiable.  The distinction between our perspectives is just a question of intent.  You claim that attempting to condition my child to associate negative events to running into traffic must be retribution due to the delayed timing involved. 

Tsk, tsk... I expected better of you, MoonShadow. Corporal punishment (hell, punishment itself) is retributive. It's even in the definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment

Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment

Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person, animal, organization or entity in response to behavior deemed unacceptable by an individual, group or other entity.

Surely you're not going to claim it's in defense?

Now who is cherry picking definitions to suit their argument?  Very well, I have used the term "corporal punishment" when I should have stuck with "behavior conditioning".  I used the term only because that is the common term, but I should have expected that, once cornered, you would use that poor use of precision against me.  I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

And yes, it's in defense.  Defense against my own child's hazardous behavior in the future.  It's planning in the same way you plan to defend yourself by buying a weapon, it's concious pre-planning.

[myrkul]

I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

Like whipping the slave? That's "behavior modification," is it not? So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use? Electroshock therapy? Forcing noxious substances into the child's mouth? Perhaps you're more into the psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?

And yes, it's in defense.  Defense against my own child's hazardous behavior in the future.  It's planning in the same way you plan to defend yourself by buying a weapon, it's concious pre-planning.

Tsk, tsk... You know as well as I do you can't defend against a future action. You can plan, but you certainly can't shoot someone because they might try to kill you in the future. You're beating your child because she might act in the future? Yeah, that's initiating violence.

[augustocroppo]

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:

A bus is not a living entity with will of violence. Violence requires intention to harm:

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

Definition 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.

[myrkul]

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...

No, not another ad hominem. I don't claim that you're incapable of making an argument, just that English is not the language you should be using. Since I don't savvy Portuguese, I'm afraid we're at an impasse, and can no longer communicate. My apologies.

[MoonShadow]

I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

Like whipping the slave? That's "behavior modification," is it not? So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use? Electroshock therapy? Forcing noxious substances into the child's mouth? Perhaps you're more into the psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?

And yes, it's in defense.  Defense against my own child's hazardous behavior in the future.  It's planning in the same way you plan to defend yourself by buying a weapon, it's concious pre-planning.

Tsk, tsk... You know as well as I do you can't defend against a future action. You can plan, but you certainly can't shoot someone because they might try to kill you in the future. You're beating your child because she might act in the future? Yeah, that's initiating violence.

Myrkul, you should really take some time and examine yourself and your logic.  As well as your goals in this conversation.  Do you really desire to argue the semantics of my use of the term "defense"?  Is that conducive to your true goals?  I suspect that it is, but that your true goal is not to convince me of the error of my ways, but to convince yourself of the veracity of your position.

I'm not upset, and never have been while we are on this topic.  If you are getting upset by some words written by some guy on the Interent you have never met, perhaps you should examine why this makes yo so emotional.

[myrkul]

I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

Like whipping the slave? That's "behavior modification," is it not? So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use? Electroshock therapy? Forcing noxious substances into the child's mouth? Perhaps you're more into the psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?

And yes, it's in defense.  Defense against my own child's hazardous behavior in the future.  It's planning in the same way you plan to defend yourself by buying a weapon, it's concious pre-planning.

Tsk, tsk... You know as well as I do you can't defend against a future action. You can plan, but you certainly can't shoot someone because they might try to kill you in the future. You're beating your child because she might act in the future? Yeah, that's initiating violence.

Myrkul, you should really take some time and examine yourself and your logic.  As well as your goals in this conversation.  Do you really desire to argue the semantics of my use of the term "defense"?  Is that conducive to your true goals?  I suspect that it is, but that your true goal is not to convince me of the error of my ways, but to convince yourself of the veracity of your position.

I'm not upset, and never have been while we are on this topic.  If you are getting upset by some words written by some guy on the Interent you have never met, perhaps you should examine why this makes yo so emotional.

I'm not upset. Perhaps that's you, projecting. Now, care to answer the questions I posed?

[MoonShadow]

I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

Like whipping the slave? That's "behavior modification," is it not? So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use? Electroshock therapy? Forcing noxious substances into the child's mouth? Perhaps you're more into the psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?

And yes, it's in defense.  Defense against my own child's hazardous behavior in the future.  It's planning in the same way you plan to defend yourself by buying a weapon, it's concious pre-planning.

Tsk, tsk... You know as well as I do you can't defend against a future action. You can plan, but you certainly can't shoot someone because they might try to kill you in the future. You're beating your child because she might act in the future? Yeah, that's initiating violence.

Myrkul, you should really take some time and examine yourself and your logic.  As well as your goals in this conversation.  Do you really desire to argue the semantics of my use of the term "defense"?  Is that conducive to your true goals?  I suspect that it is, but that your true goal is not to convince me of the error of my ways, but to convince yourself of the veracity of your position.

I'm not upset, and never have been while we are on this topic.  If you are getting upset by some words written by some guy on the Interent you have never met, perhaps you should examine why this makes yo so emotional.

I'm not upset. Perhaps that's you, projecting. Now, care to answer the questions I posed?

I would if you tried to restate them independently and coherently.  As they are up above they are confused and comingled.  Which is why I suspect that you're upset, that's a common effect on prose.

[myrkul]

I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

Like whipping the slave? That's "behavior modification," is it not? So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use? Electroshock therapy? Forcing noxious substances into the child's mouth? Perhaps you're more into the psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?

And yes, it's in defense.  Defense against my own child's hazardous behavior in the future.  It's planning in the same way you plan to defend yourself by buying a weapon, it's concious pre-planning.

Tsk, tsk... You know as well as I do you can't defend against a future action. You can plan, but you certainly can't shoot someone because they might try to kill you in the future. You're beating your child because she might act in the future? Yeah, that's initiating violence.

Myrkul, you should really take some time and examine yourself and your logic.  As well as your goals in this conversation.  Do you really desire to argue the semantics of my use of the term "defense"?  Is that conducive to your true goals?  I suspect that it is, but that your true goal is not to convince me of the error of my ways, but to convince yourself of the veracity of your position.

I'm not upset, and never have been while we are on this topic.  If you are getting upset by some words written by some guy on the Interent you have never met, perhaps you should examine why this makes yo so emotional.

I'm not upset. Perhaps that's you, projecting. Now, care to answer the questions I posed?

I would if you tried to restate them independently and coherently.  As they are up above they are confused and comingled.  Which is why I suspect that you're upset, that's a common effect on prose.

So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use?
Do you force noxious substances into the child's mouth?
Do you prefer psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?
Are you beating your child because she might act in the future?

Is that better, or were you just setting up to exit the conversation, like you accused me of earlier?

[augustocroppo]

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...

No, not another ad hominem. I don't claim that you're incapable of making an argument, just that English is not the language you should be using. Since I don't savvy Portuguese, I'm afraid we're at an impasse, and can no longer communicate. My apologies.

You pretend that your are not claiming that I am "incapable of making an argument", but soon after the comma you claimed that "English is not the language" that I "should be using".

A rare case of an ad hominem justified by another ad hominem!

Double ad hominem: "Your argument that my 'Come back when you understand English' statement is an ad hominem is invalid because you should not be using English language."

[TheButterZone]

This thread has become punishing to read.

[MoonShadow]

So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use?
Do you force noxious substances into the child's mouth?

I have yes, but not in the manner proscribed by that link.  I've put vinegar onto my elder son's fingertips while he is asleep, to discourge him from bitting his nails.  Nothing that would cause pain, like hot sauce, just taste bad.

Do you prefer psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?

A timeout is always preferable to a spanking.  Again, pain as behavior conditioning should be the last resort for any behavior problem.  I've never had a child spend more than 10 minutes standing in a corner or more than 20 in a time out chair; and only that long because I got distracted while making lunch.  My rule of thumb is two minutes corner time per year of age, per infraction.  This gives them time to think about why it is that s/he is in trouble, and always ends with a quiz of why the child believes they are in timeout.  Unlike my own parents, I'm hyper-vigilant about leaving them in time-out for long periods, and I never go to bed, myself, without checking that each of my children is in bed and comfortable, so it would be practially impossible to do to my kids what my mother did to me.  I'd never be upset that my kid left time out if I forgot them anyway.  I'd feel really guilty about that.

Are you beating your child because she might act in the future?

If I use pain reinforcment for behavior modification, it's only after repeated events that strongly imply that my child in inclined towards that particular behavior, and other corrective measure have proven ineffective.  Children as at least as likely to gravitate towards self-destructive behaviors as adults are.  Even though you have girls, you are going to encounter this yourself.  Be strong, young man; for you will be put to the test.

Is that better, or were you just setting up to exit the conversation, like you accused me of earlier?

I'm fine.  My accusation was correct, I stated it so that you would re-examine your core motives and convict yourself.  I'm fairly sure that I was successful.  The meme has been planted, it will take time to grow.

[myrkul]

If I use pain reinforcment for behavior modification, it's only after repeated events that strongly imply that my child in inclined towards that particular behavior, and other corrective measure have proven ineffective.

To paraphrase, we've already established that you're an abuser. That you wait until you run out of patience is just haggling over the price.

You strike a child as a preemptive measure to prevent future actions. That's initiating violence.
You subject your children to psychological torture as retribution for their actions. The same methods used by your parents. You're a very conscientious abuser, since you make sure to limit the time spent in a corner. That a judge hands out light sentences does not make his caging people right.
That you have a discussion after the baby jail shows that you understand that they can be reasoned with. Yet you hit them and apply... what was the phrase you used for torture? Oh yes... "judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain." I'm sure they're grateful that you only hurt them a little.

If you want to raise animals, treat your children like animals. If you wish to raise adults, treat your children like adults.

[augustocroppo]

So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use?
Do you force noxious substances into the child's mouth?

I have yes, but not in the manner proscribed by that link.  I've put vinegar onto my elder son's fingertips while he is asleep, to discourge him from bitting his nails.  Nothing that would cause pain, like hot sauce, just taste bad.

What a brilliant idea!

This is indeed a very good method to educate the involuntary responses of children. Something similar could be used to educate a child to not insert the fingers in his/her nose, which can provoke a minor affliction in the mucous membrane.

[MoonShadow]

If I use pain reinforcment for behavior modification, it's only after repeated events that strongly imply that my child in inclined towards that particular behavior, and other corrective measure have proven ineffective.

To paraphrase, we've already established that you're an abuser. That you wait until you run out of patience is just haggling over the price.

You strike a child as a preemptive measure to prevent future actions. That's initiating violence.
You subject your children to psychological torture as retribution for their actions. The same methods used by your parents. You're a very conscientious abuser, since you make sure to limit the time spent in a corner. That a judge hands out light sentences does not make his caging people right.

Distorting my words in order to fit your preconception of what I do doesn't alter the reality.

That you have a discussion after the baby jail shows that you understand that they can be reasoned with. Yet you hit them and apply... what was the phrase you used for torture? Oh yes... "judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain." I'm sure they're grateful that you only hurt them a little.

I'm fairly certain that last statement is correct, but irrelvent.

If you want to raise animals, treat your children like animals. If you wish to raise adults, treat your children like adults.

Best of luck with that theory.  I give you about even odds that your dauthers will hate you and your wife for reasons that you will never comprehend.

[augustocroppo]

If you want to raise animals, treat your children like animals. If you wish to raise adults, treat your children like adults.

You did not learned anything from this debate, did you?

His children are animals, rational animals.

Moreover, have you even heard of that phrase: "never give to the child the job of an adult"?

By the way, you are implying that irrational animals deserves punishment to be educated...

Oh dear... Myrkul cannot formulate his arguments in a coherent fashion without to misinterpret the meanings of well established words and concepts.

 

[myrkul]

If I use pain reinforcment for behavior modification, it's only after repeated events that strongly imply that my child in inclined towards that particular behavior, and other corrective measure have proven ineffective.

To paraphrase, we've already established that you're an abuser. That you wait until you run out of patience is just haggling over the price.

You strike a child as a preemptive measure to prevent future actions. That's initiating violence.
You subject your children to psychological torture as retribution for their actions. The same methods used by your parents. You're a very conscientious abuser, since you make sure to limit the time spent in a corner. That a judge hands out light sentences does not make his caging people right.

Distorting my words in order to fit your preconception of what I do doesn't alter the reality.

Nor does distorting your perception of your actions. Reality is Reality. And striking someone for something they might do is initiating violence. You yourself called being sat in the corner psychological torture:

I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.

You were abused, and you abuse. It's OK, I understand. As soon as you admit your problem, you can work on fixing it.

[augustocroppo]

Best of luck with that theory.  I give you about even odds that your dauthers will hate you and your wife for reasons that you will never comprehend.

I have already lived with my three females cousins while they were teenagers. I consider my aunt a champion of persistent reasoning! She was able to raise my cousins without the support of my uncle (they are divorced). Myrkul is about to discover how much difficult is to deal with biological bodies producing high doses of hormones at every second!

Myrkul, prepare your voice and strength your larynx. You are going to need very much in few years ahead!

[Rudd-O]

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.

[justusranvier]

Fortunately the awareness of how ethics should be applied to children is spreading in spite of the holdouts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5buheknXwM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEmoSzuYpZs

The reason I don't waste much time arguing about this stuff is because the truth is winning. It can't be stopped any more - twenty years from now spanking children will be considered as shameful as being a member of the KKK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZau_ZlyoYU

[Rudd-O]

Fortunately the awareness of how ethics should be applied to children is spreading in spite of the holdouts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5buheknXwM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEmoSzuYpZs

The reason I don't waste much time arguing about this stuff is because the truth is winning. It can't be stopped any more - twenty years from now spanking children will be considered as shameful as being a member of the KKK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZau_ZlyoYU

Amen brother.

[myrkul]

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I found a web copy of that book, The Origins of War in Child Abuse, and am currently converting it to ePub. I'll host it and post the link here.

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.

[justusranvier]

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.htm

[myrkul]

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.htm

Nice. I guess I'll be converting another book to ePub. And this one even has a decent cover.

[Rudd-O]

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.htm

Nice. 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.

[myrkul]

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.htm

Nice. 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 refuse to read a book on the web. Since I have a Kindle, and Calibre, I prefer to keep my ebooks in ePub format and convert them for my Kindle. So, most of this work is done for myself. The only real "service" is to toss it onto DropBox and post a link here, which I'm glad to do. Knowledge, especially this sort, deserves to be free (both in terms of beer, and speech).

[MoonShadow]

Fortunately the awareness of how ethics should be applied to children is spreading in spite of the holdouts.

The reason I don't waste much time arguing about this stuff is because the truth is winning. It can't be stopped any more - twenty years from now spanking children will be considered as shameful as being a member of the KKK.

Interesting prediction.  I doubt it, really.  Again, my own parents were adherents to the no-spanking theories; but reality intervened enough that they ended up compromising the spirit of the idea, although not the letter.   I would be quite surprised to discover that I was comparable to a KKK in another 20 years, for no other fact than one of the greatest proponets of no-contact parenting was Dr. Spock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Spock) whose first book on parenting was published in 1946.  Dr. Spock didn't, at first, openly challenge the use of corporal punishment; although all of his books were certainly in that vein.  However, Dr. Spock's views on corporal punishment had no relation to the liberty arguments presented herein, because he openly admitted that he was a pacifist and a liberal, and his views on how society at large operated colored his views on this matter. (http://nospank.net/spock2.htm)  Said another way, his views on corporal punishment were not ideological, but pragmatic; and to some degree he certainly had many points.  However, his concerns about how corporal punishment affected the child long term doesn't seem to hold water, and some studies done on the matter since imply that, at worst, being spanked as children had no effect at all whether the grown child had social or psycological issue, or whether or not s/he was successful or criminal.  Some studies show quite the opposite on a lot of those metrics, such as success and general happiness as an adult. (http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669) 

I'm inclined to wager that it's as likely that such absolutist parental theories are going to die out around the same time as the idea that global warming is predominately caused by human activities, and for the same reasons.  The scientific 'consensus' can ignore it's own detractors from within it's own ranks for decades, but eventually the truth of the matter prevails.

[Rudd-O]

I refuse to read a book on the web. Since I have a Kindle, and Calibre, I prefer to keep my ebooks in ePub format and convert them for my Kindle. So, most of this work is done for myself. The only real "service" is to toss it onto DropBox and post a link here, which I'm glad to do. Knowledge, especially this sort, deserves to be free (both in terms of beer, and speech).

Cool!  I do the PDF thing in my Kindle and in my Android phone.  I agree, knowledge deserves to be free (not as in "free" healthcare, but as in freedom)... especially knowledge that helps the human species advance and progress morally.

[cunicula]

Dr. Spock didn't, at first, openly challenge the use of corporal punishment; although all of his books were certainly in that vein.  However, Dr. Spock's views on corporal punishment had no relation to the liberty arguments presented herein, because he openly admitted that he was a pacifist and a liberal, and his views on how society at large operated colored his views on this matter.

Liberal = Considerate towards children.
Libertarian = Child Abuser.

Is that the association I'm supposed to make? Sounds about right.

The LOL thing is you are using this association to justify your support for abuse.

[augustocroppo]

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.

Rudd-O is an user unable to construct logical arguments. He/she intentionally distort the meaning of words and concepts and he/she is a self-declared willful ignorant. Rudd-O is certainly not skilled to determine which definition the user Moonshadow is assuming for the word violence. Rudd-O, like a typical arselicker, agrees with the fallacious arguments of Myrkul without to recognize his/her own clueless assumptions.

From Rudd-O Internet page:

http://rudd-o.com/archives/spanking-your-child-isnt-the-same-as-beating-him-up.-its-far-worse

Starting from the most fundamental basics: "spanking" (a term used to describe a certain particular form of initiation of violence) is an initiation of violence, and therefore it is an obvious and open violation of the NAP.

There is no difference whatsoever, not morally and not even legally either, between "spanking" and battery. If you hit another person -- whether adult or child, with an open hand or a closed fist -- it is the same action regardless of how you do it or who your victim is, because you initiated the violence. (...)

Spanking and battery means:

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

noun
an act of slapping, especially on the buttocks as a punishment for children:
you deserve a good spanking like any spoiled child

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

5 [mass noun] Law: the infliction of unlawful personal violence on another person, even where the contact does no physical harm

In accordance with the above quotes, battery differs from spanking because:

1. It is a term generally used in Law.

2. Do not regard physical harm as the only reference to determine the infliction of violence.

Therefore, Rudd-0's fundamental basics are wrong.

(...) Calling it a different word doesn't change the observable reality of the action.

This is ironic! Rudd-O contradicting his/her future arguments.

In addition to that, "spanking" is also extremely cowardly. Unlike initiating violence against a six-foot-four person (who could break your back in one self-defense swing), child abusers choose to violate the NAP against people far smaller and weaker than them, who literally cannot defend themselves against such an aggression. Their actions literally terrorize a defenseless creature who cannot fight back.

Spanking means the act of slapping a child, while a coward is a person lacking courage to endure dangerous things. The fallacy of Rud-O's statement relies on the general assumption of an aggressor whose intention is to harm a defenseless person because it is afraid to endure pain. This general assumption contradicts the basic meaning of spanking. The intention to punish a child does not imply the apprehension of being harmed.

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

Definition of coward
noun
a person who is contemptibly lacking in the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things:
they had run away—the cowards!
adjective
1 literary excessively afraid of danger or pain.

Finally, "spanking" is also corrupt. It is corrupt because the use of the word "spanking" as an euphemism for hitting children, is deliberately done to falsely conceal the nature of violent, aggressive, immoral and cowardly actions against defenseless people.

I have far more respect for a person who openly states "You know, I beat children up". Such a person, at least, isfar more honest than the cowards to say "I spank my kids" or "spanking is good" or "but how are we to educate our children, if we aren't allowed to spank?".

Spanking cannot be corrupt because:

Definition of corrupt
adjective
1 having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain:

Punishing the child with the use of force does not imply willingness to obtain money or personal gains.

So there you have it: "spanking" is evil, it is cowardly, and it is corrupt. I don't know how more clear-cut this issue can get.

Rud-O user assumed a wrong meaning for spanking and then proceeded to substantiate his claims with incoherent statements. After all that idiocy, Rud-O concluded that spanking is evil without providing any reference or evidence to support his conclusion.

[augustocroppo]

I agree, knowledge deserves to be free (not as in "free" healthcare, but as in freedom)... especially knowledge that helps the human species advance and progress morally.

This is the way Rudd-O wish for the "human species advance and progress morally":

http://rudd-o.com/archives/spanking-your-child-isnt-the-same-as-beating-him-up.-its-far-worse

This place -- indeed, the whole planet -- is far too small for us to harbor child abusers, much less hypocritical rats who try and rationalize their child abuse.

You might have noticed an absence of "science", "proof", "evidence" or "studies" in my post. This is intentional. Though the studies on child abuse are copious and conclusive, those of you who aren't child abusers don't need the evidence, and those who are child abusers will resist believing it anyway.

As I'm sure you have personally witnessed already in the past days, child abusers are resistant to reason. Their compulsion for child abuse does not respond to logic and evidence. They are doing what they do, either because they want to clear their own consciences of the irreparable damage they have inflicted, or because they want to bury the anxiety and dread that comes with recognizing that they were abuse victims (what we call Livestockholm Syndrome when the abuser is the State). Their whole intervention in defense of child abuse is easily reduced to the irrational plea "make this not be true".

The practical corollary to this observation, you are already very familiar with: One simply can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into; this is particularly true for child abusers, since they were usually beaten and broken into their corrupt and malevolent belief ("they turned out alright", I'm sure they will tell you).

That leaves us with only one option, and one option only: Those of you who have a conscience, join me in deliberately and openly ostracizing defenders and rationalizers of child abuse. Test, ask questions, attempt to persuade, and if your interlocutor resists reason and continues to advocate child abuse, triage, ostracize and move on. You must do this. You may not be able to change their minds, but you sure as hell are able to derail their participation, and you can definitely highlight their defense of child abuse as (rightly) abominable. If we are not to act to defend and uphold your values, then who will?

The root of statism is quite literally the doublethink of "the NAP for my in-group, and aggression for the rest". It has always been like that -- "the NAP for everybody but Negroes", or "for everybody but women", or "for everybody but foreigners". "The NAP for everybody but children" is not how a free society will arise. We will never have a non-violent society, ever, I swear to you on my life, until and unless we treat the most defenseless members of our society with the same respect and according to the same principles that we openly advocate and demand for ourselves and everybody else.

I'm done entertaining stupidities and venalities from child abusers who want to pretend that what they do isn't abusive. You should be done too.

What a load of hypocritical crap nonsense!

[augustocroppo]

Rudd-O, the moral example of ethical values:

http://rudd-o.com/sonofabitch

SudoGhost and his mother
The henhouse that is Wikipedia is controlled by the fox

SudoGhost is an incompetent control freak who by happenstance wrongfully obtained editorial control of Wikipedia, and he misuses this privilege to make Wikipedia a more content-free and less rumor-free encyclopedia; also his mother is filthier than the legendary whore of Babylon.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[myrkul]

What a load of hypocritical crap!

Maybe you should look it up in the dictionary. 

[augustocroppo]

What a load of hypocritical crap!

Maybe you should look it up in the dictionary.  

I did before to post:

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

Definition of hypocritical
adjective
behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case:

[myrkul]

What a load of hypocritical crap!

Maybe you should look it up in the dictionary.  

I did before to post:

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

Definition of hypocritical
adjective
behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case:

OK, so now that you know what the word means, would you like to explain how it applies?

[augustocroppo]

OK, so now that you know what the word means, would you like to explain how it applies?

The content expressed by Rudd-O indicates that he/she thinks to have higher moral standards than is the case.

[myrkul]

OK, so now that you know what the word means, would you like to explain how it applies?

The content expressed by Rudd-O indicates that he/she thinks to have higher moral standards than is the case.

Than you think is the case. Please show me where you got this erroneous (that means wrong) impression?

[augustocroppo]

Than you think is the case. Please show me where you got this erroneous (that means wrong) impression?

I have already explained why I used the word. If you still thinks I am wrong, please, feel free to demonstrate which should be the right "impression". If you do, I will gladly retract the short statement I made. I have already presented evidence to justify the use of the word. The burden of proof is on your side, not on mine.

[myrkul]

Than you think is the case. Please show me where you got this erroneous (that means wrong) impression?

I have already explained why I used the word. If you still thinks I am wrong, please, feel free to demonstrate which should be the right "impression". If you do, I will gladly retract the short statement I made. I have already presented evidence to justify the use of the word. The burden of proof is on your side, not on mine.

Very well. I shall use your own evidence against you:

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.

Starting from the most fundamental basics: "spanking" (a term used to describe a certain particular form of initiation of violence) is an initiation of violence, and therefore it is an obvious and open violation of the NAP.

There is no difference whatsoever, not morally and not even legally either, between "spanking" and battery. If you hit another person -- whether adult or child, with an open hand or a closed fist -- it is the same action regardless of how you do it or who your victim is, because you initiated the violence. (...)

(...) Calling it a different word doesn't change the observable reality of the action.

In addition to that, "spanking" is also extremely cowardly. Unlike initiating violence against a six-foot-four person (who could break your back in one self-defense swing), child abusers choose to violate the NAP against people far smaller and weaker than them, who literally cannot defend themselves against such an aggression. Their actions literally terrorize a defenseless creature who cannot fight back.

Finally, "spanking" is also corrupt. It is corrupt because the use of the word "spanking" as an euphemism for hitting children, is deliberately done to falsely conceal the nature of violent, aggressive, immoral and cowardly actions against defenseless people.

I have far more respect for a person who openly states "You know, I beat children up". Such a person, at least, isfar more honest than the cowards to say "I spank my kids" or "spanking is good" or "but how are we to educate our children, if we aren't allowed to spank?".

I agree, knowledge deserves to be free (not as in "free" healthcare, but as in freedom)... especially knowledge that helps the human species advance and progress morally.

This is the way Rudd-O wish for the "human species advance and progress morally":

http://rudd-o.com/archives/spanking-your-child-isnt-the-same-as-beating-him-up.-its-far-worse

This place -- indeed, the whole planet -- is far too small for us to harbor child abusers, much less hypocritical rats who try and rationalize their child abuse.

You might have noticed an absence of "science", "proof", "evidence" or "studies" in my post. This is intentional. Though the studies on child abuse are copious and conclusive, those of you who aren't child abusers don't need the evidence, and those who are child abusers will resist believing it anyway.

As I'm sure you have personally witnessed already in the past days, child abusers are resistant to reason. Their compulsion for child abuse does not respond to logic and evidence. They are doing what they do, either because they want to clear their own consciences of the irreparable damage they have inflicted, or because they want to bury the anxiety and dread that comes with recognizing that they were abuse victims (what we call Livestockholm Syndrome when the abuser is the State). Their whole intervention in defense of child abuse is easily reduced to the irrational plea "make this not be true".

The practical corollary to this observation, you are already very familiar with: One simply can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into; this is particularly true for child abusers, since they were usually beaten and broken into their corrupt and malevolent belief ("they turned out alright", I'm sure they will tell you).

That leaves us with only one option, and one option only: Those of you who have a conscience, join me in deliberately and openly ostracizing defenders and rationalizers of child abuse. Test, ask questions, attempt to persuade, and if your interlocutor resists reason and continues to advocate child abuse, triage, ostracize and move on. You must do this. You may not be able to change their minds, but you sure as hell are able to derail their participation, and you can definitely highlight their defense of child abuse as (rightly) abominable. If we are not to act to defend and uphold your values, then who will?

The root of statism is quite literally the doublethink of "the NAP for my in-group, and aggression for the rest". It has always been like that -- "the NAP for everybody but Negroes", or "for everybody but women", or "for everybody but foreigners". "The NAP for everybody but children" is not how a free society will arise. We will never have a non-violent society, ever, I swear to you on my life, until and unless we treat the most defenseless members of our society with the same respect and according to the same principles that we openly advocate and demand for ourselves and everybody else.

I'm done entertaining stupidities and venalities from child abusers who want to pretend that what they do isn't abusive. You should be done too.

What a load of hypocritical crap!

The word you're looking for is "consistent"

con·sist·ent   [kuhn-sis-tuhnt]
adjective
1. agreeing or accordant; compatible; not self-contradictory: His views and actions are consistent.

[augustocroppo]

Very well. I shall use your own evidence against you:

(...)


The word you're looking for is "consistent"

con·sist·ent   [kuhn-sis-tuhnt]
adjective
1. agreeing or accordant; compatible; not self-contradictory: His views and actions are consistent.

Wait...

Do you even realize that you was claiming that I misused the word "hypocritical", not the word "consistent"?

What a load of hypocritical crap!

Maybe you should look it up in the dictionary.  

Then, after I demonstrated that I used the dictionary, you even insisted to me explain how I applied the word:

OK, so now that you know what the word means, would you like to explain how it applies?

The content expressed by Rudd-O indicates that he/she thinks to have higher moral standards than is the case.

Than you think is the case. Please show me where you got this erroneous (that means wrong) impression?

So, after your attempt to nitpick a short statement I made, you are pretending that you were not arguing over the meaning of "hypocritical", but on the meaning of "consistent".

You need to explain why my criticism is not appropriate and how Rudd-O premises are true to conclude that I should use the word "consistent".

You did not made that... You just paste few excerpts from Rudd-O without explain anything at all.

You are definitively pathetic.

[myrkul]

You are definitively pathetic.

Now who's using the ad hominem attacks, hmm?

Earlier you used this dictionary definition of "Hypocritical" to back your claim:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hypocritical?q=hypocritical

The examples are often much more illustrative of the meaning of a word than just the dry definition, which is why I always include them when I quote a definition. Let's take a look at the examples provided by the OED:

we don’t go to church and we thought it would be hypocritical to have him christened
 it would be entirely hypocritical of me to say I regret it because I don’t

Interesting. So, actions or words that contradict the person's true beliefs, and attempt to make it appear as though the person has those contradictory beliefs would be hypocritical.

Christening your son when you are not a devout Christian is a fine example. How can we bring this to bear on our current discussion?

Well, Rudd-O has vehemently opposed Corporal Punishment, and in fact it was after a quote where he called for the ostracization of "defenders and rationalizers of child abuse" that you called him a hypocrite. Considering that, the accusation of hypocrisy is tantamount to an accusation of child abuse. So, do you have any proof that Mr. Rudd-O abuses his children? Do you even have any proof that Rudd-O elsewhere advocates or rationalizes Corporal Punishment not being abuse?

If not, then your accusation is unfounded, and ad hominem.

[augustocroppo]

You are definitively pathetic.

Now who's using the ad hominem attacks, hmm?

No one.

Well, Rudd-O has vehemently opposed Corporal Punishment, and in fact it was after a quote where he called for the ostracization of "defenders and rationalizers of child abuse" that you called him a hypocrite. (...)

Not just that quote, but this as well:

We will never have a non-violent society, ever, I swear to you on my life, until and unless we treat the most defenseless members of our society with the same respect and according to the same principles that we openly advocate and demand for ourselves and everybody else.

The "principles that" he/she "openly advocate and demand for ourselves and everybody else":

You might have noticed an absence of "science", "proof", "evidence" or "studies" in my post. This is intentional. Though the studies on child abuse are copious and conclusive, those of you who aren't child abusers don't need the evidence, and those who are child abusers will resist believing it anyway.

Yes, indeed, no one needs evidence, just believe in Rudd-O words... (Sarcasm).

(...)
Considering that, the accusation of hypocrisy is tantamount to an accusation of child abuse. (...)

Not an accusation, but a qualification based on observable evidence.

(...) So, do you have any proof that Mr. Rudd-O abuses his children? Do you even have any proof that Rudd-O elsewhere advocates or rationalizes Corporal Punishment not being abuse?

Not at the moment.

If not, then your accusation is unfounded, and ad hominem.

No and... No.

I will retract the vulgarity I inserted. Therefore, I stand corrected:

What a load of hypocritical crap nonsense!

[myrkul]

You are definitively pathetic.

Now who's using the ad hominem attacks, hmm?

No one.

Except you.

Well, Rudd-O has vehemently opposed Corporal Punishment, and in fact it was after a quote where he called for the ostracization of "defenders and rationalizers of child abuse" that you called him a hypocrite. (...)

Not just that quote, but this as well:

We will never have a non-violent society, ever, I swear to you on my life, until and unless we treat the most defenseless members of our society with the same respect and according to the same principles that we openly advocate and demand for ourselves and everybody else.

The "principles that" he/she "openly advocate and demand for ourselves and everybody else":

You might have noticed an absence of "science", "proof", "evidence" or "studies" in my post. This is intentional. Though the studies on child abuse are copious and conclusive, those of you who aren't child abusers don't need the evidence, and those who are child abusers will resist believing it anyway.

Yes, indeed, no one needs evidence, just believe in Rudd-O words... (Sarcasm).

Care to point out the hypocrisy, here? 'Cause I don't see it.

[Rudd-O]

For the record, I haven't read what augustocrappo has said in this thread, since he started sending me rather stalkerish private messages a day or so ago.  He appears to be trying to provoke me into "justifying" my behavior toward unpleasant or evil people.

He does appear to be angry at me about something, since (surmising from the bits he's been quoted on here) he's using the guidelines of engagement of a community I created (far more pleasant and respectful than this place) as some sort of "moral" standard to discredit me in a judgmental way.  Which I find hilarious, because norms of non-violent behavior are not "moral" standards.

Thus, he's (for lack of a better word) triaged out for his behavior as stalker, provocateur, and sophist.  :-)

I close with one of my trademark quotables:  Those of you who have a conscience, join me in deliberately and openly ostracizing defenders and rationalizers of child abuse.

[myrkul]

Myrkul and others, have you considered that calling any-and-every form of corporal punishment or behaviour modification "abuse" -- regardless of conscious intentions -- could be an insult to those who have suffered at the hands of real abusers? Things like vicious drunken punches, starvation, rape, being tied up with hemp rope? Your exaggerated emotionality regarding a "smack on the bottom for being naughty" would be downright insulting.

And I suppose victims of only a single forcible sex act calling what they experienced "rape" would be insulting to victims of gang rape?

[Rudd-O]

Myrkul and others, have you considered that calling any-and-every form of corporal punishment or behaviour modification "abuse" -- regardless of conscious intentions -- could be an insult to those who have suffered at the hands of real abusers? Things like vicious drunken punches, starvation, rape, being tied up with hemp rope? Your exaggerated emotionality regarding a "smack on the bottom for being naughty" would be downright insulting.

And I suppose victims of only a single forcible sex act calling what they experienced "rape" would be insulting to victims of gang rape?

Well said.  Apparently, according to blatherblatherblather, you must not call abuse "abuse", so long as there are bigger degrees of abuse out there, because (allegedly) "some abused people might feel insulted".  You harnessed that argument and brilliantly proved him wrong by recasting it into the dynamics of rape and gang rape.

Bravo.

[justusranvier]

Another parent's testimonial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEDqB14wlao

So I'm at work, after hours, plugging away at my PC, and a co-worker comes to my desk. She sees pictures of my son, and asks if he's mine. Yes, I respond.

 "Oh, he's so handsome! Is he well behaved?"

 I thought that was an odd question, so I said yes, he's very well behaved. When I asked what she meant, she went on about the hells of raising her 6 year old (mine is 7). She complains about how her child doesn't listen to her no matter how much she gets spanked, is constantly misbehaving, etc.

 At this point I had to ask, 'Did it ever occur to you that spanking might be the problem?' I ask this because for a lot of people when discussing the behavior of other children, if they're out of control the comment that the parents must not be spanking enough is always made. I ran into a similar situation a few months ago, went to the house of my wife's friend, and their little one was an absolute nightmare. He was combative, offensive, would not listen and just completely out of control. This was in a Catholic home with plenty of corporal punishment. The parents were just perplexed at what they could possibly be doing wrong, but unable to consider the possibility that spanking was the issue.

 Anyway, I said to my co-worker, my son is at the top of his class. His reading is 3 grades ahead and it's something he does on his own for enjoyment. His classmates look to him for help and as an example. He doesn't hit, he doesn't fight, he doesn't take. He is respectful of the property of others; if anything he's a bit too hesitant to use or touch anything that is not his without express permission to do so. We can take him anywhere, from long international flights to doctors visits to the movies and while he will probably complain about being bored, he'll never go berserk or cause a problem.

 He's empathetic, compassionate, respectful. I woke up today and he had already brushed his teeth and taken a shower, and gotten dressed for school COMPLETELY on his own. I don't know, sometimes I think I take him for granted, or at least his behavior. My co-worker was shocked. And then I dropped the bomb on her:

 I never hit him. Ever. I never raise a hand to him or make him feel threatened. I don't even raise my voice. It has been a lot of work, taking the time to be actively engaged in his life and having to reason with him to help him understand the hows and why's of the world. But I think he's worth it, and if what you want is a child that behaves the way mine does, the last thing you should do is hit. I am not a scientist and he is not an experiment, but anyone that has raised a child should see how they learn; by copying what you do. They're like little copy machines and they mimic behaviors with an amazing skill.

 So if you treat your child with respect instead of aggression, you will get respect instead of aggression.

 I just wanted to share this, and say thank you (again) to Stefan for opening my eyes. It really is true that if we want to achieve a peaceful, cooperative society the place to start is with our children, and the way to teach them is by example.

[myrkul]

Another parent's testimonial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEDqB14wlao

So if you treat your child with respect instead of aggression, you will get respect instead of aggression.

/thread.

[MoonShadow]

Another parent's testimonial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEDqB14wlao

So if you treat your child with respect instead of aggression, you will get respect instead of aggression.

/thread.

My wife and I constantly get compliments about how well behaved our children are.  This has less to do with what we may consider to be a legitimate correction method and more to do with the fact that they are homeschooled, and thus are not exposed to the bad habits of other peoples' children (in a mostly uncontrolled environment).  Corrolation is not causation.

[myrkul]

Another parent's testimonial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEDqB14wlao

So if you treat your child with respect instead of aggression, you will get respect instead of aggression.

/thread.

My wife and I constantly get compliments about how well behaved our children are.  This has less to do with what we may consider to be a legitimate correction method and more to do with the fact that they are homeschooled, and thus are not exposed to the bad habits of other peoples' children (in a mostly uncontrolled environment).  Corrolation is not causation.

You said it yourself: Correlation is not causation. It might be because they are homeschooled (in fact, I'd wager that plays a part - the school is one of the worst perpetrators of this sort of abuse), or it might be because of the relative respect you treat your children with, compared to their kids. As you say, you only beat them a little.

[Rudd-O]

Another parent's testimonial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEDqB14wlao

So if you treat your child with respect instead of aggression, you will get respect instead of aggression.

/thread.

My wife and I constantly get compliments about how well behaved our children are.  This has less to do with what we may consider to be a legitimate correction method and more to do with the fact that they are homeschooled, and thus are not exposed to the bad habits of other peoples' children (in a mostly uncontrolled environment).  Corrolation is not causation.

You said it yourself: Correlation is not causation. It might be because they are homeschooled (in fact, I'd wager that plays a part - the school is one of the worst perpetrators of this sort of abuse), or it might be because of the relative respect you treat your children with, compared to their kids. As you say, you only beat them a little.

At least he homeschools them.  That's gotta protect them from the school bullies that helped rot the brains of so many people at large.

[justusranvier]

"I only raped her a little bit, and just with the tip, so it doesn't count."

[cunicula]

"I only raped her a little bit, and just with the tip, so it doesn't count."

Libertarians gotta take liberties.  Dat natural law. 

[Rudd-O]

I can't tell what cunticula wrote, but I can tell you he's on my ignore list for being an abusive person who has no compunction about insulting people who don't believe his statist dogma.  Feel free to use that to inform your replies to him.

[Crypt_Current]

Treat a child like an adult?  LOL go ahead and try it -- if it works, you'll be alive to tell about it.
I have experience raising children in a very low-income setting, and I know one thing from experience:  Give 'em an inch, they will take a mile or more.
I don't claim to be smart enough to consider myself a (rancid?) "statist" or a (dogmatic, unfocused?) libertarian, but I need to say this:
I hope none of you got paid for wasting the time that I wasted following this thread.  Back to washing dishes for me.

"Slaves shall serve."

[MoonShadow]

I can't tell what cunticula wrote, but I can tell you he's on my ignore list for being an abusive person who has no compunction about insulting people who don't believe his statist dogma. 

Wow.  That's definately the pot calling the kettle black.

[myrkul]

I can't tell what cunticula wrote, but I can tell you he's on my ignore list for being an abusive person who has no compunction about insulting people who don't believe his statist dogma. 

Wow.  That's definitely the pot calling the kettle black.

I think you may be confusing calling someone who abuses their children, even a little, a child abuser, and calling someone who disagrees with you an asshole (for disagreeing with you).

[MoonShadow]

I can't tell what cunticula wrote, but I can tell you he's on my ignore list for being an abusive person who has no compunction about insulting people who don't believe his statist dogma.  

Wow.  That's definitely the pot calling the kettle black.

I think you may be confusing calling someone who abuses their children, even a little, a child abuser, and calling someone who disagrees with you an asshole (for disagreeing with you).

I'm not confused about that, no.

BTW, Rudd-O is already famous for his attitude beyond my own interactions with him, both on this forum and in Wikipedia's forum.  So perhaps more like the kettle calling the pot racist.

[Rudd-O]

I can't tell what cunticula wrote, but I can tell you he's on my ignore list for being an abusive person who has no compunction about insulting people who don't believe his statist dogma. 

Wow.  That's definitely the pot calling the kettle black.

I think you may be confusing calling someone who abuses their children, even a little, a child abuser, and calling someone who disagrees with you an asshole (for disagreeing with you).

Thanks.  That is correct.

[cunicula]

I can't tell what cunticula wrote, but I can tell you he's on my ignore list for being an abusive person who has no compunction about insulting people who don't believe his statist dogma. 

Wow.  That's definitely the pot calling the kettle black.

I think you may be confusing calling someone ___________[some opinionated labelling going on here]_________, and calling someone ______[who has other opinions]______ an asshole (______[for having different opinions]____).

Riiiight..., because your opinions are "all facts" whereas his ones are crazy bullshit...

His 'opinions' are derived using logic based on the axioms of natural law. That makes them facts, not 'opinions.'

[MoonShadow]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

[justusranvier]

If you're punishing children at all you're doing it wrong.

The entire retaliation-based parenting parenting paradigm should be scrapped as abusive and counterproductive.

[myrkul]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

I use a very simple test: Would doing this to an adult be "OK?" If not, it's not OK to use the tactic with a child. Public humiliation is not exactly a violation of the NAP, but it's definitely not cool to use with an adult, so you shouldn't use it with a child.

edit: Whoops!

[Rudd-O]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

I use a very simple test: Would doing this to an adult be "OK?" If not, it's not OK to use the tactic with a child. Public humiliation is not exactly a violation of the NAP, but it's definitely not cool to use with an adult, so you shouldn't use it with an adult.

Yeah, this is a very good heuristic.  Some adults often humiliate or otherwise abuse their kids in ways that would get their faces split in two if they did the exact same thing to an adult -> it follows that people who do that are cowardly scum.

[MoonShadow]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

I use a very simple test: Would doing this to an adult be "OK?" If not, it's not OK to use the tactic with a child. Public humiliation is not exactly a violation of the NAP, but it's definitely not cool to use with an adult, so you shouldn't use it with a child.

edit: Whoops!

By my own perspectives, this girl is not a child.  What would the consequences be if she refused to particicapate in her humiliation?  Since she can manage to sneak boys into her house for sex after hours, I imagine that she isn't exactly a prisoner in her family home.  Is it not reasonable to assume that she wishes to continue to live under her parents' roof of her own free will?  Furthermore, is it not reasonable to assume that the ultimate consequeces of refusing to obey her parents is that she is evicted?  Does "My house, my rules" not apply to teens in your view?  If not, I think that either you are going to change your mind, Myrkul, or your girls are going to put you through hell.

[myrkul]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

I use a very simple test: Would doing this to an adult be "OK?" If not, it's not OK to use the tactic with a child. Public humiliation is not exactly a violation of the NAP, but it's definitely not cool to use with an adult, so you shouldn't use it with a child.

edit: Whoops!

Myrkul's baby "Bambam" does a poo.
Myrkul sees no alternative but to call the police and have the obviously intoxicated offender taken away to sober up overnight in a cell.

Bambam throws a toy at him.
This time Myrkul presses charges.

Bambam draws pictures on a wall.
Myrkul sifts through police photos of graffiti and begins to suspect the baby's membership in a local gang. He writes out a $100 cheque to cover cleaning fees.

What?! Treat the child like you would an adult, right?

Except that I wouldn't treat an adult like that.

And my daughters' names are Rowan and Willow. Not Bambam.

[myrkul]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

I use a very simple test: Would doing this to an adult be "OK?" If not, it's not OK to use the tactic with a child. Public humiliation is not exactly a violation of the NAP, but it's definitely not cool to use with an adult, so you shouldn't use it with a child.

edit: Whoops!

By my own perspectives, this girl is not a child.  What would the consequences be if she refused to particicapate in her humiliation?  Since she can manage to sneak boys into her house for sex after hours, I imagine that she isn't exactly a prisoner in her family home.  Is it not reasonable to assume that she wishes to continue to live under her parents' roof of her own free will?  Furthermore, is it not reasonable to assume that the ultimate consequeces of refusing to obey her parents is that she is evicted?  Does "My house, my rules" not apply to teens in your view?  If not, I think that either you are going to change your mind, Myrkul, or your girls are going to put you through hell.

Unfortunately, she is a prisoner in her parents' house. Held not by her parents, but by the State. And we know what happens when one party is made to be a prisoner, and one is made to be a guard... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

If she were free to leave, it would be a different matter.

[cunicula]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

How about just taking the girls to get birth control at 13? Seems simple enough. Let the boys stay overnight if it is mutually agreeable.
Have a daughter. Don't understand the problem.

[myrkul]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

How about just taking the girls to get birth control at 13? Seems simple enough. Let the boys stay overnight if it is mutually agreeable.
Have a daughter. Don't understand the problem.

... Holy shit.

Cunicula suggested a sensible solution. Am I dreaming? Someone pinch me.

[cunicula]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

How about just taking the girls to get birth control at 13? Seems simple enough. Let the boys stay overnight if it is mutually agreeable.
Have a daughter. Don't understand the problem.

... Holy shit.

Cunicula suggested a sensible solution. Am I dreaming? Someone pinch me.

What are you talking about? In Singapore we have always approved of family planning. Of course, if your daughters are of inferior breeding stock we might recommend some stronger measures. If your daughter shows mental incapacity or undesirable tendencies (e.g. libertarian thoughts), the state may authorize sterilization measures on her behalf. At the peak, about 20 percent of our female breeding age population participated in our sterilization programs. Unfortunately, now, after decades of family planning conditioning, we are having trouble convincing people to breed again.

In a speech in support of the 1969 acts, Lee expressed the
degenerationist's support for eugenic policies, both in terms of
raising the quality of racial stock and in reducing public
expenditure on welfare programmes:

One of the crucial yardsticks by which we shall have to judge the
results of the new abortion law combined with the voluntary
sterilization law will be whether it tends to raise or lower the
total quality of our population. We must encourage those who earn
less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate
many children never to have more than two. Intelligent application of
these laws can help reduce the distortion that has already set in ...
we will regret the time lost, if we do not now take the first
tentative step towards correcting a trend which can leave our society
with a large number of the physically, intellectually and culturally
anaemic.
The 1969 sterilization act set up a five-man Eugenics Board to
authorize sterilizations. While it included two doctors, a social
worker and one 'other', it was chaired by a district judge.

Your country is welcome to continue allowing the poor, uneducated, and mentally incompetent to procreate. We'll compare average IQ scores again in a few decades.
Good luck making up your current deficit. (unless you are in South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Japan in which case we plan to surpass you on all lists)  

http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

[myrkul]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

How about just taking the girls to get birth control at 13? Seems simple enough. Let the boys stay overnight if it is mutually agreeable.
Have a daughter. Don't understand the problem.

... Holy shit.

Cunicula suggested a sensible solution. Am I dreaming? Someone pinch me.

What are you talking about? In Singapore we have always approved of family planning. Of course, if your daughters are of inferior breeding stock we might recommend some stronger measures. If your daughter shows mental incapacity (e.g. libertarian thoughts), you can authorize sterilization measures on her behalf. At the peak of our achievement, about 20 percent of our female breeding age population were sterilized.

Ahh, there's the Cunicula we know and love to hate.

Here I thought you might actually have been suggesting that we treat a reproductively mature woman as capable of handling that portion of her life.... Guess not.

[Rudd-O]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

How about just taking the girls to get birth control at 13? Seems simple enough. Let the boys stay overnight if it is mutually agreeable.
Have a daughter. Don't understand the problem.

... Holy shit.

Cunicula suggested a sensible solution. Am I dreaming? Someone pinch me.

Broken clock.  Right twice a day.  You know the drill.

[cunicula]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

How about just taking the girls to get birth control at 13? Seems simple enough. Let the boys stay overnight if it is mutually agreeable.
Have a daughter. Don't understand the problem.

... Holy shit.

Cunicula suggested a sensible solution. Am I dreaming? Someone pinch me.

What are you talking about? In Singapore we have always approved of family planning. Of course, if your daughters are of inferior breeding stock we might recommend some stronger measures. If your daughter shows mental incapacity (e.g. libertarian thoughts), you can authorize sterilization measures on her behalf. At the peak of our achievement, about 20 percent of our female breeding age population were sterilized.

Ahh, there's the Cunicula we know and love to hate.

Here I thought you might actually have been suggesting that we treat a reproductively mature woman as capable of handling that portion of her life.... Guess not.

The capability of mature women is up to the district judge to evaluate. In most cases, women were judged capable.

The 1969 sterilization act set up a five-man Eugenics Board to
authorize sterilizations. While it included two doctors, a social
worker and one 'other', it was chaired by a district judge.

[cunicula]

http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/stories/pregnant-woman-beaten-up-by-supermarket-for-stealing-milk.html

Interested as to what libertarians will think of this story.

Pregnant woman shoplifts baby milk powder (~US$20). Detected by supermarket manager she is detained for ransom (~US$500).
After contacting her family and finding no one willing to pay the ransom. Supermarket employees beat her for 30 minutes, breaking her arm and causing a miscarriage.

Most Legit Chinese Netizens: Beating up a pregnant women is outrageous and criminal.
Hired State Goons (aka '50 centers' because the piece-rate is 0.50 per post) posing as Netizens: She stole private property. The store owner was protecting his property. She violated the one-child policy. The fetus would have grown up to be a thief anyway, etc, etc. anyway.

My Position: Turn her over to State thugs to deal with. Any private enforcement action besides detaining her is unlawful and illegitimate. The store employees and owner should also be turned over to State thugs. Kidnapping and assault are crimes.

Now that is what I think. What is the correct position (i.e. the view deduced from the Axioms of Natural Law)?  

[MoonShadow]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

I use a very simple test: Would doing this to an adult be "OK?" If not, it's not OK to use the tactic with a child. Public humiliation is not exactly a violation of the NAP, but it's definitely not cool to use with an adult, so you shouldn't use it with a child.

edit: Whoops!

By my own perspectives, this girl is not a child.  What would the consequences be if she refused to particicapate in her humiliation?  Since she can manage to sneak boys into her house for sex after hours, I imagine that she isn't exactly a prisoner in her family home.  Is it not reasonable to assume that she wishes to continue to live under her parents' roof of her own free will?  Furthermore, is it not reasonable to assume that the ultimate consequeces of refusing to obey her parents is that she is evicted?  Does "My house, my rules" not apply to teens in your view?  If not, I think that either you are going to change your mind, Myrkul, or your girls are going to put you through hell.

Unfortunately, she is a prisoner in her parents' house. Held not by her parents, but by the State. And we know what happens when one party is made to be a prisoner, and one is made to be a guard... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

If she were free to leave, it would be a different matter.

I have to admit, you have a point here.  Yet, we live in a world where states force this issue; not one that conforms to anyone's ideal.  This fact doesn't really change the questions posed, since she is (literally speaking) not a prisoner and her parents are not her wardens.

[MoonShadow]

Your country is welcome to continue allowing the poor, uneducated, and mentally incompetent to procreate. We'll compare average IQ scores again in a few decades.
Good luck making up your current deficit. (unless you are in South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Japan in which case we plan to surpass you on all lists)  

http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

Heh.  IQ is a particularly useless metric with regard to measuring intelligence, moreso when trying to apply such a metric to entire populations.  IQ is a relative rate of learning, and was never intended to measure actual intellectual ability.  It was intended to measure the memory retention of applicable data; in mentally defective persons.  By definition, 100 is the average score of a 'normal' person; and is similar in usefulness to the 20/20 vision measurement.  Numbers close to or better than average have no practical meaning, and everything is measured relative to a given population.  Put another way, if your society is, on average, increasing their IQ; that means that your society is improving relative to prior generations not relative to other societies at the same time.  Standardized IQ testing cannot measure people from significantly different educational backgrounds, nor people with different first languages.  This is one reason that homeschoolers in the US consistantly crush these kinds of tests even though they come from across the class & racial spectrum in the US; the tests are designed to measure students from an 'average' educational background, and have no practical way to account for the differences in the quality of educational backgrounds.  While this would imply that the deviation of IQ scores could indicate relative improvements in education (something that I would admit is intuitively likely for Singapore in particular), it's more than the evidence can support to use such metrics as evidence that US poor children are uneducated relative to other countries.  The truth is much more complex.

And the definitions of what is "poor" in the US should give anyone else pause, since only 2% of the official poverty level American household is actually homeless by any standard; and the average poverty level household is likely to have at least one adult with a cell phone, one car 7 years old or less, one flat screen television, one computer, either broadband internet service or cable tv, and more square footage of living space than the average middle class household in 90%+ of the rest of the nations on Earth, including every nation in Europe be they wealthy or not.

[MoonShadow]

http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/stories/pregnant-woman-beaten-up-by-supermarket-for-stealing-milk.html

Interested as to what libertarians will think of this story.

Pregnant woman shoplifts baby milk powder (~US$20). Detected by supermarket manager she is detained for ransom (~US$500).
After contacting her family and finding no one willing to pay the ransom. Supermarket employees beat her for 30 minutes, breaking her arm and causing a miscarriage.

Most Legit Chinese Netizens: Beating up a pregnant women is outrageous and criminal.
Hired State Goons (aka '50 centers' because the piece-rate is 0.50 per post) posing as Netizens: She stole private property. The store owner was protecting his property. She violated the one-child policy. The fetus would have grown up to be a thief anyway, etc, etc. anyway.

My Position: Turn her over to State thugs to deal with. Any private enforcement action besides detaining her is unlawful and illegitimate. The store employees and owner should also be turned over to State thugs. Kidnapping and assault are crimes.

Now that is what I think. What is the correct position (i.e. the view deduced from the Axioms of Natural Law)?  

First, I find this event to be morally abhorent on so many levels.

Second, while she was wrong to steal the powder, that does not justify the use of force enough to even detain her, much less harm her.  There is also the question of appropriate use of force; for even initiation of force does not justify returning of force in (significantly) greater degree than was even threatened.  I had to take courses in the legal use of force to get my CCL, and the classic example is the shooting of an armed mugger.  If a mugger were to corner you, and threaten yourself (or another person with or near you) with a weapon, and you shot him once, that's legally justifiable self-defense whether he dies from that single wound or not.  However, if you shoot him after you gave up your wallet and he had turned around to leave, it's not justifiable or self-defense because he was no longer an immediate threat, because he was leaving.  Or, if you shot him twice standing, and then three more times after he had fallen down; it may self-defense but not justifiable, because you greatly exceeded the appropriate level of force that is justifiable.  An appropriate use of force with this woman amounts to whatever is required to remove the stolen products from her possession, and no more.

Of course, all this automaticly assumes that this is the first time this woman was caught stealing from this particular vendor, which is something I find unlikely.

[myrkul]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

I use a very simple test: Would doing this to an adult be "OK?" If not, it's not OK to use the tactic with a child. Public humiliation is not exactly a violation of the NAP, but it's definitely not cool to use with an adult, so you shouldn't use it with a child.

By my own perspectives, this girl is not a child.  What would the consequences be if she refused to particicapate in her humiliation?  Since she can manage to sneak boys into her house for sex after hours, I imagine that she isn't exactly a prisoner in her family home.  Is it not reasonable to assume that she wishes to continue to live under her parents' roof of her own free will?  Furthermore, is it not reasonable to assume that the ultimate consequeces of refusing to obey her parents is that she is evicted?  Does "My house, my rules" not apply to teens in your view?  If not, I think that either you are going to change your mind, Myrkul, or your girls are going to put you through hell.

Unfortunately, she is a prisoner in her parents' house. Held not by her parents, but by the State. And we know what happens when one party is made to be a prisoner, and one is made to be a guard... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

If she were free to leave, it would be a different matter.

I have to admit, you have a point here.  Yet, we live in a world where states force this issue; not one that conforms to anyone's ideal.  This fact doesn't really change the questions posed, since she is (literally speaking) not a prisoner and her parents are not her wardens.

But she is, and they are. If she were to escape, the State would bring her back, unless she could prove abuse, which in this case, the State would not side with her on. If she were to be thrown out, the State would levy fines or penalties against her parents. And, like a felon, her employment options are severely limited, again, by the State. She cannot find work sufficient to support herself, nor is she allowed to leave, even if she could support herself. Prisoner, slave, call it what you will, she's stuck where she is. And why is this? Because she has not attained some magical arbitrary age where suddenly she's responsible for herself.

And what happens when she finally reaches this magical age? After 18 years of being told she can't be responsible, now she's suddenly told she must be! And people wonder why teens act so irresponsibly!

Yes, we live in a world where States force this issue. And that's the problem. "My house, My rules," is fine when the other party is free to go. In fact, it's to be expected. But when the other party is not free to go, it becomes a prison sentence, with the date of parole circled on the calendar. Yes, the State will most likely force me to be a warden at some point in my daughters' lives. It is my most fervent hope, however, that my rules will be acceptable enough that they will want to stay, and I will not be forced to force them.

[cunicula]

Heh.  IQ is a particularly useless metric with regard to measuring intelligence, moreso when trying to apply such a metric to entire populations.  IQ is a relative rate of learning, and was never intended to measure actual intellectual ability.  It was intended to measure the memory retention of applicable data; in mentally defective persons.  By definition, 100 is the average score of a 'normal' person; and is similar in usefulness to the 20/20 vision measurement.  Numbers close to or better than average have no practical meaning, and everything is measured relative to a given population.  Put another way, if your society is, on average, increasing their IQ; that means that your society is improving relative to prior generations not relative to other societies at the same time.  Standardized IQ testing cannot measure people from significantly different educational backgrounds, nor people with different first languages.  This is one reason that homeschoolers in the US consistantly crush these kinds of tests even though they come from across the class & racial spectrum in the US; the tests are designed to measure students from an 'average' educational background, and have no practical way to account for the differences in the quality of educational backgrounds.  While this would imply that the deviation of IQ scores could indicate relative improvements in education (something that I would admit is intuitively likely for Singapore in particular), it's more than the evidence can support to use such metrics as evidence that US poor children are uneducated relative to other countries.  The truth is much more complex.

And the definitions of what is "poor" in the US should give anyone else pause, since only 2% of the official poverty level American household is actually homeless by any standard; and the average poverty level household is likely to have at least one adult with a cell phone, one car 7 years old or less, one flat screen television, one computer, either broadband internet service or cable tv, and more square footage of living space than the average middle class household in 90%+ of the rest of the nations on Earth, including every nation in Europe be they wealthy or not.

Yeah, I mostly agree with this.

IQ=f(intelligence(genetics, environment),error(genetics,environment,measurement error))

We know that genetics are profoundly important in this equation. It is difficult to tell if that is because of intelligence(genetics, environment) or error(genetics,environment,measurement error).

Environmental factors are much more difficult to identify empirically. Since the collapse of Fascism, it has become difficult to manipulate environment in any kind of randomized way.

[cunicula]

http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/stories/pregnant-woman-beaten-up-by-supermarket-for-stealing-milk.html

Interested as to what libertarians will think of this story.

Pregnant woman shoplifts baby milk powder (~US$20). Detected by supermarket manager she is detained for ransom (~US$500).
After contacting her family and finding no one willing to pay the ransom. Supermarket employees beat her for 30 minutes, breaking her arm and causing a miscarriage.

Most Legit Chinese Netizens: Beating up a pregnant women is outrageous and criminal.
Hired State Goons (aka '50 centers' because the piece-rate is 0.50 per post) posing as Netizens: She stole private property. The store owner was protecting his property. She violated the one-child policy. The fetus would have grown up to be a thief anyway, etc, etc. anyway.

My Position: Turn her over to State thugs to deal with. Any private enforcement action besides detaining her is unlawful and illegitimate. The store employees and owner should also be turned over to State thugs. Kidnapping and assault are crimes.

Now that is what I think. What is the correct position (i.e. the view deduced from the Axioms of Natural Law)?  

First, I find this event to be morally abhorent on so many levels.

Second, while she was wrong to steal the powder, that does not justify the use of force enough to even detain her, much less harm her.  There is also the question of appropriate use of force; for even initiation of force does not justify returning of force in (significantly) greater degree than was even threatened.  I had to take courses in the legal use of force to get my CCL, and the classic example is the shooting of an armed mugger.  If a mugger were to corner you, and threaten yourself (or another person with or near you) with a weapon, and you shot him once, that's legally justifiable self-defense whether he dies from that single wound or not.  However, if you shoot him after you gave up your wallet and he had turned around to leave, it's not justifiable or self-defense because he was no longer an immediate threat, because he was leaving.  Or, if you shot him twice standing, and then three more times after he had fallen down; it may self-defense but not justifiable, because you greatly exceeded the appropriate level of force that is justifiable.  An appropriate use of force with this woman amounts to whatever is required to remove the stolen products from her possession, and no more.

Of course, all this automaticly assumes that this is the first time this woman was caught stealing from this particular vendor, which is something I find unlikely.

Okay, what about handing her over to State Thugs. Is that kosher?

If not, what if she steals again? Can we up it a notch and try to negotiate a private settlement via kidnapping and ransom?

[Rudd-O]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

I use a very simple test: Would doing this to an adult be "OK?" If not, it's not OK to use the tactic with a child. Public humiliation is not exactly a violation of the NAP, but it's definitely not cool to use with an adult, so you shouldn't use it with a child.

By my own perspectives, this girl is not a child.  What would the consequences be if she refused to particicapate in her humiliation?  Since she can manage to sneak boys into her house for sex after hours, I imagine that she isn't exactly a prisoner in her family home.  Is it not reasonable to assume that she wishes to continue to live under her parents' roof of her own free will?  Furthermore, is it not reasonable to assume that the ultimate consequeces of refusing to obey her parents is that she is evicted?  Does "My house, my rules" not apply to teens in your view?  If not, I think that either you are going to change your mind, Myrkul, or your girls are going to put you through hell.

Unfortunately, she is a prisoner in her parents' house. Held not by her parents, but by the State. And we know what happens when one party is made to be a prisoner, and one is made to be a guard... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

If she were free to leave, it would be a different matter.

I have to admit, you have a point here.  Yet, we live in a world where states force this issue; not one that conforms to anyone's ideal.  This fact doesn't really change the questions posed, since she is (literally speaking) not a prisoner and her parents are not her wardens.

But she is, and they are. If she were to escape, the State would bring her back, unless she could prove abuse, which in this case, the State would not side with her on. If she were to be thrown out, the State would levy fines or penalties against her parents. And, like a felon, her employment options are severely limited, again, by the State. She cannot find work sufficient to support herself, nor is she allowed to leave, even if she could support herself. Prisoner, slave, call it what you will, she's stuck where she is. And why is this? Because she has not attained some magical arbitrary age where suddenly she's responsible for herself.

And what happens when she finally reaches this magical age? After 18 years of being told she can't be responsible, now she's suddenly told she must be! And people wonder why teens act so irresponsibly!

Yes, we live in a world where States force this issue. And that's the problem. "My house, My rules," is fine when the other party is free to go. In fact, it's to be expected. But when the other party is not free to go, it becomes a prison sentence, with the date of parole circled on the calendar. Yes, the State will most likely force me to be a warden at some point in my daughters' lives. It is my most fervent hope, however, that my rules will be acceptable enough that they will want to stay, and I will not be forced to force them.

100% of what Myrkul said here is true.

[MoonShadow]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

I use a very simple test: Would doing this to an adult be "OK?" If not, it's not OK to use the tactic with a child. Public humiliation is not exactly a violation of the NAP, but it's definitely not cool to use with an adult, so you shouldn't use it with a child.

By my own perspectives, this girl is not a child.  What would the consequences be if she refused to particicapate in her humiliation?  Since she can manage to sneak boys into her house for sex after hours, I imagine that she isn't exactly a prisoner in her family home.  Is it not reasonable to assume that she wishes to continue to live under her parents' roof of her own free will?  Furthermore, is it not reasonable to assume that the ultimate consequeces of refusing to obey her parents is that she is evicted?  Does "My house, my rules" not apply to teens in your view?  If not, I think that either you are going to change your mind, Myrkul, or your girls are going to put you through hell.

Unfortunately, she is a prisoner in her parents' house. Held not by her parents, but by the State. And we know what happens when one party is made to be a prisoner, and one is made to be a guard... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

If she were free to leave, it would be a different matter.

I have to admit, you have a point here.  Yet, we live in a world where states force this issue; not one that conforms to anyone's ideal.  This fact doesn't really change the questions posed, since she is (literally speaking) not a prisoner and her parents are not her wardens.

But she is, and they are. If she were to escape, the State would bring her back, unless she could prove abuse, which in this case, the State would not side with her on. If she were to be thrown out, the State would levy fines or penalties against her parents. And, like a felon, her employment options are severely limited, again, by the State. She cannot find work sufficient to support herself, nor is she allowed to leave, even if she could support herself. Prisoner, slave, call it what you will, she's stuck where she is. And why is this? Because she has not attained some magical arbitrary age where suddenly she's responsible for herself.

And what happens when she finally reaches this magical age? After 18 years of being told she can't be responsible, now she's suddenly told she must be! And people wonder why teens act so irresponsibly!

Yes, we live in a world where States force this issue. And that's the problem. "My house, My rules," is fine when the other party is free to go. In fact, it's to be expected. But when the other party is not free to go, it becomes a prison sentence, with the date of parole circled on the calendar. Yes, the State will most likely force me to be a warden at some point in my daughters' lives. It is my most fervent hope, however, that my rules will be acceptable enough that they will want to stay, and I will not be forced to force them.

100% of what Myrkul said here is true.

I don't contest that, in practice, that what Myrkul said was true.  Yet, even he should admit, that if own of his own daughters didn't want to live with him or his wife anymore at 16; she should have the right to leave regardless of what the state wanted.  In most states in the US, she could file for "emancipation" (a not un-ironic name for early legal self-ownership) that should be approved without issue if her parents were in agreement.  It actually happens quite often for ambitious homeschoolers who 'graduate' early and leave home for college.  It's not often done for teens who simply wish to move out of their home and get job, because it's not practially necessary.  If a teenager wishes to move out and start adulthood early, they just need their parents to not interfere. The state isnt going to return a runaway unless 1) that runaway's parents filed for their disappearance or 2) that runaway is homeless.

[MoonShadow]

http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/stories/pregnant-woman-beaten-up-by-supermarket-for-stealing-milk.html

Interested as to what libertarians will think of this story.

Pregnant woman shoplifts baby milk powder (~US$20). Detected by supermarket manager she is detained for ransom (~US$500).
After contacting her family and finding no one willing to pay the ransom. Supermarket employees beat her for 30 minutes, breaking her arm and causing a miscarriage.

Most Legit Chinese Netizens: Beating up a pregnant women is outrageous and criminal.
Hired State Goons (aka '50 centers' because the piece-rate is 0.50 per post) posing as Netizens: She stole private property. The store owner was protecting his property. She violated the one-child policy. The fetus would have grown up to be a thief anyway, etc, etc. anyway.

My Position: Turn her over to State thugs to deal with. Any private enforcement action besides detaining her is unlawful and illegitimate. The store employees and owner should also be turned over to State thugs. Kidnapping and assault are crimes.

Now that is what I think. What is the correct position (i.e. the view deduced from the Axioms of Natural Law)?  

First, I find this event to be morally abhorent on so many levels.

Second, while she was wrong to steal the powder, that does not justify the use of force enough to even detain her, much less harm her.  There is also the question of appropriate use of force; for even initiation of force does not justify returning of force in (significantly) greater degree than was even threatened.  I had to take courses in the legal use of force to get my CCL, and the classic example is the shooting of an armed mugger.  If a mugger were to corner you, and threaten yourself (or another person with or near you) with a weapon, and you shot him once, that's legally justifiable self-defense whether he dies from that single wound or not.  However, if you shoot him after you gave up your wallet and he had turned around to leave, it's not justifiable or self-defense because he was no longer an immediate threat, because he was leaving.  Or, if you shot him twice standing, and then three more times after he had fallen down; it may self-defense but not justifiable, because you greatly exceeded the appropriate level of force that is justifiable.  An appropriate use of force with this woman amounts to whatever is required to remove the stolen products from her possession, and no more.

Of course, all this automaticly assumes that this is the first time this woman was caught stealing from this particular vendor, which is something I find unlikely.

Okay, what about handing her over to State Thugs. Is that kosher?

Simply stated, no.  However, the state is the only 'justice' system available, so I can understand that the shop owners didn't see as they had much choice.  To simply let every shoplifter with a sob story go without any consequences, no matter how many times they have been caught, makes you a mark and that will get around to those who might seek out your store just to steal from it with reduced risk.

If not, what if she steals again? Can we up it a notch and try to negotiate a private settlement via kidnapping and ransom?

I think that it depends upon the case, and this is where the lack of case law makes private security/justice systems hard to argue for.  The official state system has history of actually working in living memory, while non-governmental justice systems really haven't existed for hundreds of years outside the realm of international trade litigations.

[MoonShadow]

Yeah, I mostly agree with this.

Wait, what?  Did you just agree that your use of a statistical metric or it's results didn't actually support your own argument?

IQ=f(intelligence(genetics, environment),error(genetics,environment,measurement error))

We know that genetics are profoundly important in this equation. It is difficult to tell if that is because of intelligence(genetics, environment) or error(genetics,environment,measurement error).

Genetics are important in this equation for any particular individual. (I don't agree that they are profoundly important, outside of the context of identifiable genetic disorders that are known to affect cognative development)  However, genetics play almost no role whatever upon the averages, because there is no society or race that exists with any meaningful genetic advantage in this context.  Many studies have been done on this topic, and at most the greatest advantage that any race might have here are ethnic Jews at about 3 IQ above the overall mean, on average.  Again, a measurable yet meaningless difference as applied to an individual.  If your IQ testing rang in at 103, you would have nominally zero cognative advantages over your 100 IQ point peers.  I know from personal experience that even a very high score isn't, alone, an indication of future success.  I rang in the lower 140's during high school, and earn just about $100K per year; while my little brother range the bell on every IQ test he ever took, meaning that he was at least 160 IQ but the standardized tests that were provided were incapable of any accurate measurement.  Yet, despite two different BS degrees from two different universities, my brother has never earned more than $30K in a single year.  You see, my brother also has Asberger's Syndrome, and can't quite fake a "social IQ" well enough to keep any job, which tends to be important for success in adulthood.

[myrkul]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

I use a very simple test: Would doing this to an adult be "OK?" If not, it's not OK to use the tactic with a child. Public humiliation is not exactly a violation of the NAP, but it's definitely not cool to use with an adult, so you shouldn't use it with a child.

By my own perspectives, this girl is not a child.  What would the consequences be if she refused to particicapate in her humiliation?  Since she can manage to sneak boys into her house for sex after hours, I imagine that she isn't exactly a prisoner in her family home.  Is it not reasonable to assume that she wishes to continue to live under her parents' roof of her own free will?  Furthermore, is it not reasonable to assume that the ultimate consequeces of refusing to obey her parents is that she is evicted?  Does "My house, my rules" not apply to teens in your view?  If not, I think that either you are going to change your mind, Myrkul, or your girls are going to put you through hell.

Unfortunately, she is a prisoner in her parents' house. Held not by her parents, but by the State. And we know what happens when one party is made to be a prisoner, and one is made to be a guard... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

If she were free to leave, it would be a different matter.

I have to admit, you have a point here.  Yet, we live in a world where states force this issue; not one that conforms to anyone's ideal.  This fact doesn't really change the questions posed, since she is (literally speaking) not a prisoner and her parents are not her wardens.

But she is, and they are. If she were to escape, the State would bring her back, unless she could prove abuse, which in this case, the State would not side with her on. If she were to be thrown out, the State would levy fines or penalties against her parents. And, like a felon, her employment options are severely limited, again, by the State. She cannot find work sufficient to support herself, nor is she allowed to leave, even if she could support herself. Prisoner, slave, call it what you will, she's stuck where she is. And why is this? Because she has not attained some magical arbitrary age where suddenly she's responsible for herself.

And what happens when she finally reaches this magical age? After 18 years of being told she can't be responsible, now she's suddenly told she must be! And people wonder why teens act so irresponsibly!

Yes, we live in a world where States force this issue. And that's the problem. "My house, My rules," is fine when the other party is free to go. In fact, it's to be expected. But when the other party is not free to go, it becomes a prison sentence, with the date of parole circled on the calendar. Yes, the State will most likely force me to be a warden at some point in my daughters' lives. It is my most fervent hope, however, that my rules will be acceptable enough that they will want to stay, and I will not be forced to force them.

100% of what Myrkul said here is true.

I don't contest that, in practice, that what Myrkul said was true.  Yet, even he should admit, that if own of his own daughters didn't want to live with him or his wife anymore at 16; she should have the right to leave regardless of what the state wanted.  In most states in the US, she could file for "emancipation" (a not un-ironic name for early legal self-ownership) that should be approved without issue if her parents were in agreement.  It actually happens quite often for ambitious homeschoolers who 'graduate' early and leave home for college.  It's not often done for teens who simply wish to move out of their home and get job, because it's not practially necessary.  If a teenager wishes to move out and start adulthood early, they just need their parents to not interfere. The state isnt going to return a runaway unless 1) that runaway's parents filed for their disappearance or 2) that runaway is homeless.

More magic numbers. And that poor girl is 15, a bit shy of even that goal. Child labor laws limit the hours she can work in a day, and the total hours per week. There are some jobs she simply can not get, no matter how qualified she is. She is essentially limited to minimum wage work at a fast food joint for less than part time. Not a chance in hell she can support herself on that.

If my girls want to leave at 16, I won't stop 'em. If they want to leave at 15, I'll have to.

[MoonShadow]

I don't contest that, in practice, that what Myrkul said was true.  Yet, even he should admit, that if own of his own daughters didn't want to live with him or his wife anymore at 16; she should have the right to leave regardless of what the state wanted.  In most states in the US, she could file for "emancipation" (a not un-ironic name for early legal self-ownership) that should be approved without issue if her parents were in agreement.  It actually happens quite often for ambitious homeschoolers who 'graduate' early and leave home for college.  It's not often done for teens who simply wish to move out of their home and get job, because it's not practially necessary.  If a teenager wishes to move out and start adulthood early, they just need their parents to not interfere. The state isnt going to return a runaway unless 1) that runaway's parents filed for their disappearance or 2) that runaway is homeless.

More magic numbers. And that poor girl is 15, a bit shy of even that goal. Child labor laws limit the hours she can work in a day, and the total hours per week. There are some jobs she simply can not get, no matter how qualified she is. She is essentially limited to minimum wage work at a fast food joint for less than part time. Not a chance in hell she can support herself on that.

If my girls want to leave at 16, I won't stop 'em. If they want to leave at 15, I'll have to.

Granted, but we weren't talking about how government interference affects things, were we?  I wasn't.  I was talking about the role of parents this entire thread.  What if this kind of government interference didn't exist, what then?  Would compelling their daughter to hold a sign with details of her personal life at a street corner be a viable punishment, assuming that she had the choice to leave?  If not, why not?  If your 15 year old daughter chooses to repeatedly violate household rules, but no actual laws, what recourse do you have as a parent if they refuse to listen to a voice of wisdom?

[MoonShadow]

Environmental factors are much more difficult to identify empirically. Since the collapse of Fascism, it has become difficult to manipulate environment in any kind of randomized way.

Since we have hit the side topic of education, I thought I might post this link here.

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-royal-pain-in-ass.html

I was literally laughing out loud.  It's even a fairly accurate description of written English, even if the revolutionary generation of Americans nearly acheived universal literacy at the time, even though that wasn't a goal of any government, and using a broader vocabulary than is acheivable by most high schools in modern times.

[myrkul]

What if this kind of government interference didn't exist, what then?  Would compelling their daughter to hold a sign with details of her personal life at a street corner be a viable punishment, assuming that she had the choice to leave?  If not, why not?

I've answered this already. If you wouldn't do it to an adult in the same situation, you shouldn't do it to a child. There is only one viable consequence for flagrant, repeated violation of the rules of a household: eviction. Now, if she were to suggest something like this, in lieu of eviction, I would consider it, on the condition that she stop the behavior.

If your 15 year old daughter chooses to repeatedly violate household rules, but no actual laws, what recourse do you have as a parent if they refuse to listen to a voice of wisdom?

I'll let Mr. Bigglesworth answer that one:

[justusranvier]

If your 15 year old daughter chooses to repeatedly violate household rules, but no actual laws, what recourse do you have as a parent if they refuse to listen to a voice of wisdom?

It's your problem, not hers and the time to avoid it was 15 years ago.

If she doesn't respect to you at age 15 years it's because your so-called wisdom is crap and she's figured it out. If you've built your relationship on using your position of superior power to enforce your rules on to her then of course she's going to ignore them once she starts to get some power of her own. If you ran roughshod over her preferences when she was young instead of treating her with respect and negotiating she's going to run roughshod over your preferences when she gets the chance, just like your example taught her.

If you treat your children from the beginning with the deference and respect you want them to treat you with in the future, you won't have to live in fear of what they're going to do when you're no longer able to dominate them.

[myrkul]

If you treat your children from the beginning with the deference and respect you want them to treat you with in the future, you won't have to live in fear of what they're going to do when you're no longer able to dominate them.

Much better said than how I said it.

Don't raise a slave, you won't have to fear a slave revolt.

[Rudd-O]

If your 15 year old daughter chooses to repeatedly violate household rules, but no actual laws, what recourse do you have as a parent if they refuse to listen to a voice of wisdom?

It's your problem, not hers and the time to avoid it was 15 years ago.

If she doesn't respect to you at age 15 years it's because your so-called wisdom is crap and she's figured it out.

BOOM!  Well said.  I can personally verify this is true.

[Rudd-O]

If you treat your children from the beginning with the deference and respect you want them to treat you with in the future, you won't have to live in fear of what they're going to do when you're no longer able to dominate them.

Much better said than how I said it.

Don't raise a slave, you won't have to fear a slave revolt.

Jesus this thread is full of win.

[MoonShadow]

If you treat your children from the beginning with the deference and respect you want them to treat you with in the future, you won't have to live in fear of what they're going to do when you're no longer able to dominate them.

Much better said than how I said it.

Don't raise a slave, you won't have to fear a slave revolt.

Good luck with that.  Teenagers always have other reasons to revolt, particularly daughters.  You've a major shock coming yet.

[MoonShadow]

Okay, what about handing her over to State Thugs. Is that kosher?

Simply stated, no.  However, the state is the only 'justice' system available, so I can understand that the shop owners didn't see as they had much choice.  To simply let every shoplifter with a sob story go without any consequences, no matter how many times they have been caught, makes you a mark and that will get around to those who might seek out your store just to steal from it with reduced risk.

It sounds like you're trying really hard to justify blatant thuggery and use the State as a scapegoat no matter what happens. This time it's the State's fault for being too small and Libertarian.

One of us is really confused.  I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm just a realist.  And that last sentence didn't even parse.

As for an AnCap justice system, Hell will freeze over before a civilised, workable system is described in detail.

this has already been done.  Is hell cold?

[justusranvier]

Good luck with that.  Teenagers always have other reasons to revolt, particularly daughters.  You've a major shock coming yet.

This is a very precarious position for you to take now that an increasing number of parents are adopting peaceful parenting methods and producing evidence to the contrary.

In the future when your views of childhood and parents have been so utterly and completely debunked that the truth is impossible to ignore you won't be able to claim, "I didn't know."

Remember how radically the generally accepted standards of behavior changed in terms of race relations in the 20th century.

Do you want to be that guy who blindly follows tradition by joining the KKK, just before the civil rights movement starts?

[myrkul]

As for an AnCap justice system, Hell will freeze over before a civilised, workable system is described in detail.

this has already been done.  Is hell cold?

No it has not been done. Myrkul's ramblings about multi-tiered private arbitration and justice mysteriously "floating to the top" sounded quite vague.

If you're using this forum as the sole source of libertarian thought, that might explain why you're unaware of these things.
http://wiki.mises.org/ is a good place to start.

[MoonShadow]

Good luck with that.  Teenagers always have other reasons to revolt, particularly daughters.  You've a major shock coming yet.

This is a very precarious position for you to take now that an increasing number of parents are adopting peaceful parenting methods and producing evidence to the contrary.

This is not happening.  There is no evidence to the contrary.  Even if there were, it still wouldn't invalidate my core argument, that it's not your place to decide for my children, it's mine.

[myrkul]

Good luck with that.  Teenagers always have other reasons to revolt, particularly daughters.  You've a major shock coming yet.

This is a very precarious position for you to take now that an increasing number of parents are adopting peaceful parenting methods and producing evidence to the contrary.

This is not happening.  There is no evidence to the contrary.

Not just a river in Egypt, apparently.

Even if there were, it still wouldn't invalidate my core argument, that it's not your place to decide for my children, it's mine.

Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.

[cunicula]

Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.

How does the third-party know to step in if he keeps his children as prisoners? Should anyone have the right to enter his home to audit his conduct? Should we restrict this right to child protective services? Should we just allow torture because auditing private conduct is too invasive?

[Yes, I would outlaw homeschooling or audit it strictly. Homeschooling is a form of imprisonment. Only the State can legitimately imprison people.]

[myrkul]

Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.

How does the third-party know to step in if he keeps his children as prisoners? Should anyone have the right to enter his home to audit his conduct? Should we restrict this right to child protective services? Should we just allow torture because auditing private conduct is too invasive?

[Yes, I would outlaw homeschooling or audit it strictly. Homeschooling is a form of imprisonment. Only the State can legitimately imprison people.]

Not sending the kids to a government indoctrination center is not imprisonment. I have no doubt that his children play in or otherwise visit the world outside his four walls. They may even leave the yard! 

[cunicula]

Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.

How does the third-party know to step in if he keeps his children as prisoners? Should anyone have the right to enter his home to audit his conduct? Should we restrict this right to child protective services? Should we just allow torture because auditing private conduct is too invasive?

[Yes, I would outlaw homeschooling or audit it strictly. Homeschooling is a form of imprisonment. Only the State can legitimately imprison people.]

Not sending the kids to a government indoctrination center is not imprisonment. I have no doubt that his children play in or otherwise visit the world outside his four walls. They may even leave the yard! 

I'm fine with private indoctrination centers too. It just needs to be audited and regulated so that we can be sure that no child abuse is going on. I'm not sure that auditing home-schools is practical.

[cunicula]

As for an AnCap justice system, Hell will freeze over before a civilised, workable system is described in detail.

this has already been done.  Is hell cold?

No it has not been done. Myrkul's ramblings about multi-tiered private arbitration and justice mysteriously "floating to the top" sounded quite vague.

If you're using this forum as the sole source of libertarian thought, that might explain why you're unaware of these things.
http://wiki.mises.org/ is a good place to start.

LoL - did you edit some of those pages? The vague utopian writing style -- peppered with pejorative terms whenever referring to a government activity -- seems awfully familiar. I did manage to find a page called "restorative justice", but despite all the rhetoric and well-meaning criticism of the ways governments do things, details on implementation remain absent. Basic sanity-check questions remain unanswered:

a) how do you make sure the victim in a conflict is "mysteriously restored" to his position before the conflict?
b) how do you make sure the criminal in a conflict is mysteriously restored to a "state of integration with society"?
c) how do you correctly identify the victim vs. the criminal?
d) Presumably the victim would have to be the driving force for justice. Where does the victim get all his money and power from to stand up against the criminal?
e) What incentive does the criminal have to co-operate with this restorative justice ritual, rather than just intimidating or silencing the victim?
f) What if the victim goes too far? How is this prevented or dealt with? When does the process end?
g) How is making the process private and profit-driven supposed to actually help? What are these "efficiency gains" they speak of?
h) In a profit-driven system, how do you prevent 'arbitrators' from milking the system, creating more crime, or prolonging proceedings? It is their business after all. If the crimes are too simple or there is just not enough of them, the arbitrators won't get enough money! The US is infamous for its bloated lawyer industry. Wouldn't that kind of parasitism just get worse?
i) Why should arbitrators compete against each other, when they can just form a cartel?
j) What if neither side has any money? What incentive do arbitrators have in getting involved?
k) What if the criminal has no money? After the victim initially finances the proceedings, does the criminal get enslaved and forced to work off his debt?

Don't waste your time with anything that has Mises von Shithead in the title. When I originally set out to learn economics I read all the classics: Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, Keynes. I eventually headed on down to Mises. And I thought what's this? This is propoganda and fucking philosophy, not economics. Marx is better. Fortunately, nothing von Shithead wrote made it into the educational curriculum. Our children are safe.

[myrkul]

As for an AnCap justice system, Hell will freeze over before a civilised, workable system is described in detail.

this has already been done.  Is hell cold?

No it has not been done. Myrkul's ramblings about multi-tiered private arbitration and justice mysteriously "floating to the top" sounded quite vague.

If you're using this forum as the sole source of libertarian thought, that might explain why you're unaware of these things.
http://wiki.mises.org/ is a good place to start.

LoL - did you edit some of those pages? The vague utopian writing style -- peppered with pejorative terms whenever referring to a government activity -- seems awfully familiar.

Nope, I haven't touched that wiki.

I did manage to find a page called "restorative justice", but despite all the rhetoric and well-meaning criticism of the ways governments do things, details on implementation remain absent. Basic sanity-check questions remain unanswered:

a) how do you make sure the victim in a conflict is "mysteriously restored" to his position before the conflict?

It's called "restitution." If you're unfamiliar with the term, the definition should be found in any standard English dictionary.

b) how do you make sure the criminal in a conflict is mysteriously restored to a "state of integration with society"?

this is a little more tough, but typically, having to pay restitution will do that... debt is a powerful motivator.

c) how do you correctly identify the victim vs. the criminal?

Can you not tell who swung first? It's just that simple.

d) Presumably the victim would have to be the driving force for justice. Where does the victim get all his money and power from to stand up against the criminal?

In a practical system, most people would be insured against loss. The insurance company covers that loss, and then seeks damages. This is, of course, only one option.

e) What incentive does the criminal have to co-operate with this restorative justice ritual, rather than just intimidating or silencing the victim?

If he refuses, he is casting himself outside of the protection of the system - outlaw in the original and truest sense. Ask yourself: Would you trust Trendon Shavers with your money, now?

f) What if the victim goes too far? How is this prevented or dealt with? When does the process end?

I believe that is the purpose of the Arbitrator, to decide upon a fair restitution.

g) How is making the process private and profit-driven supposed to actually help? What are these "efficiency gains" they speak of?

How did McDonalds come to be the market giant it is today?

h) In a profit-driven system, how do you prevent 'arbitrators' from milking the system, creating more crime, or prolonging proceedings? It is their business after all. If the crimes are too simple or there is just not enough of them, the arbitrators won't get enough money! The US is infamous for its bloated lawyer industry. Wouldn't that kind of parasitism just get worse?

Prolonging proceedings wouldn't help, since I don't know of any arbitrators who bill hourly. As for creating more crime, how would you suggest they do that? They don't have the option that the US lawyers do, to get more laws passed. If there is not enough crime, or the crimes are too "simple", there will be fewer arbitrators, or they will have other jobs, as well.

i) Why should arbitrators compete against each other, when they can just form a cartel?

Because the one that breaks the cartel gets an immediate reward of more business. It's the same reason cartels have always fallen apart.

j) What if neither side has any money? What incentive do arbitrators have in getting involved?

Even the poorest family in the US has a color TV. If there is a market need for low-cost services, it will be provided.

k) What if the criminal has no money? After the victim initially finances the proceedings, does the criminal get enslaved and forced to work off his debt?

I believe the term you're looking for is "indentured servitude," and that would not likely get used. More often than not, work will be available to those willing to work. And the victim may not need to finance the proceedings. For instance, judge.me Arbitrators have the option to assign all or part of the arbitration fee to either party.

[myrkul]

Don't waste your time with anything that has Mises von Shithead in the title. When I originally set out to learn economics I read all the classics: Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, Keynes. I eventually headed on down to Mises. And I thought what's this? This is propoganda and fucking philosophy, not economics. Marx is better. Fortunately, nothing von Shithead wrote made it into the educational curriculum. Our children are safe.

Well, of course anything that casts the State in anything less than the rosy glow of the Divine Right to rule is going to grate on you. That doesn't mean that those of us who have not been so thoroughly brainwashed as to immediately reject crimethink can't learn something from Ludwig von Mises.

[MoonShadow]

Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.

How does the third-party know to step in if he keeps his children as prisoners? Should anyone have the right to enter his home to audit his conduct? Should we restrict this right to child protective services? Should we just allow torture because auditing private conduct is too invasive?

[Yes, I would outlaw homeschooling or audit it strictly. Homeschooling is a form of imprisonment. Only the State can legitimately imprison people.]

Not sending the kids to a government indoctrination center is not imprisonment. I have no doubt that his children play in or otherwise visit the world outside his four walls. They may even leave the yard! 

Well, we've cut back on the extra-domicile activities this year.  They only have co-op on Thursdays, Swim lessons a the YMCA on Tuesdays & Thursdays, Church on Wednesdays & Sundays, and middle schoolers' events one Friday night each month.  Before it was much worse, dance lessons twice a week, singing & art lessons, Spanish, book club, etc.  Yeah, they don't get out much.  Otherwise, they might *talk*; they might even talk to an *adult*, and then I might have a social worker come *visit*.  Oh, wait; I already do.  I have two visits a month, because I'm a foster parent.  Huh, I wonder what those kids might be saying about me during their interviews!  It's a wonder I havn't been locked up!

[myrkul]

Moved.

[justusranvier]

All this abstract talk of restitution and non state-based is a pointless distraction from the subject of the tread.

What is important and relevant to parenting is that, historical propaganda notwithstanding, children owe no obligations to their parents. The act of being born does not incur a debt, no contract can be implied by which a child must repay parental support since the child did not choose to be born.

Adult relationships are voluntary, and if adult children are not satisfied with the care and attention they received while subject to their parents they are fully free to leave the relationship.

Everybody knows this, which is why corrupt parents have to spend so much time propagandizing their children with the myths of filial obligation. Deep down they know they don't deserve one second of their children's time on their own merits so they must invent obligations to bind their adult children to them in spite of not deserving it.

[Rudd-O]

Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.

How does the third-party know to step in if he keeps his children as prisoners? Should anyone have the right to enter his home to audit his conduct? Should we restrict this right to child protective services? Should we just allow torture because auditing private conduct is too invasive?

[Yes, I would outlaw homeschooling or audit it strictly. Homeschooling is a form of imprisonment. Only the State can legitimately imprison people.]

Not sending the kids to a government indoctrination center is not imprisonment. I have no doubt that his children play in or otherwise visit the world outside his four walls. They may even leave the yard! 

Exactly.  In fact, it can be argued that imprisonment would be forcing children to go to a government indoctrination center.

[MoonShadow]

Loosely related to the topic....

http://www.strike-the-root.com/teach-your-children-well-part-ii

I think that this author is close enough to the middle of the road that both sides here can see his point.

[Rudd-O]

Don't waste your time with anything that has Mises von Shithead in the title. When I originally set out to learn economics I read all the classics: Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, Keynes. I eventually headed on down to Mises. And I thought what's this? This is propoganda and fucking philosophy, not economics. Marx is better. Fortunately, nothing von Shithead wrote made it into the educational curriculum. Our children are safe.

Well, of course anything that casts the State in anything less than the rosy glow of the Divine Right to rule is going to grate on you. That doesn't mean that those of us who have not been so thoroughly brainwashed as to immediately reject crimethink can't learn something from Ludwig von Mises.

I find it extremely amusing that cunicula thinks philosophy is so bad or useless, that it warrants being prefixed with the word "fucking".

He obviously has no idea what philosophy is -- but he sure as hell hates it.  Normal, as people who hate the truth can't do anything but hate philosophy.

[myrkul]

Loosely related to the topic....

http://www.strike-the-root.com/teach-your-children-well-part-ii

I think that this author is close enough to the middle of the road that both sides here can see his point.

Not at all loosely related. These parts especially are relevant:

Human vs. Object: Does the parent view and treat the child as another human being, one who needs help and guidance but in every other way is an individual worthy of respect and dignity? Or is the child an object, a piece of property that needs to perform certain tasks in a certain manner and her feelings and opinions are not a factor? A strict command and obey structure utilizing rewards and punishments “works” for training pets when considered from the trainer’s point of view, but this may not be an optimal method for instilling independence into a developing human being.

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivations: Does the child act out of intrinsic motivations, taking into account her own needs while also respecting and valuing the needs of others? Or does she take actions based on receiving punishments and rewards, motivations created by external sources? What will happen when the child grows up and suddenly loses her primary source of extrinsic motivations? Will she seek out such motivators through other sources? Why yes, I believe she will.

Take note of these, MoonShadow. Internalize the lessons found within.

[MoonShadow]

Loosely related to the topic....

http://www.strike-the-root.com/teach-your-children-well-part-ii

I think that this author is close enough to the middle of the road that both sides here can see his point.

Not at all loosely related. These parts especially are relevant:

Human vs. Object: Does the parent view and treat the child as another human being, one who needs help and guidance but in every other way is an individual worthy of respect and dignity? Or is the child an object, a piece of property that needs to perform certain tasks in a certain manner and her feelings and opinions are not a factor? A strict command and obey structure utilizing rewards and punishments “works” for training pets when considered from the trainer’s point of view, but this may not be an optimal method for instilling independence into a developing human being.

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivations: Does the child act out of intrinsic motivations, taking into account her own needs while also respecting and valuing the needs of others? Or does she take actions based on receiving punishments and rewards, motivations created by external sources? What will happen when the child grows up and suddenly loses her primary source of extrinsic motivations? Will she seek out such motivators through other sources? Why yes, I believe she will.

Take note of these, MoonShadow. Internalize the lessons found within.

I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article.  I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could.  In many ways, you are too predictable Myrkel.

[myrkul]

I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article.  I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could. 

Feel free. I doubt you could find anything so telling against my strategy as I found against yours. After all, I will be consistent in applying any restrictions, treat my children as people, with their own motivations, and encourage independence, to a much greater degree, in fact, than yourself.

In short, Bring it.

[MoonShadow]

I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article.  I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could.

Feel free. I doubt you could find anything so telling against my strategy as I found against yours. After all, I will be consistent in applying any restrictions, treat my children as people, with their own motivations, and encourage independence, to a much greater degree, in fact, than yourself.

In short, Bring it.

A child must see that temporary parental authority is natural and useful and very different from all other forms of non-parental “authority.” A child never sits down and signs papers acknowledging that she grants authority to her parents—it just happens. And if the parents delegate their authority to other adults, that also just happens and is beyond the power of the child to control. So it seems quite natural for the child to view authority as something that exists outside of her immediate control, and when someone tells her they have it, and are backed by the parents, then they have it. That's just how it is.

When a parent has authority over a child, what does this mean from the child’s point of view? Well, it can mean that the authority is there to help and to guide and to teach and also at times to restrict, even if force may be required to maintain the child's safety. Ideally, the authority figures that are parents also have love and respect attached to them. So to the child, the parental authority is a package of love, strength, wisdom, protection, and boundaries. This becomes their first authority archetype.

<snip>

“My house, my rules.” Parents have power and power corrupts, so be mindful of that fact. Parents are not magically exempt from this old chestnut. Of course there are rules, but ideally they should be consistent and well understood so as to clearly contrast with all the other false “authority” archetypes and their arbitrary mandates.

I’m not saying that every facet of domination can be eliminated. The bottom line is the parent does indeed have authority, and many times imperfect children try the patience of imperfect adults and anger can overtake calm reasoning. But these instances can also provide good teaching moments for both parent and child, as an examination as to how we humans are built and the unfortunate consequences that can arise when a person tests the patience of another. But exceptions are by no means rules, and that’s the crucial distinction that needs to be drawn in the child’s mind.

<snip>
Human vs. Object: Does the parent view and treat the child as another human being, one who needs help and guidance but in every other way is an individual worthy of respect and dignity? Or is the child an object, a piece of property that needs to perform certain tasks in a certain manner and her feelings and opinions are not a factor? A strict command and obey structure utilizing rewards and punishments “works” for training pets when considered from the trainer’s point of view, but this may not be an optimal method for instilling independence into a developing human being. (I've already acknowledged that corporeal punishment isn't ideal, and may not even be most effective; I only argue that I, not you, are the final arbitor of such)

<snip>

Parents naturally have the responsibility to care for a child and should assume authority out of love for the child. No other external “authority” has this motivation, although they will all claim to possess it. The primary goal of taking on this mantle of parental authority is to assist the child to develop into an independent adult. The child must be armed with knowledge and confidence before she ventures out on her own so she won't be an easy target for predators.

<snip>

I don’t pretend to be an expert in this field, and I am not here to criticize how anyone’s parents raised them or how anyone is raising their kids. I am encouraging everyone to do a little introspecting and see how perhaps some of the behaviors that fall outside the scope of government have been influenced by the pervasive and coercive external “authority” mindset. One does not necessarily need to violate the NAP in order to cause harm, especially to kids. (This one applies equally well to you, Myrkul, as it does I)

[Crypt_Current]

I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article.  I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could. 

Feel free. I doubt you could find anything so telling against my strategy as I found against yours. After all, I will be consistent in applying any restrictions, treat my children as people, with their own motivations, and encourage independence, to a much greater degree, in fact, than yourself.

In short, Bring it.

You're an inexperienced fool.  I can't believe this thread is still happening.
There are myriad ways to "encourage independence" and many of them are found through hands-on experience / trial-and-error, which you obviously have none of.
Armchair childrearing is probably the worst branch of armchair philosophy.
Have lots of kids and have "fun", jackass.

[myrkul]

It's interesting that many of these passages are the very ones I considered pointing out to you...

A child must see that temporary parental authority is natural and useful and very different from all other forms of non-parental “authority.”

Indeed, it's natural because until the child can wipe it's own ass, you have the authority and responsibility to do that. And it's temporary because once the child can wipe it's own ass, you no longer have that authority. This goes for all other aspects of the child's life, as well. As soon as the child can take care of a particular task on it's own, it's your duty to get the fuck out of the way.

also at times to restrict, even if force may be required to maintain the child's safety.

How did I know you'd use this part? You're just as predictable as I, MoonShadow. Force is sometime necessary to maintain a child's safety, such as the previously discussed example of snatching the child out of the street, or slapping their hand away from the stove. That is defensive force. Punishing the child because they did not do as told, however, is treating the child as an object, and is, at best, retaliatory force.

“My house, my rules.” Parents have power and power corrupts, so be mindful of that fact.

You didn't extend the bold on that far enough, I've remedied that. Be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking your authority absolute. You only have authority over what the child can not do for themselves.

I’m not saying that every facet of domination can be eliminated. The bottom line is the parent does indeed have authority

Yes, as I said, over those things which the child cannot do for themselves, either legally, such as in the case of contracts, or physically, such as in the case of ass-wiping.

But exceptions are by no means rules, and that’s the crucial distinction that needs to be drawn in the child’s mind.

I suppose you're going to use this to try and weasel out of responsibility for striking your child in frustration?

A strict command and obey structure utilizing rewards and punishments “works” for training pets when considered from the trainer’s point of view, but this may not be an optimal method for instilling independence into a developing human being. (I've already acknowledged that corporeal punishment isn't ideal, and may not even be most effective; I only argue that I, not you, are the final arbitor of such)

I'm not arguing efficiency, effectiveness, or any of that. I'm arguing morality. I am stating that you are treating the child not a a person, but as an animal or object, when you use corporal punishment. You are violating the NAP by using coercion to get your way.

Parents naturally have the responsibility to care for a child and should assume authority out of love for the child. No other external “authority” has this motivation, although they will all claim to possess it.

I never argued that you don't mean well. I know you do. But you know that saying about the road to hell...

One does not necessarily need to violate the NAP in order to cause harm, especially to kids. (This one applies equally well to you, Myrkul, as it does I)

Indeed, though how my treating a child as a person and not an object could bring them harm, I'm not certain. I'm well aware of the boundaries that I must set for the children, and when those boundaries should be removed.

I'll close with one more quote from the article that I think really sums up our conversation:

Striking the root of external authority just may mean turning the axe on yourself and eliminating some behaviors that are considered perfectly normal in this society and perfectly natural for you, because that is what you learned as a child. Your first reaction perhaps will be to take offense. But whenever an automatic and strong emotional response kicks in, that is usually a red flag that there is something that doesn’t want to be critically examined. That in itself should be motivation for a closer examination.

Armchair childrearing is probably the worst branch of armchair philosophy.

If you're going to comment, at least read enough of the thread to not stuff your foot in your mouth. I have two children. I am raising them in the manner I advocate. It is anything but armchair parenting. Jackass.

[MoonShadow]

I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article.  I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could. 

Feel free. I doubt you could find anything so telling against my strategy as I found against yours. After all, I will be consistent in applying any restrictions, treat my children as people, with their own motivations, and encourage independence, to a much greater degree, in fact, than yourself.

In short, Bring it.

You're an inexperienced fool.  I can't believe this thread is still happening.
There are myriad ways to "encourage independence" and many of them are found through hands-on experience / trial-and-error, which you obviously have none of.
Armchair childrearing is probably the worst branch of armchair philosophy.
Have lots of kids and have "fun", jackass.

Don't worry, he's got two very young daughters.  He'll get his due in another 12 years or so.

[justusranvier]

Don't worry, he's got two very young daughters.  He'll get his due in another 12 years or so.

Alternately, you'll get your due when the world changes and starts treating all  parents who didn't renounce the use of force against children when they had the chance as social pariahs, to live out their twilight years isolated and alone.

It's possible you could be safe though. It might not happen this generation.

Maybe.

[myrkul]

Don't worry, he's got two very young daughters.  He'll get his due in another 12 years or so.

Alternately, you'll get your due when the world changes and starts treating all  parents who didn't renounce the use of force against children when they had the chance as social pariahs, to live out their twilight years isolated and alone.

As a third alternative, I could set up some sort of reminder to tell me to let MoonShadow know how they turned out. But a dozen years seems rather long to wait just for a "Ha! Told you so!"

[MoonShadow]

It's interesting that many of these passages are the very ones I considered pointing out to you...

A child must see that temporary parental authority is natural and useful and very different from all other forms of non-parental “authority.”

Indeed, it's natural because until the child can wipe it's own ass, you have the authority and responsibility to do that. And it's temporary because once the child can wipe it's own ass, you no longer have that authority. This goes for all other aspects of the child's life, as well. as soon as the child can take care of a particular task on it's own, it's your duty to get the fuck out of the way.

Again, I don't contest this.  I stated from the beginning that my authority dies once my children reach the age of reason.  Neither my 10 year old son, nor my 12 year old daughter, have experienced any form of corporal punishment in several years.  It's simply not necessary, as they can be reasoned with.  My tots don't get any corporal punishment (as defined by the state, they do get time-outs and corner time) because they are surviors of real abuse and are now officially adopted; but that is a decision based on their particular background, not related to any argument that you can present.  And the last child doesn't get punished because she is 1) another foster child and therefore exempt due to contract and 2) she's only 6 months old and quite incapable of any activity that would call for such intervention anyway.  So, in practice, my children are not spanked; but not because I don't consider it a useful parental tool, and not because you claim a say in how I raise my kids.

also at times to restrict, even if force may be required to maintain the child's safety.

How did I know you'd use this part? You're just as predictable as I, MoonShadow. Force is sometime necessary to maintain a child's safety, such as the previously discussed example of snatching the child out of the street, or slapping their hand away from the stove. That is defensive force. Punishing the child because they did not do as told, however, is treating the child as an object, and is, at best, retaliatory force.

Well, DUH!  Of course I'm going to use this part, after you asked me to "bring it on".  Again, your opinion as to what is retalitory force is irrelevant.  It's my opinion that matters for my own children.

“My house, my rules.” Parents have power and power corrupts, so be mindful of that fact.

You didn't extend the bold on that far enough, I've remedied that. Be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking your authority absolute. You only have authority over what the child can not do for themselves.

Perhaps, but only I have such authority of my kids.  You don't.

I’m not saying that every facet of domination can be eliminated. The bottom line is the parent does indeed have authority

Yes, as I said, over those things which the child cannot do for themselves, either legally, such as in the case of contracts, or physically, such as in the case of ass-wiping.

And reasoning, such as safety training and self-preservation.  Once they can reason well enough, they don't need my help here anymore.

But exceptions are by no means rules, and that’s the crucial distinction that needs to be drawn in the child’s mind.

I suppose you're going to use this to try and weasel out of responsibility for striking your child in frustration?

I'm not, but I think that you have a shock coming.

A strict command and obey structure utilizing rewards and punishments “works” for training pets when considered from the trainer’s point of view, but this may not be an optimal method for instilling independence into a developing human being. (I've already acknowledged that corporeal punishment isn't ideal, and may not even be most effective; I only argue that I, not you, are the final arbitor of such)

I'm not arguing efficiency, effectiveness, or any of that. I'm arguing morality. I am stating that you are treating the child not a a person, but as an animal or object, when you use corporal punishment. You are violating the NAP by using coercion to get your way.

That is your opinion, and you have a right to it.  In your own home.

You do not have the right to impose your own interpretation of the NAP on my household, nor any other moral code.

Parents naturally have the responsibility to care for a child and should assume authority out of love for the child. No other external “authority” has this motivation, although they will all claim to possess it.

I never argued that you don't mean well. I know you do. But you know that saying about the road to hell...

You be strong, and remember you said this once rebellion touches your household.  You really have no idea what you are in for.

One does not necessarily need to violate the NAP in order to cause harm, especially to kids. (This one applies equally well to you, Myrkul, as it does I)

Indeed, though how my treating a child as a person and not an object could bring them harm, I'm not certain. I'm well aware of the boundaries that I must set for the children, and when those boundaries should be removed.

Again, be strong.  I can respect your determination, if not your conclusion, and a sudden change in parental styles would do far more lasting harm than either of our perspectives.  But I think that you will come to regret taking such a moral stand.

I'll close with one more quote from the article that I think really sums up our conversation:

Striking the root of external authority just may mean turning the axe on yourself and eliminating some behaviors that are considered perfectly normal in this society and perfectly natural for you, because that is what you learned as a child. Your first reaction perhaps will be to take offense. But whenever an automatic and strong emotional response kicks in, that is usually a red flag that there is something that doesn’t want to be critically examined. That in itself should be motivation for a closer examination.

Again, be careful what you wish for, Myrkul.  If there is a God, you will be judged not only on what you have done, but also on what you did not do; and what you believed about those actions yourself.

[myrkul]

 Again, your opinion as to what is retalitory force is irrelevant.  It's my opinion that matters for my own children.

It's not my opinion, it's the definition of the act. Either you're punishing, in which case it's in retaliation for the act, or you're attempting to condition the child, in which case it's preemptive, and thus initiatory. Opinion doesn't enter into it.

Perhaps, but only I have such authority of my kids.  You don't.

I'm not claiming authority over your children. I don't need such authority over them to protect them from abuse.

You do not have the right to impose your own interpretation of the NAP on my household, nor any other moral code.

I see. You're one of those types that sees the wife as property, too? Should I not step in if I see you beating her?

Parents naturally have the responsibility to care for a child and should assume authority out of love for the child. No other external “authority” has this motivation, although they will all claim to possess it.

I never argued that you don't mean well. I know you do. But you know that saying about the road to hell...

You be strong, and remember you said this once rebellion touches your household.  You really have no idea what you are in for.

Slaves rebel. I won't be raising slaves, but independent people. Since I won't be trying to dominate them, what will they rebel against?

One does not necessarily need to violate the NAP in order to cause harm, especially to kids. (This one applies equally well to you, Myrkul, as it does I)

Indeed, though how my treating a child as a person and not an object could bring them harm, I'm not certain. I'm well aware of the boundaries that I must set for the children, and when those boundaries should be removed.

Again, be strong.  I can respect your determination, if not your conclusion, and a sudden change in parental styles would do far more lasting harm than either of our perspectives.  But I think that you will come to regret taking such a moral stand.

I doubt I will, but you're right, a sudden change would ruin that "consistency" thing.

I'll close with one more quote from the article that I think really sums up our conversation:

Striking the root of external authority just may mean turning the axe on yourself and eliminating some behaviors that are considered perfectly normal in this society and perfectly natural for you, because that is what you learned as a child. Your first reaction perhaps will be to take offense. But whenever an automatic and strong emotional response kicks in, that is usually a red flag that there is something that doesn’t want to be critically examined. That in itself should be motivation for a closer examination.

Again, be careful what you wish for, Myrkul.  If there is a God, you will be judged not only on what you have done, but also on what you did not do; and what you believed about those actions yourself.

As will you.

[justusranvier]

What makes religious justifications for child abuse so obscene is not that the proponents hold up as their highest moral ideal the behaviour of bronze age barbarians, not the complete blindness to extensive evidence proving the harm their actions cause, and not even the deplorable lack of empathy with their own children that should clue them in to the fact that something's wrong.

What makes religious justifications for child abuse so obscene is that people can enter into important discussions about the care, nurturing and education of young human beings, bring up fairy tales about their imaginary friends, and expect to be taken seriously.

That is beyond depraved.

[cunicula]

Don't worry, he's got two very young daughters.  He'll get his due in another 12 years or so.

Alternately, you'll get your due when the world changes and starts treating all  parents who didn't renounce the use of force against children when they had the chance as social pariahs, to live out their twilight years isolated and alone.

It's possible you could be safe though. It might not happen this generation.

Maybe.

Ah, libertarianism shows its true colors. What you propose is not to remove the law, but to make the law unpredictable. i.e. replace moderate repression with repression of the most extreme kind.

[justusranvier]

What you propose is not to remove the law, but to make the law unpredictable. i.e. replace moderate repression with repression of the most extreme kind.

I can see how you'd interpret it that way, if you are a sociopath.

For the rest of us who do have a conscience it's a a very predictable way to respond to evil.

[Crypt_Current]

Don't worry, he's got two very young daughters.  He'll get his due in another 12 years or so.

Alternately, you'll get your due when the world changes and starts treating all  parents who didn't renounce the use of force against children when they had the chance as social pariahs, to live out their twilight years isolated and alone.

As a third alternative, I could set up some sort of reminder to tell me to let MoonShadow know how they turned out. But a dozen years seems rather long to wait just for a "Ha! Told you so!"

If they're that young, yeah dude that's as good as not having any.
You'll learn, probably the hard way.  Are you even taking astrology or any sort of personality tests at the very least into consideration??
If not, you are going to end up with extremely unpredictable outcomes, guaranteed.
Human creatures are the most technologically complex machines in existench.  No matter how hard you try (control -- what you deplore?!?) you will end up with the opposite of what you expected, unless you successfully trick yourself.
Magick -- the Art and Science of causing Change to occur in accordance with Will
Take note.  What you see as shades of grey now will bloom into a bright spectrum of a rainbow.
Infrablack is still a color even if not perceived by any organism known.
Good luck and godspeed, sir.
Lol christianity,... lol islam, judaism...
Rationality...
IO CHORONZON.

[myrkul]

Don't worry, he's got two very young daughters.  He'll get his due in another 12 years or so.

Alternately, you'll get your due when the world changes and starts treating all  parents who didn't renounce the use of force against children when they had the chance as social pariahs, to live out their twilight years isolated and alone.

As a third alternative, I could set up some sort of reminder to tell me to let MoonShadow know how they turned out. But a dozen years seems rather long to wait just for a "Ha! Told you so!"

If they're that young, yeah dude that's as good as not having any.
You'll learn, probably the hard way.  Are you even taking astrology or any sort of personality tests at the very least into consideration??
<snip rambling that makes Dank look sane & sober>

Dude, either put the pipe down, or stop posting. It will save on regrets in the morning.

[cunicula]

I can see how you'd interpret it that way, if you are a sociopath.

For the rest of us who do have a conscience it's a a very predictable way to respond to evil.

Ah, anarchy:

Learn to emulate the transient characteristics of 'the rest of us' or be outed as an evil element / sociopath.

This has been tried before. See the Cultural Revolution.

That makes me think. Your principles are strikingly similar to Mao's ideas of perpetual revolution. The principle is that any petty tyrant should be overthrown by voluntary community movements. Therefore there can be no petty tyrants. Usually this was non-violent and just involved public humiliation. Sometimes excesses occurred.

[justusranvier]

Learn to emulate the transient characteristics of 'the rest of us' or be outed as an evil element / sociopath.

This has been tried before. See the Cultural Revolution.

Actually it's more a matter of just teaching their prey the skill of recognizing a sociopath's intellectual pollution for what it is.

Using the power of language to make a peaceful exercise of voluntary association appear equal to murder is a great example. Thanks for the demonstration.

[Crypt_Current]

Don't worry, he's got two very young daughters.  He'll get his due in another 12 years or so.

Alternately, you'll get your due when the world changes and starts treating all  parents who didn't renounce the use of force against children when they had the chance as social pariahs, to live out their twilight years isolated and alone.

As a third alternative, I could set up some sort of reminder to tell me to let MoonShadow know how they turned out. But a dozen years seems rather long to wait just for a "Ha! Told you so!"

If they're that young, yeah dude that's as good as not having any.
You'll learn, probably the hard way.  Are you even taking astrology or any sort of personality tests at the very least into consideration??
<snip rambling that makes Dank look sane & sober>

Dude, either put the pipe down, or stop posting. It will save on regrets in the morning.

No regrets.  Not even a pipe this time.  So... No?

[stochastic]

When I deal with kids I don't worry about what political philosophy I have.  Some kids need kindness, others need independence, and others just need a strong role model.  There is no one correct way.  It is different for each kid and the mood that they are in at the moment.

[Crypt_Current]

When I deal with kids I don't worry about what political philosophy I have.  Some kids need kindness, others need independence, and others just need a strong role model.  There is no one correct way.  It is different for each kid and the mood that they are in at the moment.

Exactly.  And some kids are born masochists.  XD

hey man i don't make up these cosmic rules.

[justusranvier]

This psychologist debunks the myth of human nature:

Parenting for a Peaceful World - A Conversation with Robin Grille

Robin Grille is a father, a psychologist in private practice with twenty years' experience, and a parenting educator. His articles on parenting and child development have been widely published in Australia and overseas. Robin's first book: 'Parenting for a Peaceful World' (2005) has received international acclaim and led to speaking engagements around Australia, USA and New Zealand. 'Heart to Heart Parenting' (ABC Books) is Robin's second book.

A passionate speaker and social change activist, Robin's extensive research has led him to feel that improved attention to babies' and children's emotional needs is the most powerful way to move societies toward sustainability and peace.

[augustocroppo]

This psychologist debunks the myth of human nature:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPKo7XbUZ-8

The human nature is not a myth. Your statement is false. The Youtube video is rather irrelevant.

[Rudd-O]

I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article.  I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could. 

Feel free. I doubt you could find anything so telling against my strategy as I found against yours. After all, I will be consistent in applying any restrictions, treat my children as people, with their own motivations, and encourage independence, to a much greater degree, in fact, than yourself.

In short, Bring it.

You're an inexperienced fool.  I can't believe this thread is still happening.
There are myriad ways to "encourage independence" and many of them are found through hands-on experience / trial-and-error, which you obviously have none of.
Armchair childrearing is probably the worst branch of armchair philosophy.
Have lots of kids and have "fun", jackass.

Crypt_Current attacks other people because he hates the ideas they introduce.  He has no arguments and nothing constructive to say -- only insults.  I think we know what kind of parenting produces a damaged individual like that.  I bet his parents or other authority figures dealt with his "troublesome thoughts" by shaming and insulting him.

[Rudd-O]

Don't worry, he's got two very young daughters.  He'll get his due in another 12 years or so.

Alternately, you'll get your due when the world changes and starts treating all  parents who didn't renounce the use of force against children when they had the chance as social pariahs, to live out their twilight years isolated and alone.

It's possible you could be safe though. It might not happen this generation.

Maybe.

Don't worry -- he'll get lots of uncomfortable Thanksgivings with the kids he abused.  I know what he won't get: a meaningful and deep relationship with the victims of his abuse.

[MoonShadow]

I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article.  I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could. 

Feel free. I doubt you could find anything so telling against my strategy as I found against yours. After all, I will be consistent in applying any restrictions, treat my children as people, with their own motivations, and encourage independence, to a much greater degree, in fact, than yourself.

In short, Bring it.

You're an inexperienced fool.  I can't believe this thread is still happening.
There are myriad ways to "encourage independence" and many of them are found through hands-on experience / trial-and-error, which you obviously have none of.
Armchair childrearing is probably the worst branch of armchair philosophy.
Have lots of kids and have "fun", jackass.

Crypt_Current attacks other people because he hates the ideas they introduce.  He has no arguments and nothing constructive to say -- only insults.  I think we know what kind of parenting produces a damaged individual like that.  I bet his parents or other authority figures dealt with his "troublesome thoughts" by shaming and insulting him.

That's enough of this crap, guys.  Keep it civil, even when you don't desrve it.

[stochastic]

To All Parents:

Your teenagers hate you no matter what you do.

[myrkul]

Relevant video/podcast from Stefan Molyneux:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vehigjflGHA

[justusranvier]

This is a clarification of an earlier post I made:

Children fully own themselves, yet by nature are not competent to manage their own affairs. Thus they require resources from someone else in order to survive. Some people interpret this situation to mean parents own their children and the care they provide incurs an debt which the children are obligated to repay but logically the opposite is true.

Children exist in a state of infirmary, not due their own actions and choices, but due to the actions and choices of their parents. The consequences of their state of dependency, then are the responsibility of their parents. The care and nurturing that a child needs in order to reach a state of being a competent adult is not a gift from the parents, but rather a debt the parents owe their children as compensation for bringing them into existence in a helpless state. Once this debt is satisfied the children owe their parents nothing.

If parents want to earn some kind of consideration from their children they have to go above and beyond merely supporting their children while they grow up. They need to earn consideration with virtuous behavior.

[Rudd-O]

This is a clarification of an earlier post I made:

Children fully own themselves, yet by nature are not competent to manage their own affairs. Thus they require resources from someone else in order to survive. Some people interpret this situation to mean parents own their children and the care they provide incurs an debt which the children are obligated to repay but logically the opposite is true.

Children exist in a state of infirmary, not due their own actions and choices, but due to the actions and choices of their parents. The consequences of their state of dependency, then are the responsibility of their parents. The care and nurturing that a child needs in order to reach a state of being a competent adult is not a gift from the parents, but rather a debt the parents owe their children as compensation for bringing them into existence in a helpless state. Once this debt is satisfied the children owe their parents nothing.

If parents want to earn some kind of consideration from their children they have to go above and beyond merely supporting their children while they grow up. They need to earn consideration with virtuous behavior.

Brilliantly put.

[myrkul]

Spanking as a pre-emptive conditioning measure:

[Rudd-O]

Spanking as a pre-emptive conditioning measure:

http://mimiandeunice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ME_407_Self-Defense-640x199.png

That's all that governments ever do when they punish nonviolent people.

[MoonShadow]

Spanking as a pre-emptive conditioning measure:

Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature; and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.  I contest both those unstated premises, and you willfully avoid the topic because we cannot agree upon first principles.

[myrkul]

Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature;

Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable.

Sure seems violent to me. Unless "deliberate infliction of pain" isn't violence under your definition?

Here, let me help you:

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

Where we differ, I think, is in the portion I have underlined. You claim that your intentional use of force, or the threat of same, will not cause psychological harm or maldevelopment. I contend that it does, and that the evidence of that fact is all around you.

and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

[MoonShadow]

Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature;

Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable.

Sure seems violent to me. Unless "deliberate infliction of pain" isn't violence under your definition?

First off, I have already stated that I don't accept your definitions, because they also presume the conclusions that you seek.  Shall I get out your "yourfallacyis" links out next?

Second, there are many forms of pain that do not require violence; so no, those are not equatible statements.

Furthermore, not all forms of corporal punishment actually involve pain.

Here, let me help you:

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization

Your argument is invalid.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

Where we differ, I think, is in the portion I have underlined. You claim that your intentional use of force, or the threat of same, will not cause psychological harm or maldevelopment. I contend that it does, and that the evidence of that fact is all around you.

No, our disagreement is more basic than that.  I do contest the validity of your perceptions, but that is actually beside the point.  My poin is 'who gets to decide'?  The answer is, I do and you do not.  I do, singularly; and you do not, even collectively.  Could I be wrong and end up screwing up my kids' lives?  That remains a possibility for which I am ever aware.  The same rings true for you, however; which does ot seem to be something for which you are aware.  You will be.  I have met many young parents (and childless couples) who advocate for such a "zero corporeal punishment" style of parenting.  However, I have met very few older parents who stuck to that method.  Among those who did; one has two boys in prison, one has one child who is a drug addict, one has a daughter who was pregnent at 15, and one has an adult son that never moved out.  Obviously, these same parents also had many other children who were not so screwed up, but I'd wager that some non-neglible percentagle of their grandchildren will either 1) end up screwed up or 2) be raised without such a zero-corporel punishment theories.

Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways.  However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually.  You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.

and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

..because I can actually justify my own actions, therefore I'm not the hypocrite here.  You are trying to apply your own interpretations of the NAP, and your own (cherrypicked) definitions of certain magic words in a futile attempt to convince myself that your interpretation is the correct one.  I have my own interpretations, and there is nothing that you can do about that without using force against me.  Something that you have already stated you would be willing to do.  All that arguing with statists that ancap societies would be tolerant of subcultures that disagree with the NAP, such as hippie communes, and may or may not use force internally; and you rush right to the use of force (individually or collectively) when confronted with a contrived situation for which you find beyond your own capacity to tolerate.  No matter how you spin it, or how it would work out in the real world; if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.  Your interpretations in this context become irrelevent.

[myrkul]

Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature;

Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable.

Sure seems violent to me. Unless "deliberate infliction of pain" isn't violence under your definition?

First off, I have already stated that I don't accept your definitions, because they also presume the conclusions that you seek.  Shall I get out your "yourfallacyis" links out next?

Second, there are many forms of pain that do not require violence; so no, those are not equatible statements.

Furthermore, not all forms of corporal punishment actually involve pain.

Wikipedia is biased, eh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment

Here, let me help you:

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization

Your argument is invalid.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Using a definition is hardly an appeal to authority, especially since I did not use it "in the place of an argument," I used it as the backing for my argument, which is: Corporal punishment is violence, which, enacted upon defenseless children, is the cause of many societal ills, not least of which is the deadly idea that government force is justified, that if someone in "authority" commits, or tells you to commit, an act of violence, That's OK, because they have "authority."

as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

Where we differ, I think, is in the portion I have underlined. You claim that your intentional use of force, or the threat of same, will not cause psychological harm or maldevelopment. I contend that it does, and that the evidence of that fact is all around you.

No, our disagreement is more basic than that.  I do contest the validity of your perceptions, but that is actually beside the point.  My poin is 'who gets to decide'?  The answer is, I do and you do not.  I do, singularly; and you do not, even collectively.  Could I be wrong and end up screwing up my kids' lives?  That remains a possibility for which I am ever aware.  The same rings true for you, however; which does ot seem to be something for which you are aware.  You will be.  I have met many young parents (and childless couples) who advocate for such a "zero corporeal punishment" style of parenting.  However, I have met very few older parents who stuck to that method.  Among those who did; one has two boys in prison, one has one child who is a drug addict, one has a daughter who was pregnent at 15, and one has an adult son that never moved out.  Obviously, these same parents also had many other children who were not so screwed up, but I'd wager that some non-neglible percentagle of their grandchildren will either 1) end up screwed up or 2) be raised without such a zero-corporel punishment theories.

Your logical fallacy is...

I'm quite aware that I might fuck up in raising my kids...I worry about it every day. But I fail to see how treating them with the respect due a fellow human being could be the cause of that fuck up.

Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways.  However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually.  You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.

And you, by leaving those options on the table, have undermined the rest of your parenting strategy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vehigjflGHA

and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

No... Are you saying that there is some third option besides "corporal punishment is abuse" and "corporal punishment is not abuse"? Because it is my position that it is, and if you are in opposition to my position, then your position must be that it is not, or this mysterious third position.

if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

I never said I would take your kid. I never even said I would lay a hand on them. I said I would tell you to stop. To which, I might add, you stated that you would reply with deadly force...

[MoonShadow]

as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

Where we differ, I think, is in the portion I have underlined. You claim that your intentional use of force, or the threat of same, will not cause psychological harm or maldevelopment. I contend that it does, and that the evidence of that fact is all around you.

No, our disagreement is more basic than that.  I do contest the validity of your perceptions, but that is actually beside the point.  My poin is 'who gets to decide'?  The answer is, I do and you do not.  I do, singularly; and you do not, even collectively.  Could I be wrong and end up screwing up my kids' lives?  That remains a possibility for which I am ever aware.  The same rings true for you, however; which does ot seem to be something for which you are aware.  You will be.  I have met many young parents (and childless couples) who advocate for such a "zero corporeal punishment" style of parenting.  However, I have met very few older parents who stuck to that method.  Among those who did; one has two boys in prison, one has one child who is a drug addict, one has a daughter who was pregnent at 15, and one has an adult son that never moved out.  Obviously, these same parents also had many other children who were not so screwed up, but I'd wager that some non-neglible percentagle of their grandchildren will either 1) end up screwed up or 2) be raised without such a zero-corporel punishment theories.

Your logical fallacy is...

Ha!  That one almost works, except I wasn't using that anecdote as an argument, I was using as an example. 

Your readiness to jump to that site to discredit your detractors is arguablely...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

I'm quite aware that I might fuck up in raising my kids...I worry about it every day. But I fail to see how treating them with the respect due a fellow human being could be the cause of that fuck up.

You fail to see many things, young man, than you are likely to revisit many times.  One likely failure is your assumption that your daughters are likely to respect you back, or even agree with your political & moral  perspectives.  Then again, they might, and you are just as likely to forever view your parentals styles as the root cause, and it's just as likely as not to be so.  You aslo presume that conditioning a toddler to associate dangerous activities with pain is necessarily "disrespect".

Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways.  However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually.  You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.

And you, by leaving those options on the table, have undermined the rest of your parenting strategy:

Perhaps, perhaps not.  You rally don't know the details of my parenting strategy, beyond the fact that I'm unwilling to exclude corporeal punishment from consideration.  You have no idea how rear or common my use of same may be.  You also don't care; again, the black and white fallacy.

and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

No... Are you saying that there is some third option besides "corporal punishment is abuse" and "corporal punishment is not abuse"? Because it is my position that it is, and if you are in opposition to my position, then your position must be that it is not, or this mysterious third position.

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.

if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

I never said I would take your kid. I never even said I would lay a hand on them. I said I would tell you to stop. To which, I might add, you stated that you would reply with deadly force...

Okay, we're going to have to dive back into the thread history.  But not today.  Time for bed.

[myrkul]

Your logical fallacy is...

Ha!  That one almost works, except I wasn't using that anecdote as an argument, I was using as an example. 

Your readiness to jump to that site to discredit your detractors is arguablely...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Tsk... I only call them as I see them. I'm not saying your argument is wrong because you use fallacies, I'm saying you use fallacies because your argument is wrong. (and you're one to talk about throwing links to that site around...)

I'm quite aware that I might fuck up in raising my kids...I worry about it every day. But I fail to see how treating them with the respect due a fellow human being could be the cause of that fuck up.

You fail to see many things, young man, than you are likely to revisit many times.  One likely failure is your assumption that your daughters are likely to respect you back, or even agree with your political & moral  perspectives.  Then again, they might, and you are just as likely to forever view your parentals styles as the root cause, and it's just as likely as not to be so.  You aslo presume that conditioning a toddler to associate dangerous activities with pain is necessarily "disrespect".

Treating a toddler like a dog that must be conditioned rather than reasoned with is not disrespect?

Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways.  However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually.  You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.

And you, by leaving those options on the table, have undermined the rest of your parenting strategy:

Perhaps, perhaps not.  You rally don't know the details of my parenting strategy, beyond the fact that I'm unwilling to exclude corporeal punishment from consideration.  You have no idea how rear or common my use of same may be.  You also don't care; again, the black and white fallacy.

Listen to what Stefan has to say on the matter. The mere fact that it's not excluded is enough to undermine the rest of the strategy.

and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

No... Are you saying that there is some third option besides "corporal punishment is abuse" and "corporal punishment is not abuse"? Because it is my position that it is, and if you are in opposition to my position, then your position must be that it is not, or this mysterious third position.

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.

No, My argument has always been that corporal punishment is child abuse, and that such (and much worse) abuse has been the cause of violence, particularly institutionalized violence, later in the children's lives.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.

If parents get to decide what is and what is not abuse, would it be OK if I decided that forcibly having sex with my children were not abuse? Would that make it so?

I think not.

if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

Be my guest...If you can.

I never said I would take your kid. I never even said I would lay a hand on them. I said I would tell you to stop. To which, I might add, you stated that you would reply with deadly force...

Okay, we're going to have to dive back into the thread history.  But not today.  Time for bed.

Oh goody. Tomorrow I get to watch you eat your words. I can't wait.

[cunicula]

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.

I have to agree with MoonShadow here. One funny thing about libertarians is that they often start from the proposition that everyone is free to do as they like and then end with the conclusion that everyone must behave in exactly the same way.

Though I think MoonShadow is an idiot and making bad decisions about how to raise his children, I don't think the children should take them away from him or that any other kind of intervention should take place. Children should only be removed if the corporal punishment MoonShadow's children suffer is sufficiently bad that they would be better off in foster homes. Evidence suggests that abuse has to be very severe before children are better off being separated from their parents.

MoonShadow is nowhere near as stupid as Myrkul.

[myrkul]

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

Be my guest...If you can.

Here, let me help: This is the post in which I first stated that I would intervene if I saw you beating your child, just as I would intervene if I saw a mugging or assault...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333595#msg1333595

And here is the reply in which you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I would be snatching your child from you...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333687#msg1333687

The response to that one, in which I explicitly deny that claim...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333819#msg1333819

And your response to my response, in which you stated you would reply with deadly force...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333845#msg1333845
(Note, the quotes are messed up, so that your response comes under the heading "Quote" and my statement to which you are responding comes under the heading "Quote from MoonShadow," because you cut out a reply of your own - specifically, the one from the second link, above - and incorrectly judged the number of tags to remove.)

I'll accept apology in the form of a public statement, and/or monetary compensation. 

[Rudd-O]

MoonBeaterOfChildren doesn't accept "your definitions" (translation: the normal meanings of the words you're using) because your definitions trivially prove him malevolent.  Sorta like the famous sociopath who said "well, no, I've never done anything violent, I killed a guy once, but nothing violent".

You, myrkul, clearly are an evil dictionarynoid oppressing Mr. Beating Children Is Not Violent Because I SAY SO, what with you bringing up your Fallacious Fascist Dictionary Authorities:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLODu02R_gA&feature=youtu.be&t=17m13s

Sociopathy at play, my man, sociopathy at play.

[MoonShadow]

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.

I have to agree with MoonShadow here. One funny thing about libertarians is that they often start from the proposition that everyone is free to do as they like and then end with the conclusion that everyone must behave in exactly the same way.

Though I think MoonShadow is an idiot and making bad decisions about how to raise his children, I don't think the children should take them away from him or that any other kind of intervention should take place. Children should only be removed if the corporal punishment MoonShadow's children suffer is sufficiently bad that they would be better off in foster homes. Evidence suggests that abuse has to be very severe before children are better off being separated from their parents.

MoonShadow is nowhere near as stupid as Myrkul.

My home is a foster home.  I agreed, by contract and in advance, to monthly visits by social workers.  My methods are not considered abuse by the state social structure.  Even so, I additionally agreed to not use corporal punishment of any form on the two foster boys, because they were removed from a physically abusive home.  The father avoided prison by surrendering his parental rights.  I abide by my agreements.

[MoonShadow]

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

Be my guest...If you can.

Here, let me help: This is the post in which I first stated that I would intervene if I saw you beating your child, just as I would intervene if I saw a mugging or assault...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333595#msg1333595

And here is the reply in which you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I would be snatching your child from you...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333687#msg1333687

The response to that one, in which I explicitly deny that claim...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333819#msg1333819

And your response to my response, in which you stated you would reply with deadly force...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333845#msg1333845
(Note, the quotes are messed up, so that your response comes under the heading "Quote" and my statement to which you are responding comes under the heading "Quote from MoonShadow," because you cut out a reply of your own - specifically, the one from the second link, above - and incorrectly judged the number of tags to remove.)

I'll accept apology in the form of a public statement, and/or monetary compensation. 

I'll review this at a later date.

[myrkul]

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

Be my guest...If you can.

Here, let me help: This is the post in which I first stated that I would intervene if I saw you beating your child, just as I would intervene if I saw a mugging or assault...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333595#msg1333595

And here is the reply in which you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I would be snatching your child from you...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333687#msg1333687

The response to that one, in which I explicitly deny that claim...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333819#msg1333819

And your response to my response, in which you stated you would reply with deadly force...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333845#msg1333845
(Note, the quotes are messed up, so that your response comes under the heading "Quote" and my statement to which you are responding comes under the heading "Quote from MoonShadow," because you cut out a reply of your own - specifically, the one from the second link, above - and incorrectly judged the number of tags to remove.)

I'll accept apology in the form of a public statement, and/or monetary compensation. 

I'll review this at a later date.

You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

[TheButterZone]

[Rudd-O]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/537673_351493224948722_683100895_n.jpg

That picture...

...too true.  I wish I had thought of that picture *I have it saved somewhere in my JPGs folder* and posted it earlier.

[MoonShadow]

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

Be my guest...If you can.

Here, let me help: This is the post in which I first stated that I would intervene if I saw you beating your child, just as I would intervene if I saw a mugging or assault...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333595#msg1333595

This is your exact quote...

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?

Emphasis is mine.  So you state that you would intervene as if I was a mugger attacking someone.  First off, this is  a dangerous position to take anyway, because not only do you really now know what is going on, whether or not you were correct you would be risking yourself for another. Perhaps a nobal goal, but you had better be damn sure that you're correct in your initial assumptions.  There are cases of people going to jail for intervening in conflicts for which their assumptions were incorrect.

But back to my point.  You state that you would intervene as if I were a mugger on the street.  Am I to assume that you would intervene by trying to reason with me?  Of course not.  The implication here is that you would do one of two things; either you would intervene using force of your own, or call the police to do it for you.  It should be obvious enough that you didn't mean the latter, sicne you are so opposed to government monopolies, I should rationally be able to assume you ment the former.  If you really believed that what I was doing was criminal, and that you had some obligation to stop it, by what logic would you depend upon retoric?

The response to that one, in which I explicitly deny that claim...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333819#msg1333819

And this is the quote wherein you deny the obvious interpretation...

Oh, I have no intention of attempting to kidnap your child, nor of calling the police (or in an AnCap society, a defense agency) on you. But I am for damn sure going to step in and stop you from beating your child in front of me. We would likely have something of this very conversation, right there in the street.

Again, emphasis is mine.  Again, you you state that you are "damn sure" going to step in and stop me from "beating" my child in front of me.  Again, you had better be certain of your interpretation of the situtation.  But how would be certain to do such a thing?  You follow up with the bullshit that we would have such a discussion on the street.  No we would not, because in order for you to stop me, you would have had to come between us.  Do you really imagine that you would be negotiating with anyone at this point.  I pride myself on my level-headed-ness, but I know that I'd be in condition 2 before you had the chance to speak.  Anyone more jumpy and armed and you'd be a gurgling mass.


EDIT:  More precisely, I'd be in Condition Orange.  I'm generally in Condition 2 when I carry, so the immediate shift would be mental, from Yellow to Orange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Combat_Mindset.E2.80.94The_Cooper_Color_Code

I'll accept apology in the form of a public statement, and/or monetary compensation.  

You'll get neither from me, as I still contend that I interpreted the situation correctly.  You may, once again, try backpedaling from your original statements, and pretend that you didn't ever intend it the way you said it; or you could man up and admit that you were implying that you would really have 'intervened' exactly as I interpreted it.

[lebing]

[myrkul]

 No we would not, because in order for you to stop me, you would have had to come between us.  

Yes, bodily interpose myself between you and your victim. That is not to say I would snatch up your kid and try to take them away. I might lay hands on you, the aggressor, to stop you from hitting the kid, but I would not yank the kid up and run off. I would, of course, start off with "Hey! Quit beating that kid!" which would only escalate to interposing myself if you did not desist.

[MoonShadow]

 No we would not, because in order for you to stop me, you would have had to come between us.  

Yes, bodily interpose myself between you and your victim. That is not to say I would snatch up your kid and try to take them away. I might lay hands on you, the aggressor, to stop you from hitting the kid, but I would not yank the kid up and run off. I would, of course, start off with "Hey! Quit beating that kid!" which would only escalate to interposing myself if you did not desist.

And what do you think might happen next?

[TheButterZone]

Everything seems to be outlined already, except for that unfortunate escalation earlier in the thread where you said you would use deadly force as soon as Myrkul started yelling at you in public.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit beating that kid!"
Aggressor: /keeps beating kid
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor
Aggressor: /pushes past Myrkul, keeps beating kid
Myrkul: "I said stop, god damnit!" /lays hands on the aggressor, likely a grab from behind to stop the kid's beating
Aggressor: /whirls around, backs up to draw gun, shoots Myrkul, goes to prison for claiming "self-defense" is justified against people who try to stop child abuse

[FirstAscent]

Everything seems to be outlined already, except for that unfortunate escalation earlier in the thread where you said you would use deadly force as soon as Myrkul started yelling at you in public.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit beating that kid!"
Aggressor: /keeps beating kid
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor
Aggressor: /pushes past Myrkul, keeps beating kid
Myrkul: "I said stop, god damnit!" /lays hands on the aggressor, likely a grab from behind to stop the kid's beating
Aggressor: /whirls around, backs up to draw gun, shoots Myrkul, goes to prison for claiming "self-defense" is justified against people who try to stop child abuse

All false. Not once have I heard mention the severity of the kid beating. It makes all the difference in the world, as the world is not black and white. All we have here is talk.

[MoonShadow]

Everything seems to be outlined already, except for that unfortunate escalation earlier in the thread where you said you would use deadly force as soon as Myrkul started yelling at you.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit beating that kid!"
Aggressor: /keeps beating kid
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.

MoonShadow: /pushes past Myrkul, Continues to address his child's misbehaviors in his own way.
Myrkul, the aggressor: "I said stop, god damnit!" /lays hands on MoonShadow, likely a grab from behind to stop the activity.

FTFY

MoonShadow: /whirls around, backs up to draw gun, shoots Aggressive interloper

Potentially shoots Myrkul.  Wheterh or not I actually did, and whether or not I was prosecuted in my own state, depends entirely upon the details.

And yet, this strawman is entirely beside the point.  As noted, Myrkul orriginally stated that he would treat me as if I were a (presumedly violent) street mugger.  To later state that he intended that we would  simply step between us(even if theat were possible) is irrational.  One does not deal with a mugger by stepping between a violent person and his current target, and then try to talk to them.  Therefore, it would have been irrational for me to have assumed that he intended anything other than the deliberate use of force against myself, or my child, inorder to affect change.  That makes him the aggressor, from my perspective, and the results predictable.  To argue that my perspectives are not correct is irrelevant, for those would be the first impressions of anyone who were in such a situation that Myrkul describes.  I simply turned his strawman situtation around upon him, and told him how the real end result of such an unlikely encounter.  To later backpedal and state that he didn't intend it the way I interpreted it is, again, beside the point.  To interprete his original statements how he, later, professes them would have been irrational.

[TheButterZone]

Not sure how acting as human shields and using our backs with arms up in the air to block adult violence against children counts as aggression, but I guess that's the absolutely fucked up world that we live in and take offense to.

[myrkul]

Note: What follows is an exact quote, but with only a few words changed. See if you can guess which!

Everything seems to be outlined already, except for that unfortunate escalation earlier in the thread where you said you would use deadly force as soon as Myrkul started yelling at you.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit raping that woman!"
Aggressor: /keeps raping woman
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.

Still make sense?

[MoonShadow]

Not sure how acting as human shields and using our backs with arms up in the air to block adult violence against children counts as aggression, but I guess that's the absolutely fucked up world that we live in and take offense to.

Well, for starters, simply making the deliberate act of seperating a child from their parent in a public space is an act of aggression.  But as I have already noted, that's not the same strawman that Myrkul started with, although that's the one that he would have prefered once I hit him with reality.  Even still, his odds of making through such a confrontation without harm are higher in my presence than most, and still not very high even if he didn't intend to cause harm.  His actions would not have been interpreted that way, even by someone who was rational.  Anyone less than rational is unlikely to have interpreted his actions in any way more favorable than I anyway.

[MoonShadow]

Note: What follows is an exact quote, but with only a few words changed. See if you can guess which!

Everything seems to be outlined already, except for that unfortunate escalation earlier in the thread where you said you would use deadly force as soon as Myrkul started yelling at you.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit raping that woman!"
Aggressor: /keeps raping woman
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.

Still make sense?

Of course not.  no one does this to stop a rapist...

Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

Although I do have to admire your persistance, even if your rationality is is question.

[myrkul]

Note: What follows is an exact quote, but with only a few words changed. See if you can guess which!

Everything seems to be outlined already, except for that unfortunate escalation earlier in the thread where you said you would use deadly force as soon as Myrkul started yelling at you.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit raping that woman!"
Aggressor: /keeps raping woman
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.

Still make sense?

Of course not.  no one does this to stop a rapist...

Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

Although I do have to admire your persistance, even if your rationality is is question.

You're the one who has questionable rationality, here. If stopping a rapist is not aggressing, why is it when I try to stop someone beating their kid?

[MoonShadow]

Note: What follows is an exact quote, but with only a few words changed. See if you can guess which!

Everything seems to be outlined already, except for that unfortunate escalation earlier in the thread where you said you would use deadly force as soon as Myrkul started yelling at you.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit raping that woman!"
Aggressor: /keeps raping woman
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.

Still make sense?

Of course not.  no one does this to stop a rapist...

Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

Although I do have to admire your persistance, even if your rationality is is question.

You're the one who has questionable rationality, here. If stopping a rapist is not aggressing, why is it when I try to stop someone beating their kid?

Wow, you are thick.

I did not say that stopping a rapist wasn't an aggressive act, I said that no one does it like you are trying to imply.  Stopping a rape certainly is an aggressive act, which is one reason that you had best be certain that you have interpreted the situation correctly.  If you happen upon a screamer and her boyfriend having wild, consentual, sex in some seedy area's backally; and you interfere, you are the aggressor no matter how it is you believed the situation.  If it's a true rape, use of force to protect the victim is justifiable (if you are correct) but it is still force.  This is a case in point about outcomes, it's not your perceptions that matter, but the woman's.  If you are wrong, and her boyfriend is harmed, you are liable for that harm.

Yet, that is still beside the point, because this is not the situation that your original strawman implied, and by now you know it.  I interpreted your statement "I will intervene just as if I see a mugging on the street" cannot be interpreted in the way (passive aggressive) that you claim that you intended it.  It can only, rationally, be interpreted that you inplied tht you would intervene with deliberate and immediate force.  That is why I responded in the way that I did, and you continue to claim that I am wrong.  I, quite literally, can't be wrong in this situation; because I'm the character in this strawman play that is interpreting your intent.  What you may have wanted to imply, or say, or convey; is entirely irrelevant.

[myrkul]

Stopping a rape certainly is an aggressive act...

No, it is a defensive act, specifically, third-party defense. Aggression is initiating the use of force. If I stop a rape, I am not initiating the use of force, I'm stopping it.

If I interrupt a screamer and her boyfriend, then I am initiating the use of force, because there was no force being used in the first place. In that situation, I am the aggressor, and would apologize and leave, very embarrassed.

Beating a kid is decidedly the use of force, and intervening is not aggression, it's defense - stopping the use of force, by force if necessary.

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

[MoonShadow]

You're the one who has questionable rationality, here. If stopping a rapist is not aggressing, why is it when I try to stop someone beating their kid?

Furthermore, your interpretation of this strawman situation is critical.  If I were, as a matter of fact, some nutcase ruthlessly beating a child (mine or someone else's), then your interference; whether of the passive aggressive type you claim, or of the more normally aggressive variety, is entirely justifiable.

However, if instead, you were to see me simply spanking my miss-behaving child (already a very unlikey event, in my case) in a public place, and you chose to intervene (by whatever method) you would still be an aggressor.  You would have to be able to justify your actions (assuming you survived the encounter), and you cannot do that without my child agreeing with your perspectives.  In most places in these United States, corporel punishment is legal (whether you like that or not) and the law treats the parents as 'guardian ad litem', or guardians under the law, and thus the child's rights are exercised by the parents until of legal age. (18 unless the parents chose to 'emancipate' as noted earlier)  So, unless you can convince a judge to appoint another 'guardian ad litem', you would have to ask the parents to agree with your perspectives.  Do you not see your problem?  There is nothing in ancap theories, nor in the non-agression principle, that solves the root disagreement here.  We disagree on this very core issue, and your problem is that you can't seem to fall back upon your own ancap principles and accept that, as the parent, I have the greater claim to my own children and their interests.

[myrkul]

You would have to be able to justify your actions (assuming you survived the encounter), and you cannot do that without my child agreeing with your perspectives.

Pretty damned sure they'd want you to stop hitting them.

[TheButterZone]

Not sure how acting as human shields and using our backs with arms up in the air to block adult violence against children counts as aggression, but I guess that's the absolutely fucked up world that we live in and take offense to.

Well, for starters, simply making the deliberate act of seperating a child from their parent in a public space is an act of aggression.  But as I have already noted, that's not the same strawman that Myrkul started with, although that's the one that he would have prefered once I hit him with reality.  Even still, his odds of making through such a confrontation without harm are higher in my presence than most, and still not very high even if he didn't intend to cause harm.  His actions would not have been interpreted that way, even by someone who was rational.  Anyone less than rational is unlikely to have interpreted his actions in any way more favorable than I anyway.

Yes, because real life is a MMORPG, where you have a tag hovering over your head constantly that says Parent and all children have a Child tag hovering over their heads that indicates they are within striking distance of their Parent.

Even in your world where child abuse isn't violence, that's fucking irrational as fuck.

If you are beating a child in public then you will be treated exactly the same as a violent criminal, because THAT is what you appear to be. Your logic dictates that we should assume all rapists should be viewed as consensual lovers of their bruised, bloodied, torn clothes, screaming "no" victims in dark alleys by default. BULLSHIT.

[MoonShadow]

Stopping a rape certainly is an aggressive act...

No, it is a defensive act, specifically, third-party defense. Aggression is initiating the use of force. If I stop a rape, I am not initiating the use of force, I'm stopping it.

If I interrupt a screamer and her boyfriend, then I am initiating the use of force, because there was no force being used in the first place. In that situation, I am the aggressor, and would apologize and leave, very embarrassed.

And yet, you cannot see the error in your logic, even now.  

And you would not apologize and leave.  You would, at a minimum, have to face restitution for whatever harm you caused; even in your ideal ancap world.  And that's the best case scenario.  If your intentions were misinterpreted by the lovers, you'd as likely be shot; and under such case their interpretations of your intent would be the material one.

Beating a kid is decidedly the use of force, and intervening is not aggression, it's defense - stopping the use of force, by force if necessary.

You insist on using a biased strawman argument, but whatever.  Again, defense is use of force.  Whether or not it is defensive in nature, in third party defensive situtations, is not dependent upon your interpretaion of the situation, but your presumed victim's.  Again, if you are wrong, you are the aggressor.  Everyting flows from the interpretaion after the fact, but in the heat of the moment there can be many interpretions.

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.   Granted, that guy went to prison for pulling a weapon on police, not for missinterpreting an encounter or harming anyone, and he shouldn't be there; but there he is.  I would ceratinly take much more care to understand such a situation, if for no other reason than the protection of people that I don't know is less of an obligation upon myself than protecting myself from the aggressions of any party to a conflict.  I am not obligated, by the NAP or otherwise, to intervene at all.

[MoonShadow]

You would have to be able to justify your actions (assuming you survived the encounter), and you cannot do that without my child agreeing with your perspectives.

Pretty damned sure they'd want you to stop hitting them.

Perhaps.  I'm pretty sure that he wanted to continue to beat on his little brother unhindered as well, before your strawman character walked around the corner.

And don't had me some bullshit about how peaceful and loving my children would have been to each other had I only tried to reason with them as toddlers.  If you actually believe that boys aren't naturally inclined to dominate each other (particularly their slightly younger peers) then you have no experience with children at all.  Girls will do the same thing, BTW; although they may not do so quite as readily.  One of the only things that will get my wife to go directly to corporal punishment with our children has always been one hitting the other.  My oldest child is female, and her little brother two years younger.  When he was still an infant, she treated him like a precious doll.  But once he was old enough to move around and play with "her" toys, she would regularly strike him (quite hard, mind you) in order to take the toy away, while screaming "MINE!"

How old are your daughters, BTW?  Now I'm curious.

[justusranvier]

tl;dr

MoonShadow will never admit that it's wrong to hit children, because that would require confessing to unjustified aggression against children. Instead of coming clean he's chosen the route of doubling down on wrong.

I don't think there's much that can be done at this point other than to spread the knowledge that relationships are voluntary, so that the children he's raising will encounter it when they are no longer under his control and realize they aren't bound or obligated in any way to maintain a relationship with someone who hit them.

[MoonShadow]

If you are beating a child in public then you will be treated exactly the same as a violent criminal, because THAT is what you appear to be. Your logic dictates that we should assume all rapists should be viewed as consensual lovers of their bruised, bloodied, torn clothes, screaming "no" victims in dark alleys by default. BULLSHIT.

My logic assume no such thing.  This is why it's best to call the cops, even if you are an ancap, and let the agents of the state hash things out.  Under no conditions am I obligated to intervene at all.

[MoonShadow]

I don't think there's much that can be done at this point other than to spread the knowledge that relationships are voluntary, so that the children he's raising will encounter it when they are no longer under his control and realize they aren't bound or obligated in any way to maintain a relationship with someone who hit them.

That is, probably, the most rational thing you have said in this thread.  You are welcome to do exactly what you profess above.  You will, most definately, be shocked at just how unlikely it is that my children will take you up on your advice.

[myrkul]

Beating a kid is decidedly the use of force, and intervening is not aggression, it's defense - stopping the use of force, by force if necessary.

You insist on using a biased strawman argument, but whatever.  Again, defense is use of force.  Whether or not it is defensive in nature, in third party defensive situtations, is not dependent upon your interpretaion of the situation, but your presumed victim's.  Again, if you are wrong, you are the aggressor.  Everyting flows from the interpretaion after the fact, but in the heat of the moment there can be many interpretions.

Not of an adult beating a child. There's only one interpretation of that: abuse. I don't care if it's your kid, or if he mouthed off to you, or whatever excuse you're using to hit him. You are striking a person who, even if they were inclined to defend themselves, would be absolutely incapable. That's wrong on the face of it. It needs no deeper interpretations. And if he was hitting his sister, how does you hitting him drive home the point that hitting is wrong?

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.

And that justifies their actions, how, exactly? Freedom of speech goes out the window when you're talking to cops? Throwing peanuts at someone makes them ganging up and kicking the shit out of you OK?

Granted, that guy went to prison for pulling a weapon on police, not for missinterpreting an encounter or harming anyone, and he shouldn't be there; but there he is.  I would ceratinly take much more care to understand such a situation, if for no other reason than the protection of people that I don't know is less of an obligation upon myself than protecting myself from the aggressions of any party to a conflict.  I am not obligated, by the NAP or otherwise, to intervene at all.

No, you are not obliged to intervene. But I'm sure that if it were you on the ground, you'd like the passerby to stop, yes? Or Does "Do unto others" not mean anything? I thought you were a Christian. My opinion of you, your morals, and your intellectual integrity has dropped dramatically over the course of this thread, and I don't think I can comfortably say I would want to live anywhere near you anymore.

[justusranvier]

You will, most definately, be shocked at just how unlikely it is that my children will take you up on your advice.

Slavery was one of humanity's oldest, and seemingly invulnerable, institutions, right up until it ceased to exist.

It was evil the entire time, of course, but every generation of slave owners escaped the consequences of their crimes until the last one. That generation lost everything.

You might get away with it too, but then again again you might not.

You've just got to ask yourself, "Do I feel lucky?"

[TheButterZone]

If you are beating a child in public then you will be treated exactly the same as a violent criminal, because THAT is what you appear to be. Your logic dictates that we should assume all rapists should be viewed as consensual lovers of their bruised, bloodied, torn clothes, screaming "no" victims in dark alleys by default. BULLSHIT.

My logic assume no such thing.  This is why it's best to call the cops, even if you are an ancap, and let the agents of the state hash things out.  Under no conditions am I obligated to intervene at all.

Of course it doesn't.

If "the cops" exist, I will call them after there is probable cause for an arrest, and it will not be after I allow it to escalate to murder or attempted murder. Under no conditions are the cops obligated to intervene at all, merely fill out crime reports and perhaps transport arrestees to jail, presentment to magistrate. If two people are having sex in public, then the 1st (rolling video, then yelling) and 2nd Amendment (mere visibility of arms, then active use thereof) force scale gives them a chance to stop and explain themselves when I shout "hey, what are you doing?" at them. Then if the rapist/victim gives me probable cause (rapist covers mouth, I see a weapon being used by either party, victim screams rape, help, etc...), and "step away from each other and lay face down with your arms above your head" doesn't work, then the actual intervention and liability begins, which as a human being I must oblige, even in the total absence of a practiced religion.

[MoonShadow]

Beating a kid is decidedly the use of force, and intervening is not aggression, it's defense - stopping the use of force, by force if necessary.

You insist on using a biased strawman argument, but whatever.  Again, defense is use of force.  Whether or not it is defensive in nature, in third party defensive situtations, is not dependent upon your interpretaion of the situation, but your presumed victim's.  Again, if you are wrong, you are the aggressor.  Everyting flows from the interpretaion after the fact, but in the heat of the moment there can be many interpretions.

Not of an adult beating a child. There's only one interpretation of that: abuse. I don't care if it's your kid, or if he mouthed off to you, or whatever excuse you're using to hit him. You are striking a person who, even if they were inclined to defend themselves, would be absolutely incapable. That's wrong on the face of it. It needs no deeper interpretations.

So sayaith Judge Dred himself, eh?

And if he was hitting his sister, how does you hitting him drive home the point that hitting is wrong?

It doesn't, it merely conditions an irrational child to associate certain behaviors with certain consquences.  In the case of hitting his siblings, the natural consequences may not be enough of an incentive to deter him.  After all, if my son were to hit his big sister, what more could I have done that his sister would not have already?  Is the defense of the younger child also not the responsibility of the parent?  Or are the rules different simply because the aggressor also happens to be a child?  What if the neighborhood bully were to enter your own front yard to smack around your daughter?  Are you just going to try to reason with him, or are you going to intervene?  What difference does the age of the attacker, or the relative size of the defender, matter in tis context?  None at all, but you make special cases within your own mind to justify to yourself your own perspectives.  The truth is that there exists no consistant method of how to treat pre-age-of-reason children in any version of ancap or libertarian theories.  Usually the matter is left entirely unaddressed.  As such, my own interpretation is a valid as your own, you just refuse to accept that.

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.

And that justifies their actions, how, exactly? Freedom of speech goes out the window when you're talking to cops? Throwing peanuts at someone makes them ganging up and kicking the shit out of you OK?

I didn't say it justified their actions, I just pointed out that the potential of misinterpreting a situation is high, and carries it's own consquences.  I live in this world, your's remains theoretical.  Even so, there is a old principle known as "fighting words" that can be considered aggression in it's own right.  There is a very good reason that, historically speaking, armed societies were polite socities.  There is no reason to assume that an ancap society would be different in this regard.  This one certainly isn't.  If this same skinhead were doing the same thing to a group of young black men, would you have expected their reactions to have been differnet?  If not, why not?  And if it were these young black men who that guy with the 38 special had encountered, how would that have affected the accuracy of his interpretations?  Sure, he had the power to intervene, but should he have excersized that power?  Would he have done so, if he had boune witness to the confrontations that led upto the part he did see?  Hard to say, and therein lies the rub.  If it's hard to say, you shouldn't be inclined to jump into other people's businesses.

Granted, that guy went to prison for pulling a weapon on police, not for missinterpreting an encounter or harming anyone, and he shouldn't be there; but there he is.  I would ceratinly take much more care to understand such a situation, if for no other reason than the protection of people that I don't know is less of an obligation upon myself than protecting myself from the aggressions of any party to a conflict.  I am not obligated, by the NAP or otherwise, to intervene at all.

No, you are not obliged to intervene. But I'm sure that if it were you on the ground, you'd like the passerby to stop, yes? Or Does "Do unto others" not mean anything? I thought you were a Christian. My opinion of you, your morals, and your intellectual integrity has dropped dramatically over the course of this thread, and I don't think I can comfortably say I would want to live anywhere near you anymore.

I feel the same about you, I must say.  I think having someone so cocksure of himself and so ready to default towards the use of force against others would be unwise to invite into my own sphere of relations under any conditions.  Most likley, however, you're not really a hypocrite; just young and inexperienced.  I'm sure that you will grow out of it.

[MoonShadow]

If you are beating a child in public then you will be treated exactly the same as a violent criminal, because THAT is what you appear to be. Your logic dictates that we should assume all rapists should be viewed as consensual lovers of their bruised, bloodied, torn clothes, screaming "no" victims in dark alleys by default. BULLSHIT.

My logic assume no such thing.  This is why it's best to call the cops, even if you are an ancap, and let the agents of the state hash things out.  Under no conditions am I obligated to intervene at all.

Of course it doesn't.

If "the cops" exist, I will call them after there is probable cause for an arrest, and it will not be after I allow it to escalate to murder or attempted murder. Under no conditions are the cops obligated to intervene at all, merely fill out crime reports and perhaps transport arrestees to jail, presentment to magistrate. If two people are having sex in public, then the 1st (rolling video, then yelling) and 2nd Amendment (mere visibility of arms, then active use thereof) force scale gives them a chance to stop and explain themselves when I shout "hey, what are you doing?" at them. Then if the rapist/victim gives me probable cause (rapist covers mouth, I see a weapon being used by either party, victim screams rape, help, etc...), and "step away from each other and lay face down with your arms above your head" doesn't work, then the actual intervention and liability begins, which as a human being I must oblige, even in the total absence of a practiced religion.

You do realize that your ongoing rape strawman situation has next to zero to do with this topic right?

[MoonShadow]

I noticed that you never did mention how old your daughters were.  Have you ever had your daughters get into a fight?

[MoonShadow]

I noticed that you never did mention how old your daughters were.  Have you ever had your daughters get into a fight?

Hmm, are you afraid to answer this question because I might use it against you?

Assuming that you have ever encountered one sibling attacking the other, what did you do?  Did you try to reason with the attacker?  Did you put her in a 'time out'?  While my methods certainly don't teach my children that hitting is wrong, what do your methods teach the victimized sibling about justice?  From my perspectives, it would teach them that the only way that they will get justice for being wronged by their sibling is to exact that justice themselves.  This is very much a problem with pre-K daycare centers, as all the children learn early on that the consequences of their actions that are likely to be imposed upon misbehavior by the caretakers are almost always less troublesome than the actions themselves.  Some children learn this, and take advantage of it while dominating their peers.  Others children learn this, and come to understand that the caretakers can't always watch over them, can't see all of them, and don't impose consequences evenly, nor in a fashion that is equatable to the crime; and those children learn to defend themselves in kind and exact their own form of justice, or they simply curl up and suffer.

[myrkul]

And if he was hitting his sister, how does you hitting him drive home the point that hitting is wrong?

It doesn't, it merely conditions an irrational child to associate certain behaviors with certain consquences.

So we're back to treating our children like animals, are we?

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.

And that justifies their actions, how, exactly? Freedom of speech goes out the window when you're talking to cops? Throwing peanuts at someone makes them ganging up and kicking the shit out of you OK?

I didn't say it justified their actions, I just pointed out that the potential of misinterpreting a situation is high, and carries it's own consquences.

Ahh, but there's the rub. He correctly interpreted the situation, but had the misfortune to come to the defense of the victim of the Praetorian Guards. Interestingly, the parallels to our discussion are very strong.

Granted, that guy went to prison for pulling a weapon on police, not for missinterpreting an encounter or harming anyone, and he shouldn't be there; but there he is.  I would ceratinly take much more care to understand such a situation, if for no other reason than the protection of people that I don't know is less of an obligation upon myself than protecting myself from the aggressions of any party to a conflict.  I am not obligated, by the NAP or otherwise, to intervene at all.

No, you are not obliged to intervene. But I'm sure that if it were you on the ground, you'd like the passerby to stop, yes? Or Does "Do unto others" not mean anything? I thought you were a Christian. My opinion of you, your morals, and your intellectual integrity has dropped dramatically over the course of this thread, and I don't think I can comfortably say I would want to live anywhere near you anymore.

I feel the same about you, I must say.  I think having someone so cocksure of himself and so ready to default towards the use of force against others would be unwise to invite into my own sphere of relations under any conditions.  Most likley, however, you're not really a hypocrite; just young and inexperienced.  I'm sure that you will grow out of it.

I do not default to the use of force against others, but if someone is using force against another, I will intervene. That may require the use of force, though I will attempt a peaceable solution, first.

[TheButterZone]

If you are beating a child in public then you will be treated exactly the same as a violent criminal, because THAT is what you appear to be. Your logic dictates that we should assume all rapists should be viewed as consensual lovers of their bruised, bloodied, torn clothes, screaming "no" victims in dark alleys by default. BULLSHIT.

My logic assume no such thing.  This is why it's best to call the cops, even if you are an ancap, and let the agents of the state hash things out.  Under no conditions am I obligated to intervene at all.

Of course it doesn't.

If "the cops" exist, I will call them after there is probable cause for an arrest, and it will not be after I allow it to escalate to murder or attempted murder. Under no conditions are the cops obligated to intervene at all, merely fill out crime reports and perhaps transport arrestees to jail, presentment to magistrate. If two people are having sex in public, then the 1st (rolling video, then yelling) and 2nd Amendment (mere visibility of arms, then active use thereof) force scale gives them a chance to stop and explain themselves when I shout "hey, what are you doing?" at them. Then if the rapist/victim gives me probable cause (rapist covers mouth, I see a weapon being used by either party, victim screams rape, help, etc...), and "step away from each other and lay face down with your arms above your head" doesn't work, then the actual intervention and liability begins, which as a human being I must oblige, even in the total absence of a practiced religion.

You do realize that your ongoing rape strawman situation has next to zero to do with this topic right?

Myrkul=/ me, analogies=/strawmen.

It's telling that you chose not to respond to:

Yes, because real life is a MMORPG, where you have a tag hovering over your head constantly that says Parent and all children have a Child tag hovering over their heads that indicates they are within striking distance of their Parent.

Because your rationalization is absolutely irrational to the rest of us who can't tell who Parents and Children are in relation to each other, in public. All we see is AN adult perpetrating violence against A child. No fracking identity tags, ZERO evidence that the child has any relation to the adult WHATSOEVER. Unless you believe that any adult perpetrating violence against any child makes that child "belong to" or "be in lawful custody of", the adult.

[MoonShadow]

And if he was hitting his sister, how does you hitting him drive home the point that hitting is wrong?

It doesn't, it merely conditions an irrational child to associate certain behaviors with certain consquences.

So we're back to treating our children like animals, are we?

If that is how you wish to look at it, go ahead, but it does not change the reality that your perspectives have zero bearing on my children.  Once again, I must point out that, (under this reality one such as an ancap) it's not your opinion that matters with regard to my children; it's mine.  Your opinion is inmaterial.

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.

And that justifies their actions, how, exactly? Freedom of speech goes out the window when you're talking to cops? Throwing peanuts at someone makes them ganging up and kicking the shit out of you OK?

I didn't say it justified their actions, I just pointed out that the potential of misinterpreting a situation is high, and carries it's own consquences.

Ahh, but there's the rub. He correctly interpreted the situation, but had the misfortune to come to the defense of the victim of the Praetorian Guards. Interestingly, the parallels to our discussion are very strong.

How exactly?  Are you of the opinion that the skinhead doesn't hold any responsibility for the outcome?  Or that the interloper was obligated to defend someone he doesn't know from the Praetorian Guards?

Granted, that guy went to prison for pulling a weapon on police, not for missinterpreting an encounter or harming anyone, and he shouldn't be there; but there he is.  I would ceratinly take much more care to understand such a situation, if for no other reason than the protection of people that I don't know is less of an obligation upon myself than protecting myself from the aggressions of any party to a conflict.  I am not obligated, by the NAP or otherwise, to intervene at all.

No, you are not obliged to intervene. But I'm sure that if it were you on the ground, you'd like the passerby to stop, yes? Or Does "Do unto others" not mean anything? I thought you were a Christian. My opinion of you, your morals, and your intellectual integrity has dropped dramatically over the course of this thread, and I don't think I can comfortably say I would want to live anywhere near you anymore.

I feel the same about you, I must say.  I think having someone so cocksure of himself and so ready to default towards the use of force against others would be unwise to invite into my own sphere of relations under any conditions.  Most likley, however, you're not really a hypocrite; just young and inexperienced.  I'm sure that you will grow out of it.

I do not default to the use of force against others, except if I perceive someone is using force against another, I will intervene. That may require the use of force, though I will attempt a peaceable solution, first.

FTFY

[myrkul]

And if he was hitting his sister, how does you hitting him drive home the point that hitting is wrong?

It doesn't, it merely conditions an irrational child to associate certain behaviors with certain consquences.

So we're back to treating our children like animals, are we?

If that is how you wish to look at it, go ahead, but it does not change the reality that your perspectives have zero bearing on my children.  Once again, I must point out that, (under this reality one such as an ancap) it's not your opinion that matters with regard to my children; it's mine.  Your opinion is inmaterial.

This isn't a matter of opinion. it's fact. You're treating a person with rights as though they had none, and were in fact, an animal, incapable of thought. No matter how you shy from this realization, that's exactly what you're doing, abusing them.

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.

And that justifies their actions, how, exactly? Freedom of speech goes out the window when you're talking to cops? Throwing peanuts at someone makes them ganging up and kicking the shit out of you OK?

I didn't say it justified their actions, I just pointed out that the potential of misinterpreting a situation is high, and carries it's own consquences.

Ahh, but there's the rub. He correctly interpreted the situation, but had the misfortune to come to the defense of the victim of the Praetorian Guards. Interestingly, the parallels to our discussion are very strong.

How exactly?  Are you of the opinion that the skinhead doesn't hold any responsibility for the outcome?  Or that the interloper was obligated to defend someone he doesn't know from the Praetorian Guards?

The off-duty policemen thought they had every right to beat up the skinhead. They initiated violence upon him, and the defender got the shaft. If you're blaming the skinhead for being beaten by a gang of thugs with tin shields because he mouthed off to them and tossed peanuts, you might as well blame the rape victim for her rape, because she was wearing a tight skirt. But, then, you consider beating your kids a suitable way to treat a defenseless person with rights, so I suppose your values are pretty skewed to begin with.

I would strongly suggest you take a good long look at the things you have defended in this thread, and see how many you defended because they are just, and right, and how many you defended because they parallel you beating your kids, and you can't defend that without defending them, as well. Start with that story about the off-duty pigs.

[Rudd-O]

Not sure how acting as human shields and using our backs with arms up in the air to block adult violence against children counts as aggression, but I guess that's the absolutely fucked up world that we live in and take offense to.

Well said.

I'm mostly shielded from MoonAbuser's garbage, but the few things he has said that have snuck through comment quotes reveal the absolute putrefaction and perversity rotten in his mind.  Some "Christian" he is.

[cunicula]

The State assigns parental rights to MoonShadow. This allows him to raise his children as he likes within fairly broad boundaries. That is called freedom. Without the restrictions, questions like "should we take away his children?" would be ambiguous. This ambiguity would force MoonShadow to conform to everyone else's beliefs. That is how I expect an AnCap society would be. All laws and rights are ambiguous, so you would need conform with everyone else's views to avoid risk of violent confrontation. I prefer freedom and individuality thus I choose Statism.

Have I got this right?

[myrkul]

Have I got this right?

You can safely assume the answer to this question is pretty much always "No."

[MoonShadow]

I see that we need to return to first principles, Myrkul.

Correct me it I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will, but isn't one of the core principles of an AnCap society that every adult is soverign over their own affairs?

If that is true, is it not also true that my views about how I raise my children are a matter between myself, my wife and my children?

Just as you are soverign over your own affairs, and can raise your children as you see fit, as I have no say in your affairs; correct?

Do you not see the contradiction in your own philosophy?  One the one hand, you profess that men should be able to govern themselves (for which I agree) and see no problem with taking that to it's absolute (for which I don't agree); but on the other hand, you also profess that there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to raise children.  Sure, you have the right to believe that, even to profess that; but you don't have the right to impose your beliefs upon others.  Should you choose to do so, and cannot get compliance with words alone, you have professed a moral obligation to use force.  Granted, violence is the last argument of the sovereign, but it is also about as likely to be his last argument ever. 

I do see the contradiction of anarchism, for it fundementally assumes that every adult has, not just the right, but also the willingness and ability to self-govern.  (This ability also presumes self-censorship, as in the skinhead in the barfight example; while none of us has the right to not be offended, offending others still has natural consequences) The root problem with this theory is that there will always be a subset of people for which this assumption does not apply.  Some will grow into it, others never will, but never can all the people be able to self-govern at the same time.  So what is the pensive ancap to do?  If you really believe that corporeal punishment is child abuse, are you not obligated to intervene?  But how, if every adult is presumed capable of self-government, and is sovereign over his own affairs?  If you step in personally, and things go sour, do you imagine that my children will be thankful that you have relieved them of a tyranical parent?  Or is it more likely that you would have started a blood feud between my surviving family members and your own?  This is not a trivial question, since we can't assume that everyone who lives in an ancap society would agree with your own belief system.

Granted, our real world has many contradictions.  Yet one sign of maturity is the ability to incorporate such contradictions into one's worldview.

And to the "point" about my not being a good Christain because I don't see the "Golden Rule" in the same context that you do, the best understanding in English for the Golden Rule is not "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (otherwise you have this very event.. http://www.dilbert.com/strips/2012-12-09/ ) it's more correct to say "Do not do unto others for which you would not have done to you".  The distinction is not trivial.

[MoonShadow]

The State assigns parental rights to MoonShadow. This allows him to raise his children as he likes within fairly broad boundaries. That is called freedom. Without the restrictions, questions like "should we take away his children?" would be ambiguous. This ambiguity would force MoonShadow to conform to everyone else's beliefs. That is how I expect an AnCap society would be. All laws and rights are ambiguous, so you would need conform with everyone else's views to avoid risk of violent confrontation. I prefer freedom and individuality thus I choose Statism.

Have I got this right?

If your version of statism exists only to protect the rights of the individual, and society from external threats, then yes.

However I strongly doubt that is what you mean.

[FirstAscent]

This isn't a matter of opinion. it's fact. You're treating a person with rights as though they had none, and were in fact, an animal, incapable of thought. No matter how you shy from this realization, that's exactly what you're doing, abusing them.

That's the second time you've done that. Instead of trying to differentiate treatment of people and children from treatment of animals, for the most part, you should consider that animals are capable of feeling pain and suffering, and various types of thoughts. I think it demonstrates a deficiency in your thinking, and to some extent, disqualifies you from discussion. Better to think that animals also deserve to be treated well.

Anyway, your arguments are rather weak. First, be very clear on the exact offense you claim MoonShadow is engaging in (slicing out a child's eyeballs, whipping a child with a belt, patting a child on the bottom, etc.). Second, since you're such a man of action, please share the times you've intervened to disrupt violent actions.

[myrkul]

I see that we need to return to first principles, Myrkul.

Correct me it I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will, but isn't one of the core principles of an AnCap society that every adult is soverign over their own affairs?

True, their own affairs.

If that is true, is it not also true that my views about how I raise my children are a matter between myself, my wife and my children?

As long as you're not violating their rights, yes. And might I remind you...

...we recognise that he will have rights in the future, and thus he has them now.

Just as you are soverign over your own affairs, and can raise your children as you see fit, as I have no say in your affairs; correct?

Correct, again, assuming I do not, myself, violate my kids' rights.

I understand where you're coming from... Daddy Government has to violate a little of our rights to protect us, so it's naturally OK for Daddy to violate a little of his kids' rights to protect them. Of course, it's demonstrably true that you don't need this type of hypocrisy, that those who protect our rights need not violate them themselves. The same is true for parenting. Your "a little abuse is OK, if it's the last resort" mentality comes directly from, or at least shares the same root, as your "a little government is OK, as long as it only protects those rights it doesn't violate itself" mentality.

That, I think, explains your vehement defense of pain-punishment as an acceptable practice. If you truly believed that parents had the ultimate say in how they raised their kids, you'd be OK with them using their children for sex. But if you admit that you don't need to violate their rights to protect them, you might have to admit that the government is in the same position.

Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.

[foggyb]

Criminals almost universally were victims of child abuse -- verbal violence, physical violence, sexual violence.

Cry a river for these criminals, will you? There is hardly a criminal in prison who doesn't deserve to be where they are.

Who are you to tell anyone that your morality is morally superior? Great example of circular reasoning.

Violence among adults is learned largely from spankings? Ridiculous. Even if that were true, ending spanking would not solve crime. Every human being knows how to make a fist.

ALL the people I know who were spanked as kids (hundreds, I live in a small town) are good people, successful, a benefit to society, not prone to violence. I don't know a single person in prison, who has been to prison, or who has been charged with a crime. I speak from EXPERIENCE, not from a position of imagined moral or intellectual superiority.

The argument in this thread against spanking is logically unsound in several key areas. What does that say about the premise itself?

[Rudd-O]

Criminals almost universally were victims of child abuse -- verbal violence, physical violence, sexual violence.

Cry a river for these criminals, will you? There is hardly a criminal in prison who doesn't deserve to be where they are.

Who are you to tell anyone that your morality is morally superior? Great example of circular reasoning.

Violence among adults is learned largely from spankings? Ridiculous. Even if that were true, ending spanking would not solve crime. Every human being knows how to make a fist.

ALL the people I know who were spanked as kids (hundreds, I live in a small town) are good people, successful, a benefit to society, not prone to violence. I don't know a single person in prison, who has been to prison, or who has been charged with a crime. I speak from EXPERIENCE, not from a position of imagined moral or intellectual superiority.

The argument in this thread against spanking is logically unsound in several key areas. What does that say about the premise itself?

This comment contains pretty much every barbaric dismsssal and apology for  child abuse commonly vomited by sociopaths who can't stand abuse being discussed and feel the urgent need to sabotage said discussions.

I won't be responding to their sort of garbage, because it is pretty clear that this schmuck did not bother to actually give a responsive reply to what I said, preferring instead to go with the misrepresentation / manipulation angle (e.g. I never spoke about what criminals deserve) and the faux indignation lecture ("who are you to...").  This retard is not making a genuine effort to engage rationally, I feel no obligation to do so myself, and I won't bless garbage with a response reserved only for actual arguments.

You had a chance to make an argument, you chose attacks and fogging. Congratulations, you earn a speedy ticket to my ignore list.

[FirstAscent]

Congratulations, you earn a speedy ticket to my ignore list.

I can't wait until you've ignored every person who doesn't hold your views.

[cunicula]

The State assigns parental rights to MoonShadow. This allows him to raise his children as he likes within fairly broad boundaries. That is called freedom. Without the restrictions, questions like "should we take away his children?" would be ambiguous. This ambiguity would force MoonShadow to conform to everyone else's beliefs. That is how I expect an AnCap society would be. All laws and rights are ambiguous, so you would need conform with everyone else's views to avoid risk of violent confrontation. I prefer freedom and individuality thus I choose Statism.

Have I got this right?

If your version of statism exists only to protect the rights of the individual, and society from external threats, then yes.

However I strongly doubt that is what you mean.

Okay then is it okay.for.the.state to.tax you.in order.to fund provision of these services?

Or. should the.state rely on voluntary contributions?

Or should the.state be entrepreneurial like Singapore and fund its own services through business activity?

My feeling is that the.second and third.options lead to a regime with two classes of citizens.

[myrkul]

Methinks cunicu-bot is having issues.

[cunicula]

Methinks cunicu-bot is having issues.

Me bad at smartphone. apologies

[myrkul]

Methinks cunicu-bot is having issues.

Me bad at smartphone. apologies

lol.. apology accepted.

But seriously.... Use a keyboard. Don't post on here from your phone. Take a break, walk away, decompress. You'd be surprised how much it helps.

And it prevents you from having to apologize for these sorts of things.

[MoonShadow]

If that is true, is it not also true that my views about how I raise my children are a matter between myself, my wife and my children?

As long as you're not violating their rights, yes. And might I remind you...

...we recognise that he will have rights in the future, and thus he has them now.

You forgot the part about the parents holding those same rights 'in escrow' and excersing them on his behalf.  That is the part for which we disagree.

Just as you are soverign over your own affairs, and can raise your children as you see fit, as I have no say in your affairs; correct?

Correct, again, assuming I do not, myself, violate my kids' rights.

I understand where you're coming from... Daddy Government has to violate a little of our rights to protect us, so it's naturally OK for Daddy to violate a little of his kids' rights to protect them. Of course, it's demonstrably true that you don't need this type of hypocrisy, that those who protect our rights need not violate them themselves. The same is true for parenting. Your "a little abuse is OK, if it's the last resort" mentality comes directly from, or at least shares the same root, as your "a little government is OK, as long as it only protects those rights it doesn't violate itself" mentality.

You can look at it however you wish to look at it.  But no matter how you look at it, you have no say in it.  Until you accept this basic truth, you will continue to spin.

That, I think, explains your vehement defense of pain-punishment as an acceptable practice. If you truly believed that parents had the ultimate say in how they raised their kids, you'd be OK with them using their children for sex. But if you admit that you don't need to violate their rights to protect them, you might have to admit that the government is in the same position.

No, you're missing the point.  Let me offer a slightly different analogy for you to ponder.  As a Christian, I'm also not okay with a much worse violation of the rights of children, namely abortion.  I find it morally abhorrent, and quite literally murder of a human life.  To take your perspective, I'd be within my right to shoot abortion doctors as serial murderers.  After all, if I'm morally obligated to defend the victims, what other option do I have?  There can be no peaceful disagreement, in your worldview.  Every perceived violation of human rights must be met with force if reason is not sufficient, after all.  But I can't do that, now can I?  Certainly some have done exactly this, and they have gone to prison as murderers.  The problem is that some aspects of Juris Naturalis have a consensus.  I.E., Thous Shalt Not Murder, Thou Shalt Not Steal, Thou Shalt Bear False Witness, etc.  What does not have a consensus is "what, exactly, is 'murder'?  Is fighting in a war, even one that would qualify under the 'just war' doctrine, murder?  For some, the answer there is yes; but for most, the answer is most certainly no.  So the same rationale applies to yourself, and your desires to interfere in how I raise my children.  If you were to actually see me spank a child on the street, your moral code compels you to intervene.  Yet, if you harm me in doing so, the law will not respect your moral obligations any more than it would respect mine, or those of the 'honor killing' types.  I respect that you really do believe that what I am doing is wrong, and do believe that you are sincere in your good intentions.  However, we both know how the path to hell is paved.  Furthermore, you can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that you are bound by your absolutist ancap philosophy.  While I could change the legal definition of the beginning of life to conception by lobbying congress and convincing a significant majority of the current population that my views are correct, and then proceed to engage the government's monopoly on force to suppress the crime of abortion; you would have to lobby the whole of your society and achieve a consensus, and even then you would be powerless to react should someone come along later who disagreed.  It is not a contradiction for me, as a libertarian and not an anarchist, to expect the government to use it's regulatory powers or monopoly on force to protect the rights of children (as I interpret them).  It is, however, a contradiction for you, as an ancap, to attempt to impose your interpretations of same upon myself, in any fashion whatsoever.

Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.

The requirement that a population surrender a subset of their sovereign rights in order to grant those powers to governments, with the intention of securing the remainder isn't an illusion.  It's the very premise on which our version of a republic was originally built upon.

On more point to be made.  While I do find pedofilia to be morally abhorrent and a violation of the rights of children, it's noteworthy to point out that there are still cultures in this world for which marrying off an eight year old daughter to one of her male uncles is normal.  I do not feel that I'm obligated, or even 'called', to remedy this problem.  If you should feel that you are, I would be more than willing to contribute to the costs of your plane ticket, as well as the costs of your funeral, but not to the fund for your daughters who would grow up without a father.

[MoonShadow]

The State assigns parental rights to MoonShadow. This allows him to raise his children as he likes within fairly broad boundaries. That is called freedom. Without the restrictions, questions like "should we take away his children?" would be ambiguous. This ambiguity would force MoonShadow to conform to everyone else's beliefs. That is how I expect an AnCap society would be. All laws and rights are ambiguous, so you would need conform with everyone else's views to avoid risk of violent confrontation. I prefer freedom and individuality thus I choose Statism.

Have I got this right?

If your version of statism exists only to protect the rights of the individual, and society from external threats, then yes.

However I strongly doubt that is what you mean.

Okay then is it okay.for.the.state to.tax you.in order.to fund provision of these services?

Or. should the.state rely on voluntary contributions?

Or should the.state be entrepreneurial like Singapore and fund its own services through business activity?

My feeling is that the.second and third.options lead to a regime with two classes of citizens.

All three lead to regimes with two or more classes of citizens, eventually.  There is no solution to that.

[cunicula]

The State assigns parental rights to MoonShadow. This allows him to raise his children as he likes within fairly broad boundaries. That is called freedom. Without the restrictions, questions like "should we take away his children?" would be ambiguous. This ambiguity would force MoonShadow to conform to everyone else's beliefs. That is how I expect an AnCap society would be. All laws and rights are ambiguous, so you would need conform with everyone else's views to avoid risk of violent confrontation. I prefer freedom and individuality thus I choose Statism.

Have I got this right?

If your version of statism exists only to protect the rights of the individual, and society from external threats, then yes.

However I strongly doubt that is what you mean.

Okay then is it okay.for.the.state to.tax you.in order.to fund provision of these services?

Or. should the.state rely on voluntary contributions?

Or should the.state be entrepreneurial like Singapore and fund its own services through business activity?

My feeling is that the.second and third.options lead to a regime with two classes of citizens.

All three lead to regimes with two or more classes of citizens, eventually.  There is no solution to that.

Yes, but it is not a black and white issue. It is not just equal or unequal, there is a whole spectrum in between. To attain as much equality under the law as possible, you want the state to be financed by as broad a group as possible. This is achieved through broad-based involuntary taxation, not from voluntary contributions or state entrepreneurship.

e.g. Singapore and China basically run on the state entrepreneurship model. Singapore has kind of perfected this model. With respect to freedom, the Singaporean outcome is not nearly as free as the US. With respect to achieving national prosperity, I am not sure what works best. Different states have succeeded (and failed) with different general approaches. The details seem to matter a lot.

[myrkul]

If that is true, is it not also true that my views about how I raise my children are a matter between myself, my wife and my children?

As long as you're not violating their rights, yes. And might I remind you...

...we recognise that he will have rights in the future, and thus he has them now.

You forgot the part about the parents holding those same rights 'in escrow' and excersing them on his behalf.  That is the part for which we disagree.

I'm fine with you holding the rights in escrow, and exercising them on his behalf. But that doesn't allow you to violate them. A child is incapable of consenting to sex. Does that mean you can consent for him, and have sex with him? No. Nor can you consent for him to be beaten.

Just as you are soverign over your own affairs, and can raise your children as you see fit, as I have no say in your affairs; correct?

Correct, again, assuming I do not, myself, violate my kids' rights.

I understand where you're coming from... Daddy Government has to violate a little of our rights to protect us, so it's naturally OK for Daddy to violate a little of his kids' rights to protect them. Of course, it's demonstrably true that you don't need this type of hypocrisy, that those who protect our rights need not violate them themselves. The same is true for parenting. Your "a little abuse is OK, if it's the last resort" mentality comes directly from, or at least shares the same root, as your "a little government is OK, as long as it only protects those rights it doesn't violate itself" mentality.

You can look at it however you wish to look at it.  But no matter how you look at it, you have no say in it.  Until you accept this basic truth, you will continue to spin.

Again, if you truly believed this, you would be absolutely fine with parents raping their children. After all, you have no say in it, right?

That, I think, explains your vehement defense of pain-punishment as an acceptable practice. If you truly believed that parents had the ultimate say in how they raised their kids, you'd be OK with them using their children for sex. But if you admit that you don't need to violate their rights to protect them, you might have to admit that the government is in the same position.

No, you're missing the point.  Let me offer a slightly different analogy for you to ponder.  As a Christian, I'm also not okay with a much worse violation of the rights of children, namely abortion.  I find it morally abhorrent, and quite literally murder of a human life.  To take your perspective, I'd be within my right to shoot abortion doctors as serial murderers.  After all, if I'm morally obligated to defend the victims, what other option do I have?  There can be no peaceful disagreement, in your worldview.  Every perceived violation of human rights must be met with force if reason is not sufficient, after all.  But I can't do that, now can I?  Certainly some have done exactly this, and they have gone to prison as murderers.  The problem is that some aspects of Juris Naturalis have a consensus.  I.E., Thous Shalt Not Murder, Thou Shalt Not Steal, Thou Shalt Bear False Witness, etc.  What does not have a consensus is "what, exactly, is 'murder'? 

Really, you should read or listen to UPB. It will change the way you see the world. (Yes, it answers what "murder" is.) And no, it is not a contradiction for an AnCap to attempt to stop a parent from beating their child, no more than it is a contradiction for an AnCap to attempt to stop a rape.

Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.

The requirement that a population surrender a subset of their sovereign rights in order to grant those powers to governments, with the intention of securing the remainder isn't an illusion.  It's the very premise on which our version of a republic was originally built upon.

Sadly, it was a flawed premise. A monopoly is not a good provider of security, no more than it is a good provider of any service.

On more point to be made.  While I do find pedofilia to be morally abhorrent and a violation of the rights of children, it's noteworthy to point out that there are still cultures in this world for which marrying off an eight year old daughter to one of her male uncles is normal.  I do not feel that I'm obligated, or even 'called', to remedy this problem.  If you should feel that you are, I would be more than willing to contribute to the costs of your plane ticket, as well as the costs of your funeral, but not to the fund for your daughters who would grow up without a father.

I appreciate the offer, but I do believe I'll pass. As you point out, I have my daughters to raise. However, since you consider pedophilia to be a violation of the rights of children, perhaps you should apply the same logic you use to come to that conclusion to the striking of a child, see what comes of it.

[MoonShadow]

That, I think, explains your vehement defense of pain-punishment as an acceptable practice. If you truly believed that parents had the ultimate say in how they raised their kids, you'd be OK with them using their children for sex. But if you admit that you don't need to violate their rights to protect them, you might have to admit that the government is in the same position.

No, you're missing the point.  Let me offer a slightly different analogy for you to ponder.  As a Christian, I'm also not okay with a much worse violation of the rights of children, namely abortion.  I find it morally abhorrent, and quite literally murder of a human life.  To take your perspective, I'd be within my right to shoot abortion doctors as serial murderers.  After all, if I'm morally obligated to defend the victims, what other option do I have?  There can be no peaceful disagreement, in your worldview.  Every perceived violation of human rights must be met with force if reason is not sufficient, after all.  But I can't do that, now can I?  Certainly some have done exactly this, and they have gone to prison as murderers.  The problem is that some aspects of Juris Naturalis have a consensus.  I.E., Thous Shalt Not Murder, Thou Shalt Not Steal, Thou Shalt Bear False Witness, etc.  What does not have a consensus is "what, exactly, is 'murder'? 

Really, you should read or listen to UPB. It will change the way you see the world. (Yes, it answers what "murder" is.) And no, it is not a contradiction for an AnCap to attempt to stop a parent from beating their child, no more than it is a contradiction for an AnCap to attempt to stop a rape.

Is it a contradiction for a Catholic to intervene in an abortion?

Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.

The requirement that a population surrender a subset of their sovereign rights in order to grant those powers to governments, with the intention of securing the remainder isn't an illusion.  It's the very premise on which our version of a republic was originally built upon.

Sadly, it was a flawed premise. A monopoly is not a good provider of security, no more than it is a good provider of any service.

AnCap is a flawed premise as well, as I have already stated.  The premise being that all people are capable of governing themselves, which is demonstratablely false, and the only reason that some kind of government will continue exist.  The real reason that so many people have a real problem with imagining an ancap society is because it cannot exist, and that is the real contradiction.

On more point to be made.  While I do find pedofilia to be morally abhorrent and a violation of the rights of children, it's noteworthy to point out that there are still cultures in this world for which marrying off an eight year old daughter to one of her male uncles is normal.  I do not feel that I'm obligated, or even 'called', to remedy this problem.  If you should feel that you are, I would be more than willing to contribute to the costs of your plane ticket, as well as the costs of your funeral, but not to the fund for your daughters who would grow up without a father.

I appreciate the offer, but I do believe I'll pass. As you point out, I have my daughters to raise. However, since you consider pedophilia to be a violation of the rights of children, perhaps you should apply the same logic you use to come to that conclusion to the striking of a child, see what comes of it.

Oh,I have.  You should try it yourself.  Step outside of your little box, and try to consider yourself from the perspectives of others.  It's incrediblely enlightening. Of course, since I'm an INTP, it's literally impossible for me to not continually question myself, as that is part of what I am.  I am also of the opinion that ancap is impossible for another, more subtle, reason; that being, if Myers & Briggs were even close to correct, there is a minority of the population that is fundamentally incapable of self-government on any practical level, and not because they have criminal tendencies.  Simply because they depend upon a perceived, external moral authority in order to form a personal code of behavior.  These are the kind of people that would condone the violation of minority rights, simply because that was the law where they grew up.  I know it's hard for you to imagine, because you believe that since you think a certain way, that most people think in the same way.  This is not the case.  These same people would be lost and easily swayed in an ancap society, lacking any dominant moral authority, and in just a few generations your stable ancap society would self-destruct.

If I were to guess, Cunicula probably falls into this catagory.  And no, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, but it is not a black and white issue. It is not just equal or unequal, there is a whole spectrum in between. To attain as much equality under the law as possible, you want the state to be financed by as broad a group as possible. This is achieved through broad-based involuntary taxation, not from voluntary contributions or state entrepreneurship.

And yet, this is a contradiction as well.  The benevolent state apparatus that wields a monopoly on the use of force and is funded by involuntary taxation (no matter how 'fair') cannot maintain it's benevolence over time.  It may start there, but it will not end there.  It took less than a generation for that one to screw up the best intentions of the framers of the US constitution.  And they still claim that taxation is voluntary, because so is work, and the food that work buys.

[cunicula]

You forgot the part about the parents holding those same rights 'in escrow' and excersing them on his behalf.  That is the part for which we disagree.
I'm fine with you holding the rights in escrow, and exercising them on his behalf. But that doesn't allow you to violate them. A child is incapable of consenting to sex. Does that mean you can consent for him, and have sex with him? No. Nor can you consent for him to be beaten.

Who are you to make up laws restricting who is allowed to enter in to contracts? Are you the dictator? If not, then what are you doing going around making laws?

The ancient Greeks and Romans had sex with their children as a normal thing. How do you know it is harmful? Maybe the harm is socially constructed by Judeo-Christian culture. The Japanese used to bath naked together. Children and adults of both sexes. Is that abuse too?

[MoonShadow]

You forgot the part about the parents holding those same rights 'in escrow' and excersing them on his behalf.  That is the part for which we disagree.
I'm fine with you holding the rights in escrow, and exercising them on his behalf. But that doesn't allow you to violate them. A child is incapable of consenting to sex. Does that mean you can consent for him, and have sex with him? No. Nor can you consent for him to be beaten.

Who are you to make up laws restricting who is allowed to enter in to contracts? Are you the dictator? If not, then what are you doing going around making laws?

The ancient Greeks and Romans had sex with their children as a normal thing. How do you know it is harmful? Maybe the harm is socially constructed by Judeo-Christian culture. The Japanese used to bath naked together children and adults of both sexes. Is that abuse too?

"Used to"?

[myrkul]

Is it a contradiction for a Catholic to intervene in an abortion?

If he beats his kids, it is. You cannot, on one hand consider a human to be a person, worthy of outside protection at conception, but then consider that person to lose that worth once born. To be perfectly consistent, a Catholic who strikes his child should be fine with abortions right up to, and in fact, after, birth. (In point of fact, this was the case, historically - The Pope even made a statement to the fact that while infanticide is horrible, nothing can really be done about it.)

Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.

The requirement that a population surrender a subset of their sovereign rights in order to grant those powers to governments, with the intention of securing the remainder isn't an illusion.  It's the very premise on which our version of a republic was originally built upon.

Sadly, it was a flawed premise. A monopoly is not a good provider of security, no more than it is a good provider of any service.

AnCap is a flawed premise as well, as I have already stated.  The premise being that all people are capable of governing themselves, which is demonstratablely false, and the only reason that some kind of government will continue exist.  The real reason that so many people have a real problem with imagining an ancap society is because it cannot exist, and that is the real contradiction.

One need not be capable of governing themselves, merely capable of selecting capable governors. For themselves. Forcing the choice of one incapable of governing themselves on one who is capable is beyond immoral.

On more point to be made.  While I do find pedofilia to be morally abhorrent and a violation of the rights of children, it's noteworthy to point out that there are still cultures in this world for which marrying off an eight year old daughter to one of her male uncles is normal.  I do not feel that I'm obligated, or even 'called', to remedy this problem.  If you should feel that you are, I would be more than willing to contribute to the costs of your plane ticket, as well as the costs of your funeral, but not to the fund for your daughters who would grow up without a father.

I appreciate the offer, but I do believe I'll pass. As you point out, I have my daughters to raise. However, since you consider pedophilia to be a violation of the rights of children, perhaps you should apply the same logic you use to come to that conclusion to the striking of a child, see what comes of it.

Oh,I have.  You should try it yourself.  Step outside of your little box, and try to consider yourself from the perspectives of others.  It's incrediblely enlightening. Of course, since I'm an INTP, it's literally impossible for me to not continually question myself, as that is part of what I am.  I am also of the opinion that ancap is impossible for another, more subtle, reason; that being, if Myers & Briggs were even close to correct, there is a minority of the population that is fundamentally incapable of self-government on any practical level, and not because they have criminal tendencies.  Simply because they depend upon a perceived, external moral authority in order to form a personal code of behavior. 

Then let them follow. Not everyone needs to be a leader, or even march to their own drum. But that is not a valid argument for forcing everyone to march to the same drum.

[cunicula]

Yes, but it is not a black and white issue. It is not just equal or unequal, there is a whole spectrum in between. To attain as much equality under the law as possible, you want the state to be financed by as broad a group as possible. This is achieved through broad-based involuntary taxation, not from voluntary contributions or state entrepreneurship.

And yet, this is a contradiction as well.  The benevolent state apparatus that wields a monopoly on the use of force and is funded by involuntary taxation (no matter how 'fair') cannot maintain it's benevolence over time.  It may start there, but it will not end there.  It took less than a generation for that one to screw up the best intentions of the framers of the US constitution.  And they still claim that taxation is voluntary, because so is work, and the food that work buys.

Again, this is not a black and white issue. You have to compare the US to some other state which supports itself through other means. For example, Singapore is much less free than the US. The use of state-directed entrepreneurship to fund Singapore Inc. plays a large part in that. The fact that we have both extremely low taxes and less personal freedom is not a coincidence. Liberally issuing rights to individuals is at odds with the state's profit motive.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, but it is not a black and white issue. It is not just equal or unequal, there is a whole spectrum in between. To attain as much equality under the law as possible, you want the state to be financed by as broad a group as possible. This is achieved through broad-based involuntary taxation, not from voluntary contributions or state entrepreneurship.

And yet, this is a contradiction as well.  The benevolent state apparatus that wields a monopoly on the use of force and is funded by involuntary taxation (no matter how 'fair') cannot maintain it's benevolence over time.  It may start there, but it will not end there.  It took less than a generation for that one to screw up the best intentions of the framers of the US constitution.  And they still claim that taxation is voluntary, because so is work, and the food that work buys.

Again, this is not a black and white issue. You have to compare the US to some other state which supports itself through other means. For example, Singapore is much less free than the US. The use of state-directed entrepreneurship to fund the state plays a large part in that. The fact that we have both extremely low taxes and less personal freedom is not a coincidence.

I didn't claim that it's black and white.  I am more than aware that all of life can be found in many shades of grey.  What matters is working towards the light as far as that is reasonable.

[cunicula]

You forgot the part about the parents holding those same rights 'in escrow' and excersing them on his behalf.  That is the part for which we disagree.
I'm fine with you holding the rights in escrow, and exercising them on his behalf. But that doesn't allow you to violate them. A child is incapable of consenting to sex. Does that mean you can consent for him, and have sex with him? No. Nor can you consent for him to be beaten.

Who are you to make up laws restricting who is allowed to enter in to contracts? Are you the dictator? If not, then what are you doing going around making laws?

The ancient Greeks and Romans had sex with their children as a normal thing. How do you know it is harmful? Maybe the harm is socially constructed by Judeo-Christian culture. The Japanese used to bath naked together children and adults of both sexes. Is that abuse too?

"Used to"?

Nakedness is still socially obligatory. However, sex segregation is now standard, whereas mixed sex bathing was standard before the mid-19th century.

The Meiji government passed a law segregating the sexes in public baths in 1890. Basically, the Christians came in the late 19th century and said "this mixed sex bathing is barbaric stuff." The Meiji felt embarrassed so they legislated conformity with Western values. Today, mixed sex public bathing exists, but it is pretty rare.

It is true that families still often bath together in private.

[MoonShadow]

Is it a contradiction for a Catholic to intervene in an abortion?

If he beats his kids, it is. You cannot, on one hand consider a human to be a person, worthy of outside protection at conception, but then consider that person to lose that worth once born. To be perfectly consistent, a Catholic who strikes his child should be fine with abortions right up to, and in fact, after, birth. (In point of fact, this was the case, historically - The Pope even made a statement to the fact that while infanticide is horrible, nothing can really be done about it.)

The irony of that is the above historical note was a practical observation by the Pope.  Think about that for a minute.

Time to let go of that last illusion, MoonShadow.

The requirement that a population surrender a subset of their sovereign rights in order to grant those powers to governments, with the intention of securing the remainder isn't an illusion.  It's the very premise on which our version of a republic was originally built upon.

Sadly, it was a flawed premise. A monopoly is not a good provider of security, no more than it is a good provider of any service.

AnCap is a flawed premise as well, as I have already stated.  The premise being that all people are capable of governing themselves, which is demonstratablely false, and the only reason that some kind of government will continue exist.  The real reason that so many people have a real problem with imagining an ancap society is because it cannot exist, and that is the real contradiction.

One need not be capable of governing themselves, merely capable of selecting capable governors. For themselves. Forcing the choice of one incapable of governing themselves on one who is capable is beyond immoral.

Then you are not an ancap!  That's a representative democracy!  And some people are not capable of doing even that, as our own past 20 years or more should be evidence enough.

On more point to be made.  While I do find pedofilia to be morally abhorrent and a violation of the rights of children, it's noteworthy to point out that there are still cultures in this world for which marrying off an eight year old daughter to one of her male uncles is normal.  I do not feel that I'm obligated, or even 'called', to remedy this problem.  If you should feel that you are, I would be more than willing to contribute to the costs of your plane ticket, as well as the costs of your funeral, but not to the fund for your daughters who would grow up without a father.

I appreciate the offer, but I do believe I'll pass. As you point out, I have my daughters to raise. However, since you consider pedophilia to be a violation of the rights of children, perhaps you should apply the same logic you use to come to that conclusion to the striking of a child, see what comes of it.

Oh,I have.  You should try it yourself.  Step outside of your little box, and try to consider yourself from the perspectives of others.  It's incrediblely enlightening. Of course, since I'm an INTP, it's literally impossible for me to not continually question myself, as that is part of what I am.  I am also of the opinion that ancap is impossible for another, more subtle, reason; that being, if Myers & Briggs were even close to correct, there is a minority of the population that is fundamentally incapable of self-government on any practical level, and not because they have criminal tendencies.  Simply because they depend upon a perceived, external moral authority in order to form a personal code of behavior.

Then let them follow. Not everyone needs to be a leader, or even march to their own drum. But that is not a valid argument for forcing everyone to march to the same drum.

Between the two of us, I'm not the one advocating for everyone to march to the same drum, forced or not.  You're the one who insists that I comply with your moral interpretations, under final threat of force.  You have already stated as much, and argued to length.  Why can't you accept that you don't get to decide mores for me?  You seem to think that you can win this argument.  You can't, and neither can I.  Because it's unwinnable.  It's not an argument that can be settled by logic or reasoned debate.  It's entirely a matter of personal perspectives.  We both look at the same basic principles and come to different conclusions.  And this is despite the fact that, on so many other things, we agree.  How on Earth can you rationally expect that a real ancap society wouldn't continually be in a state of low level civil war?  

And don't forget that followers of this kind will cling to any assertive authority.  The Third Reich depended upon it.

[MoonShadow]

You forgot the part about the parents holding those same rights 'in escrow' and excersing them on his behalf.  That is the part for which we disagree.
I'm fine with you holding the rights in escrow, and exercising them on his behalf. But that doesn't allow you to violate them. A child is incapable of consenting to sex. Does that mean you can consent for him, and have sex with him? No. Nor can you consent for him to be beaten.

Who are you to make up laws restricting who is allowed to enter in to contracts? Are you the dictator? If not, then what are you doing going around making laws?

The ancient Greeks and Romans had sex with their children as a normal thing. How do you know it is harmful? Maybe the harm is socially constructed by Judeo-Christian culture. The Japanese used to bath naked together children and adults of both sexes. Is that abuse too?

"Used to"?

Nakedness is still socially obligatory. However, sex segregation is now standard, whereas mixed sex bathing was standard before the mid-19th century.

The Meiji government passed a law segregating the sexes in public baths in 1890. Basically, the Christians came in the late 19th century and said "this mixed sex bathing is barbaric stuff." The Meiji felt embarrassed so they legislated conformity with Western values. Today, mixed sex public bathing exists, but it is pretty rare.

It is true that families still often bath together in private.

Damn Christians, keep interfering into a perfectly disfunctional social habits.

[cunicula]

To be perfectly consistent, a Catholic who strikes his child should be fine with abortions right up to, and in fact, after, birth.

This should indicate to you that 'perfect consistency' is an idiotic aim. However, you seem to be drawing some other type of conclusion from this. What might that be?

Are you opposed to abortion because it violates the NAP? i.e. Pope the state Dictator AnCap Elected Governor Myrkul should tell women what to do with their bodies because Divine Natural Law says that he should.

[cunicula]

Damn Christians, keep interfering with perfectly functional social habits.

Fixed some typos for you.

I know. They have some book which says everyone should be ashamed. When people aren't properly ashamed they get angry and ridicule them. Awful, isn't it?


In case you are serious, I recommend you live in Japan for a while before making fun of their social habits. The degree of concern for others in Japanese society is pretty awe-inspiring. On the downside, caring for others requires a huge amount of mental energy.

[myrkul]

Is it a contradiction for a Catholic to intervene in an abortion?

If he beats his kids, it is. You cannot, on one hand consider a human to be a person, worthy of outside protection at conception, but then consider that person to lose that worth once born. To be perfectly consistent, a Catholic who strikes his child should be fine with abortions right up to, and in fact, after, birth. (In point of fact, this was the case, historically - The Pope even made a statement to the fact that while infanticide is horrible, nothing can really be done about it.)

The irony of that is the above historical note was a practical observation by the Pope.  Think about that for a minute.

Because children weren't considered "people" until three days after birth. Think about that for a minute.

One need not be capable of governing themselves, merely capable of selecting capable governors. For themselves. Forcing the choice of one incapable of governing themselves on one who is capable is beyond immoral.

Then you are not an ancap!  That's a representative democracy!  And some people are not capable of doing even that, as our own past 20 years or more should be evidence enough.

What part of "For themselves" did you miss? If they want to pick a leader to follow, that's fine by me. They don't get to pick my leader, nor force me to follow theirs.

Why can't you accept that you don't get to decide mores for me?

I'm sure pedophiles say the same thing. All I am demanding is that you treat your children like the people they are, not things which you can force to do what you want. If you want a dolly to play with, I'll gladly buy you one. If you want to raise children, you can't abuse them. PROTIP: beating your kids, even as a "last resort," is abuse.

Your kids have rights. Respect those rights. Take corporal punishment off the table. They are people, and deserve to be treated as such, not as cattle, too stupid not to wander into the road without pain to teach them to stay away.

[cunicula]

Because children weren't considered "people" until three days after birth. Think about that for a minute.

Hmmm. Seems like a good rule.

[myrkul]

Wandering slightly off-topic, I found this - very apropos to our side discussion - quote, by a name I'm sure you recognize:

"Government seems to operate on the principle that if even one individual is incapable of using his freedom competently, no one can be allowed to be free." ~ Harry Browne

[foggyb]

This comment contains pretty much every barbaric dismsssal and apology for  child abuse commonly vomited by sociopaths who can't stand abuse being discussed and feel the urgent need to sabotage said discussions.

This sentence contains very little intelligent matter. It is a violent, hateful personal attack.

I won't be responding to their sort of garbage.............

Violence is not a response? Hahahahahahaa!

because it is pretty clear that this schmuck did not bother to actually give a responsive reply to what I said, preferring instead to go with the misrepresentation / manipulation angle (e.g. I never spoke about what criminals deserve)............

You implied that there would be LESS crime if there were no spanking. That is a defense for criminal acts. You're bailing out of that defense now?

and the faux indignation lecture ("who are you to...").  

I'm not indignant. YOU'RE indignant! eg. "WHO ARE YOU TO SPANK YOUR CHILDREN!!  HUFF HUFF PUFF!!!"  

You had a chance to make an argument, you chose attacks and fogging. Congratulations, you earn a speedy ticket to my ignore list.

The only thing I'm attacking is your swiss cheese of an argument. Ignore, so soon? Awwww. You're too kind.

[cunicula]

You implied that there would be LESS crime if there were no spanking. That is a defense for criminal acts. You're bailing out of that defense now?

There very likely would be less crime if there were no spanking. A large body of research suggest that gentle, nurturing parenting is associated with vast improvements in outcomes during adulthood. The best evidence comes from randomized transfers of animal offspring. Offspring allocated to gentle adoptive mothers do much better in most respects (faster learning, higher social status in adulthood, longer life expectancy, etc.). In fact, in some studies adopted offspring perform similarly to the naturally born offspring of gentle mothers.

How does that make spanking a defense for criminal acts? Even if violent criminals lack all free will (I believe all people lack free will), we should still lock them in prison. They pose a threat to everyone else.

[PS Don't be an idiot and tell me that you know plenty of people who were spanked and turned out just fine. I'll retch. Learn some science.]

Finally, MoonShadow, I'm not trying to imply that you are necessarily damaging your children. There is probably a lot of non-harmful spanking mixed in with abusive spanking. In a statistical study, all you would observe is the average outcome associated with all spanking. And the stuff done in humans has lots of problems with research design, adding to the confusion.

[MoonShadow]

You implied that there would be LESS crime if there were no spanking. That is a defense for criminal acts. You're bailing out of that defense now?

There very likely would be less crime if there were no spanking. A large body of research suggest that gentle, nurturing parenting is associated with vast improvements in outcomes during adulthood. The best evidence comes from randomized transfers of animal offspring. Offspring allocated to gentle adoptive mothers do much better in most respects (faster learning, higher social status in adulthood, longer life expectancy, etc.). In fact, in some studies adopted offspring perform similarly to the naturally born offspring of gentle mothers.

How does that make spanking a defense for criminal acts? Even if violent criminals lack all free will (I believe all people lack free will), we should still lock them in prison. They pose a threat to everyone else.

[PS Don't be an idiot and tell me that you know plenty of people who were spanked and turned out just fine. I'll retch. Learn some science.]

Finally, MoonShadow, I'm not trying to imply that you are necessarily damaging your children. There is probably a lot of non-harmful spanking mixed in with abusive spanking. In a statistical study, all you would observe is the average outcome associated with all spanking. And the stuff done in humans has lots of problems with research design, adding to the confusion.

Corolation is not causation.  Those observations are just as likely to be associated to criminal behaviors to be learned by observation of both their parents & peers.  I would say that it is even more likely, criminality is often associated by neighborhood far better that whether or not the parents used corporeal punishment or not.

[cunicula]

You implied that there would be LESS crime if there were no spanking. That is a defense for criminal acts. You're bailing out of that defense now?

There very likely would be less crime if there were no spanking. A large body of research suggest that gentle, nurturing parenting is associated with vast improvements in outcomes during adulthood. The best evidence comes from randomized transfers of animal offspring. Offspring allocated to gentle adoptive mothers do much better in most respects (faster learning, higher social status in adulthood, longer life expectancy, etc.). In fact, in some studies adopted offspring perform similarly to the naturally born offspring of gentle mothers.

How does that make spanking a defense for criminal acts? Even if violent criminals lack all free will (I believe all people lack free will), we should still lock them in prison. They pose a threat to everyone else.

[PS Don't be an idiot and tell me that you know plenty of people who were spanked and turned out just fine. I'll retch. Learn some science.]

Finally, MoonShadow, I'm not trying to imply that you are necessarily damaging your children. There is probably a lot of non-harmful spanking mixed in with abusive spanking. In a statistical study, all you would observe is the average outcome associated with all spanking. And the stuff done in humans has lots of problems with research design, adding to the confusion.

Corolation is not causation.  Those observations are just as likely to be associated to criminal behaviors to be learned by observation of both their parents & peers.  I would say that it is even more likely, criminality is often associated by neighborhood far better that whether or not the parents used corporeal punishment or not.

Right, thus the animal experiments which are randomized and which control for genetic determinants by setting up random adoption. Science is all about experimental design.

You may be right about neighborhood. However, adult outcomes have many determinants. We should care a lot about anything that is under the parent's immediate control.

[foggyb]

There very likely would be less crime if there were no spanking. A large body of research suggest that gentle, nurturing parenting is associated with vast improvements in outcomes during adulthood.

The implication here is that parents who spank their children are not gentle and nurturing. I reject that assumption as false and unscientific.

Parenting is not a hard science. Its futile to try to develop a blanket approach because every child is different. Children are not lab experiments.

How does that make spanking a defense for criminal acts?

It doesn't. Read the paragraph again.

[PS Don't be an idiot and tell me that you know plenty of people who were spanked and turned out just fine. I'll retch. Learn some science.]

Don't presume to dismiss offhand my observations with personal attacks, while on the other hand, you cite unnamed third party research as a good source of information on the subject. Unless of course you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I'm a pathological liar or insane.

Finally, MoonShadow, I'm not trying to imply that you are necessarily damaging your children. There is probably a lot of non-harmful spanking mixed in with abusive spanking. In a statistical study, all you would observe is the average outcome associated with all spanking. And the stuff done in humans has lots of problems with research design, adding to the confusion.

I don't believe there is any kind of spanking that has a neutral effect. There is this pervasive and disturbing attitude that ALL pain is bad. That's a false assumption. There is no such thing as "bad pain", although bad actions can cause pain. The human body depends heavily on pain to regulate our behavior and keep us safe and healthy, yet we don't assign "evil" or "barbaric" labels to it. So there's a double standard here that somehow being human places on us the responsibility to never cause the slightest amount of pain to others, regardless of the intention, method, or situation. Would you cause pain to a human being in order to help them? Think about that.

[cunicula]

There is evidence that spanking is correlated with elevated levels of stress hormones (cortisol) in childhood. In turn, elevated cortisol in childhood is associated with lower wages in adulthood, unemployment, low educational attainment, criminal behavior, increased risk of disease, lower life expectancy, etc. All kinds of bad stuff.

There is a significant problem in interpreting causation here. Maybe the kids are just bad seeds and that is why they get backhanded? The way you typically get around this is through parenting interventions. i.e. new parents are randomly assigned to get parenting advice from state agencies; other parents don't receive advice or receive advice less frequently. There is a lot of evidence that these programs are tremendously helpful for children. In fact, they appear to be the most cost effective type of state program for improving adult outcomes.

Unfortunately, the parenting interventions involve a whole mix of things, not just spanking reduction. Thus, it is hard to say how important spanking is by itself. The animal studies show that providing touch and affection after a traumatic experience is very helpful. I agree this doesn't speak to spanking itself. Hopefully, they will try out more specific interventions in the future so we can get better data. However, it is difficult to get funding for research like this (governments prefer stuff that is proven to work instead of experiments designed to learn more about what works).

In the meantime, I think it makes sense to limit spanking as a precaution. At least until we get more conclusive evidence from well-designed research.

[MoonShadow]

There is evidence that spanking is correlated with elevated levels of stress hormones (cortisol) in childhood. In turn, elevated cortisol in childhood is associated with lower wages in adulthood, unemployment, low educational attainment, criminal behavior, increased risk of disease, lower life expectancy, etc. All kinds of bad stuff.

There is a significant problem in interpreting causation here. Maybe the kids are just bad seeds and that is why they get backhanded? The way you typically get around this is through parenting interventions. i.e. new parents are randomly assigned to get parenting advice from state agencies; other parents don't receive advice or receive advice less frequently. There is a lot of evidence that these programs are tremendously helpful for children. In fact, they appear to be the most cost effective type of state program for improving adult outcomes.

Unfortunately, the parenting interventions involve a whole mix of things, not just spanking reduction. Thus, it is hard to say how important spanking is by itself. The animal studies show that providing touch and affection after a traumatic experience is very helpful. I agree this doesn't speak to spanking itself. Hopefully, they will try out more specific interventions in the future so we can get better data. However, it is difficult to get funding for research like this (governments prefer stuff that is proven to work instead of experiments designed to learn more about what works).

I take those very same classes, as they are required annually of "resource parents" under contract with the state's Department of Child Protective Services, which I am.  Very few of the actual courses have much to say about alternatives to corporeal punishment per se, but the ones that do are incrediblely useful.  I do use those techniques, in as far as they work, but they have limits.  I'd suspect that Myrkul would consider some of those techniques to be corporeal punishment anyway, as they do involve the use of force and the deliberate use of pshycological stressors, if not actual physical pain as a deterent.  Myrkul's viewpoint simply isn't practical for a majority of children, assuming he would not consider caging them during the times for which he could not be actively holding them.  There simply is too many dangerous tools, appliances and household products to fully protect small children; and that is not even considering the hazards beyond the front door.

In the meantime, I think it makes sense to limit spanking as a precaution. At least until we get more conclusive evidence from well-designed research.

It makes sense to limit spanking as a deterrent anyway.  I never questioned that.  What I'm saying is that the use of corporeal punishment as a parenting tool is not criminal, not automaticly abuse, not a violation of their human rights, and between myself & my wife (and the state, in the case of foster care children).  Neither Myrkul, nor anyone else, has any say in that, no matter what he might think of it.

[cunicula]

It makes sense to limit spanking as a deterrent anyway.  I never questioned that.  What I'm saying is that the use of corporeal punishment as a parenting tool is not criminal, not automaticly abuse, not a violation of their human rights, and between myself & my wife (and the state, in the case of foster care children).  Neither Myrkul, nor anyone else, has any say in that, no matter what he might think of it.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you there. I'm just encouraging you not to spank your children because I don't think it is a good idea. Some stress is good for children, just make sure to introduce it gradually and provide a lot of affection if the children appear upset by it.

[Note: Even though I vehemently disagree with you about most things, I don't really want to take your children away. That would almost certainly be bad for your children and it is not for me to decide, anyway.]

You might find this interesting:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/474/back-to-school

[MoonShadow]

It makes sense to limit spanking as a deterrent anyway.  I never questioned that.  What I'm saying is that the use of corporeal punishment as a parenting tool is not criminal, not automaticly abuse, not a violation of their human rights, and between myself & my wife (and the state, in the case of foster care children).  Neither Myrkul, nor anyone else, has any say in that, no matter what he might think of it.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you there. I'm just encouraging you not to spank your children because I don't think it is a good idea.

Consider me encouraged.  Again, spanking is a very rarely used method in my household.  Particularly these days, since the only three children in the household that are still younger than the age of reason are foster kids, two of whom are in the foster care system because of severe physical abuse (which, at a minimum, renders spanking ineffective) and the third is an infant who is physically incapable of getting into any trouble, since she can't even crawl yet.  My two blood children are 10 and 12, and neither has been spanked in many years; although they still occasionally end up in the corner for fighting with one another.  When the older of the two abused brothers first came to our house, at about 2 years old, he only had two emotional states, indifference and abject rage.  My son, 8 at the time; was entirely unprepared for a little boy half his body weight to attack him like a pit bull.  Yet, that is exactly what happened!  In the first week, this two year old had bloodied and bruised an 8 year old boy who didn't believe that fighting back was kosher, because the boy was (less than, really) half his size.  The two year old had finally bit my 8 year old son so hard, through a pair of jeans, there was a pretty fine image of his teeth in a blood blister.  We had to explain to my son that we could not spank him, because we had made that agreement to the state, but that he had made no such agreement; and that he needed to defend himself.  It took a few more good brawls before the 2 year old caught on to how things would go for him, but he got the message.  Don't attack his new brother, because he would get hurt doing it.  This ended the reign of terror for my 8 year old, but things remain more difficult regarding that same kid and his own little brother.  He is starting to toughen up, now days, and can give his older brother tis for tat, so I don't expect that to persist much longer; but at the time the little brother was barely one year old, and still crawling, and we were literally prohibited from excersising justice on his little brother's behalf by contract. I'm still not sure that it would have made much difference, considering that the 2 year old had experienced so much pain for no cause whatsoever, that he might not have been able to associate a spanking to his own behavior at all.  (He actually has physical scars, some on his face.  I'm talking about real abuse here)  After all, that would imply an ability to reason at a very young age; too much to expect.

[MoonShadow]

Strangely related to this topic....

http://www.strike-the-root.com/evicting-statist-within-us

[myrkul]

Far more interesting than what you have responded to, MoonShadow, is what you have not responded to.

[MoonShadow]

Far more interesting than what you have responded to, MoonShadow, is what you have not responded to.

For you, as well.  Are you ever going to tell me how old your daughters are, and if they have ever fought with each other?

[myrkul]

Far more interesting than what you have responded to, MoonShadow, is what you have not responded to.

For you, as well.  Are you ever going to tell me how old your daughters are, and if they have ever fought with each other?

Why should I, when you know the answer? I announced their birth on the forum.

Are you ever going to explain how you rationalize consenting for your children to be struck is OK, while consenting for your children to have sex is not?

[MoonShadow]

Far more interesting than what you have responded to, MoonShadow, is what you have not responded to.

For you, as well.  Are you ever going to tell me how old your daughters are, and if they have ever fought with each other?

Why should I, when you know the answer? I announced their birth on the forum.

I don't know that answer.  Perhaps you could remind me?

Are you ever going to explain how you rationalize consenting for your children to be struck is OK, while consenting for your children to have sex is not?

There are lots of reasons that is so; not the least of which is that my moral code is based upon Judeo-Christian values.  Sorry to break it to you, but pimping out children is verboten, while spanking of errant children is specificly encouraged by the old documents on those topics.

[myrkul]

Far more interesting than what you have responded to, MoonShadow, is what you have not responded to.

For you, as well.  Are you ever going to tell me how old your daughters are, and if they have ever fought with each other?

Why should I, when you know the answer? I announced their birth on the forum.

I don't know that answer.  Perhaps you could remind me?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=search

Suggested parameters: "Happy Birthday"; (titles only); By user: myrkul; In board: Off-Topic
Enjoy!

Are you ever going to explain how you rationalize consenting for your children to be struck is OK, while consenting for your children to have sex is not?

There are lots of reasons that is so; not the least of which is that my moral code is based upon Judeo-Christian values.  Sorry to break it to you, but pimping out children is verboten, while spanking of errant children is specificly encouraged by the old documents on those topics.

I see. So you're OK with bashing in infants' skulls, if their parents have offended you? (Psalm 137:9) Remind me not to let you babysit the girls (as if I needed reminding).

[MoonShadow]

Far more interesting than what you have responded to, MoonShadow, is what you have not responded to.

For you, as well.  Are you ever going to tell me how old your daughters are, and if they have ever fought with each other?

Why should I, when you know the answer? I announced their birth on the forum.

I don't know that answer.  Perhaps you could remind me?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=search

Suggested parameters: "Happy Birthday"; (titles only); By user: myrkul; In board: Off-Topic
Enjoy!

Woah! Little babies, and twins too!  You've got larger problems coming.  Let me know how that is all working out for you in about two or three more years.

Are you ever going to explain how you rationalize consenting for your children to be struck is OK, while consenting for your children to have sex is not?

There are lots of reasons that is so; not the least of which is that my moral code is based upon Judeo-Christian values.  Sorry to break it to you, but pimping out children is verboten, while spanking of errant children is specificly encouraged by the old documents on those topics.

I see. So you're OK with bashing in infants' skulls, if their parents have offended you? (Psalm 137:9) Remind me not to let you babysit the girls (as if I needed reminding).

I nver said that I was the kind of Christian that took it all as doctrine, Myrkul.

[myrkul]

Are you ever going to explain how you rationalize consenting for your children to be struck is OK, while consenting for your children to have sex is not?

There are lots of reasons that is so; not the least of which is that my moral code is based upon Judeo-Christian values.  Sorry to break it to you, but pimping out children is verboten, while spanking of errant children is specificly encouraged by the old documents on those topics.

I see. So you're OK with bashing in infants' skulls, if their parents have offended you? (Psalm 137:9) Remind me not to let you babysit the girls (as if I needed reminding).

I nver said that I was the kind of Christian that took it all as doctrine, Myrkul.

But you base your assertion that using pain to condition your kids is OK, and your assertion that "pimping them out" is not, on that same book. What criteria do you use to limit what you take as doctrine and what you do not?

[MoonShadow]

...
Woah! Little babies, and twins too!  You've got larger problems coming.  Let me know how that is all working out for you in about two or three more years.

I just want to know whether he regards babies crying in the middle of the night as coercion? Clearly he's been coerced out of his natural human right to sleep, right? On the other hand, it's possible that he negotiated some kind of special agreement with them where they agree to let him sleep at night in exchange for... I don't know... food or something.

More likely he just ignores them and his wife has to deal with it.

[MoonShadow]

Are you ever going to explain how you rationalize consenting for your children to be struck is OK, while consenting for your children to have sex is not?

There are lots of reasons that is so; not the least of which is that my moral code is based upon Judeo-Christian values.  Sorry to break it to you, but pimping out children is verboten, while spanking of errant children is specificly encouraged by the old documents on those topics.

I see. So you're OK with bashing in infants' skulls, if their parents have offended you? (Psalm 137:9) Remind me not to let you babysit the girls (as if I needed reminding).

I nver said that I was the kind of Christian that took it all as doctrine, Myrkul.

But you base your assertion that using pain to condition your kids is OK, and your assertion that "pimping them out" is not, on that same book. What criteria do you use to limit what you take as doctrine and what you do not?

That book is not my only consideration.  We literally don't have the time, nor the bandwidth, to explore this topic.  I don't have the will to discuss my faith path with anyone on an Internet forum, either.

[myrkul]

That book is not my only consideration.  We literally don't have the time, nor the bandwidth, to explore this topic.  I don't have the will to discuss my faith path with anyone on an Internet forum, either.

Translation: I'm afraid you'll prove me wrong.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised. Good bye.

[MoonShadow]

That book is not my only consideration.  We literally don't have the time, nor the bandwidth, to explore this topic.  I don't have the will to discuss my faith path with anyone on an Internet forum, either.

Translation: I'm afraid you'll prove me wrong.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised. Good bye.

I'm not afraid of being proven wrong, because I don't consider faith something that can be proven or falsified.  I just don't have that debate, and I have zero interest in spinning my wheels while listening to you attempt the impossible.

It's nothing personal, I've learned long ago that this is a topic best left unsaid.

[myrkul]

That book is not my only consideration.  We literally don't have the time, nor the bandwidth, to explore this topic.  I don't have the will to discuss my faith path with anyone on an Internet forum, either.

Translation: I'm afraid you'll prove me wrong.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised. Good bye.

I'm not afraid of being proven wrong, because I don't consider faith something that can be proven or falsified.  I just don't have that debate, and I have zero interest in spinning my wheels while listening to you attempt the impossible.

It's nothing personal, I've learned long ago that this is a topic best left unsaid.

But hypocrisy is something that can be proven... and by picking and choosing what you accept from the Bible as acceptable practices when dealing with children, specifically, considering beating the child as acceptable (because the bible approves) , and not infanticide as not acceptable (even though the bible approves, in certain circumstances, at least), proves your hypocrisy.

I don't challenge your faith. I challenge how true to your faith you are.

[cunicula]

I don't challenge your faith. I challenge how true to your faith you are.

Shit, if he is completely true to a literal interpretation of the bible, then he is a complete idiot. Is that what your are trying to falsify?
Anyways, the bible is contradictory, so I don't see how it would even be feasible to meet your test.

[myrkul]

I don't challenge your faith. I challenge how true to your faith you are.

Shit, if he is completely true to a literal interpretation of the bible, then he is a complete idiot. Is that what your are trying to falsify?

If he is not, then he should see the error of pointing to the Bible and saying "See, the book says I can!"

Either you use your own logic, or you use someone else's. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Anyways, the bible is contradictory, so I don't see how it would even be feasible to meet your test.

That's the best part about literal interpretation of the bible. You can justify anything by saying "See, the book says I can!"

[cunicula]

I don't challenge your faith. I challenge how true to your faith you are.

Shit, if he is completely true to a literal interpretation of the bible, then he is a complete idiot. Is that what your are trying to falsify?

If he is not, then he should see the error of pointing to the Bible and saying "See, the book says I can!"

Either you use your own logic, or you use someone else's. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Anyways, the bible is contradictory, so I don't see how it would even be feasible to meet your test.

That's the best part about literal interpretation of the bible. You can justify anything by saying "See, the book says I can!"

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

[myrkul]

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.

[cunicula]

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.

Or he is using his own personal faith. A faith that is unique to his individual relationship with God. Based on this personal faith, he chooses what is right and wrong.

I certainly hope this is the case. That is more like my interpretation of morality, except I cut out the God part and just have faith in my own emotions.

[myrkul]

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.

Or he is using his own personal faith. A faith that is unique to his individual relationship with God. Based on this personal faith, he chooses what is right and wrong.

I'm afraid the available evidence doesn't back that up.

Sorry to break it to you, but pimping out children is verboten, while spanking of errant children is specificly encouraged by the old documents on those topics.

He based this argument on the Bible. I'm afraid his faith is most likely lacking, if he refers to the Bible only for some adult/child interactions, and not all.

[myrkul]

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.

your logical fallacy is...

(By the way, you really need to work on this one. It's not the first time I've had to point out your "either-or" reasoning).

That's only true if there are actually more than two options. A mix of faith and logic self-detonates. (In other words, Your logical fallacy is...)

[myrkul]

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.

your logical fallacy is...

(By the way, you really need to work on this one. It's not the first time I've had to point out your "either-or" reasoning).

That's only true if there are actually more than two options. A mix of faith and logic self-detonates. (In other words, Your logical fallacy is...)

middle ground
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth....

I made no such claim. I merely pointed out your black-or-white thinking. You failed to negate the possibility of the existence of other options. For example, that Moonshadow might rely on faith only in some situations, e.g.: regarding moral issues that cannot be resolved purely with logic. You're getting sloppy, Myrkul.

I've yet to find any moral issues that cannot be solved with logic... Typically the logical premise: "If I don't like this, I should not subject another to it." As I said, a reality view based partly on faith and partly on logic fails miserably.

[cunicula]

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.

your logical fallacy is...

(By the way, you really need to work on this one. It's not the first time I've had to point out your "either-or" reasoning).

That's only true if there are actually more than two options. A mix of faith and logic self-detonates. (In other words, Your logical fallacy is...)

middle ground
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth....

I made no such claim. I merely pointed out your black-or-white thinking. You failed to negate the possibility of the existence of other options. For example, that Moonshadow might rely on faith only in some situations, e.g.: regarding moral issues that cannot be resolved purely with logic. You're getting sloppy, Myrkul.

I've yet to find any moral issues that cannot be solved with logic... Typically the logical premise: "If I don't like this, I should not subject another to it." As I said, a reality view based partly on faith and partly on logic fails miserably.

Define fail. I think we must have very different definitions.

[myrkul]

Define fail. I think we must have very different definitions.

Feel free to share yours.

[myrkul]

middle ground
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth....

I made no such claim. I merely pointed out your black-or-white thinking. You failed to negate the possibility of the existence of other options. For example, that Moonshadow might rely on faith only in some situations, e.g.: regarding moral issues that cannot be resolved purely with logic. You're getting sloppy, Myrkul.

I've yet to find any moral issues that cannot be solved with logic... Typically the logical premise: "If I don't like this, I should not subject another to it." As I said, a reality view based partly on faith and partly on logic fails miserably.

We've covered this before... Morality != "code of ethics". If they were equivalent, then machines could be programmed with such a 'code' to act morally, and they could pass the Turing Test. Any "moral issue" that can be solved using logic is not really a moral issue.

Pose me a moral question, then, that cannot be solved using logic. Prove your assertion.

[cunicula]

Define fail. I think we must have very different definitions.

Feel free to share yours.

Mine is completely subjective. I know it when I see it. I've seen a whole lot of it in your posts.

[myrkul]

Define fail. I think we must have very different definitions.

Feel free to share yours.

Mine is completely subjective. I know it when I see it. I've seen a whole lot of it in your posts.

Perhaps, at this juncture, we should define what we're talking about. I was under the impression we were speaking of "logic," but this post leads me to believe you were talking about morality, which, given your opinion of Stefan Molyneux, I can assure you we do not share in the least.

[MoonShadow]

This discusion about the logic of morality is off topic.  I either of you really wish to have such a debate, start another thread.

[cunicula]

Hmm. Never heard of him, so I googled. This is what I came up with from the wikipedia talk page. Sounds like a libertarian version of Scientology. Pathetic to say the least.

My experience of 'Free'domain was a huge disappointment. It looked interesting at first since there was a lot of talk about philosophy. I had only posted about 30 times when I was sent an email from Stefan Molyneux telling me not to post on the website anymore. He cited the fact that he did not like some of the sceptical problems I raised [about knowing about one's own existence and the nature of 'proof' - hardly controversial issues to those who've done any epistemology] and the fact that my theistic perspectives were not welcome. I think the site needs to make it much clearer to everyone that they only allow atheists on their site since there's nothing very 'free' about that practice. You can only call most of the account holders on his site 'disciples' since they behave this way. Instead of engaging me in discussion they chose instead to cite books that Stefan has written [implying that once I've read them I'll see the error of my ways]. Most of them had nothing serious to say on almost any of the topics on there. I teach secondary school and by comparison I would say that most posts are akin to where my 13 year olds are in their academic careers. Then there's all the posts from Stefan Molyneux asking for more money. I was quite impressed at first to see that some people were 'Philosopher Kings' on the website and thought this may be due to some academic achievement. How silly! One gets to be a 'Philosopher King' [whether you're male or female btw] by donating more than $500 per month! I think that pretty much says it all. After all that should you want an account on the site make sure you don't say anything remotely in support of theism, do not question political anarchy and NEVER, I repeat, NEVER say anything which questions Stefan Molyneux in the slightest. That way you may last a few days longer than me! The site needs a renaming - I suggest: 'StefanitesDomain' or 'FacistDomain' or 'DictatorshipDomain' or 'Totalitarian'Domain but certainly nothing with the word free in it.

[myrkul]

Hmm. Never heard of him, so I googled.

I must have you confused with a different statist asshole that called him a "piece of shit" then.

You all start sounding alike after a while.

[cunicula]

Hmm. Never heard of him, so I googled.

I must have you confused with a different statist asshole that called him a "piece of shit" then.

You all start sounding alike after a while.

That was just based on a video you linked to. I didn't realize you were a 'disciple.'

[myrkul]

Hmm. Never heard of him, so I googled.

I must have you confused with a different statist asshole that called him a "piece of shit" then.

You all start sounding alike after a while.

That was just based on a video you linked to. I didn't realize you were a 'disciple.'

I agree with his philosophy. I do not follow it blindly.

[myrkul]

Was the judge's choice morally right?

I'm not sure how to prove that the moral righteousness of your opinion of the judge's moral righteousness cannot be proven, but whatever.

Proving a negative is historically very difficult, yes.

However: Logically, the decisions in this case are not (necessarily) up to the judge. They're up to the parties concerned; namely, the parents/guardians of the little girl, and the executor of the ex-criminal's estate, or whoever he has appointed to make his decisions in his stead, or who has gained that ability by default, such as a spouse or next-of kin. For the purposes of this discussion, we'll assume that those interested parties sought out the judge to make the decision for them. Perhaps their emotional attachment prevented them from reaching an equitable agreement.

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his. As to the actual decision, I can logically predict that it would most likely be to pull the plug on the ex-criminal and save the little girl. Firstly, the ex-criminal, is, as you say, an ex-criminal. That, combined with his recent good deeds, indicates a desire to atone for his past misdeeds. That is evidence to support the supposition that what he would himself choose, if offered the choice, would be to give his life for the girl's. Secondly, he has lived his life, had his chance, as it were. The girl has not. Third and finally, if we were to choose not to save the girl, she would die, and the ex-criminal would still be on life-support. It is, logically, the least bad option to save the girl at the expense of the ex-criminal's life.

[lebing]

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his.

[myrkul]

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his.

Typically, a quote is followed by a response. This is what the "Preview" button is for. It helps make sure you don't look like an idiot.

[Rudd-O]

On the whole "disciples" thing (which is a common accusation on the part of people who hate Stefan Molyneux but can't actually refute his arguments), Stef says something that I think applies perfectly to the situation:

http://youtu.be/KLODu02R_gA?t=16m15s

[myrkul]

On the whole "disciples" thing (which is a common accusation on the part of people who hate Stefan Molyneux but can't actually refute his arguments), Stef says something that I think applies perfectly to the situation:

http://youtu.be/KLODu02R_gA?t=16m15s

Though the irony of referring to Stef's video in this context is not lost on me... 

[myrkul]

Was the judge's choice morally right?

I'm not sure how to prove that the moral righteousness of your opinion of the judge's moral righteousness cannot be proven, but whatever.

Proving a negative is historically very difficult, yes.

However: Logically, the decisions in this case are not (necessarily) up to the judge. They're up to the parties concerned; namely, the parents/guardians of the little girl, and the executor of the ex-criminal's estate, or whoever he has appointed to make his decisions in his stead, or who has gained that ability by default, such as a spouse or next-of kin. For the purposes of this discussion, we'll assume that those interested parties sought out the judge to make the decision for them. Perhaps their emotional attachment prevented them from reaching an equitable agreement.

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his. As to the actual decision, I can logically predict that it would most likely be to pull the plug on the ex-criminal and save the little girl...

a) Not exactly. You've re-framed the setting to suit your ethical preferences, which is fine. But the point was that one of the 2 options was morally better (according to the judge) than the other one.

And indeed, I logically determined which option was superior. But because the decision is properly the next-of-kin's, when they both agreed to pass the decision on to the judge, they agreed to abide by his decision, regardless of the outcome. That makes whatever decision he makes morally acceptable, because nobody has been coerced into the situation. But back on topic...

who's to say that yours trumps Moonshadow's?

It's simple logic:
MoonShadow's moral code:

Is it OK to force sex upon an adult?		Is it OK to force sex upon a child?
No		No
Is it OK to kill an adult?		Is it OK to kill a child?
No		No
Is it OK to torture an adult?		Is it OK to torture a child?
No		Yes (Wait, what?)

Not internally consistent.

Mine:

Is it OK to force sex upon an adult?		Is it OK to force sex upon a child?
No		No
Is it OK to kill an adult?		Is it OK to kill a child?
No		No
Is it OK to torture an adult?		Is it OK to torture a child?
No		No

Internally consistent.

[MoonShadow]

No		No
Is it OK to torture an adult?		Is it OK to torture a child?
No		No

Internally consistent.

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture. 

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

[myrkul]

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture. 

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.

( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.

[MoonShadow]

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture. 

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.

( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.

Not to the same extreme.  At what point does a time out become torture?

[myrkul]

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture. 

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.

( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.

Not to the same extreme.  At what point does a time out become torture?

At what point does sleep deprivation become torture? Waterboarding?

It's the technique, not the duration that determines torture or not.

[lebing]

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his.

Typically, a quote is followed by a response. This is what the "Preview" button is for. It helps make sure you don't look like an idiot.

"Cant tell if trolling or serious"

is what the image I posted says

[Rudd-O]

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.

( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.

There you go, "mystery" explained, now you know why MoonChildAbuser is a child abuser -- he told you himself why.  That kind of shit?  Contagious -- from parent to child.

To me, this was no mystery at all.  He was abused, he hasn't processed that abuse, he abuses his children, and he rationalizes that abuse using wololololo dogma.  Thus, he's "happy" (of course, his children will likely grow up to either hate him or abuse their own children, but what does the abuser care, he just cares that he feels great after brutalizing his kid).  There's literally no mystery here -- this shit goes on everywhere, abusers are a dime a dozen, and they're all cut from the same abuse cloth.

The unexamined life isn't just not worth living -- it's also actively destructive to your children.

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture.

Note how ManlyAbuser refers to this conclusion as an "assumption" when it's really not -- it's a simple deduction.  What is torture if not pain inflicted to elicit certain behaviors?  Obviously corporeal punishment is torture -- if anyone does the exact same thing to an adult, the aggressor is guilty of battery.  How battery and torture somehow magically becomes not-battery and not-torture can only be explained through a particularly malevolent form of doublethink.

We get it, MoonBeater needs to feel like he is not a monster.  He'll never accept that he is indeed a monster for brutalizing his children.  Accepting that one has done wrong can be very, very difficult -- especially when it's one's children that one has wronged -- and that would be far too much effort for such a fundamentally cowardly person who beats defenseless creatures up, to "deal" with his own abuse issues.

Far too much effort.  For such a grown-ass coward.

Scum.

[MoonShadow]

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture.

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.

( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.

Not to the same extreme.  At what point does a time out become torture?

At what point does sleep deprivation become torture? Waterboarding?

It's the technique, not the duration that determines torture or not.

I've been avoiding this thread, because I believe we may have come to an impasse. but I would like to shift the focus a bit, just to see.

Consider this Myrkul...


In a theoretical future ancap society, people would be able to choose to adhere to a religious set of mores, or not, by their own choosing, correct?

Would they also be able to raise their children within that same religious culture, or is that kind of cultural indoctriination coercion?

Would a rabbi be permitted to circumcise an infant born to Jewish parents?  Would this be torture?  It would certainly fit your model, being very painful, having zero proven medical benefits, and without the concent of the child.  However, the infant never remembers this, due to his age.  While waiting till the child is an adult (traditionally 13) so that he can decide for himself is actually permissable under most interpretations, the downside is that he will most cerainly remember the suffering involved, and choosing not to do so at this point is to reject the commandments of his chosen God.

Are the parents of the infant child, when they decide to circumsize their son very young, trying to look out for (what they may consider) in their child's own best interests, violating his rights, or actually doing both at the same time?

In your view, would traditional forms of circumcision be worthy of an intervention?  Or simply none of your business unless you were a parent?

[cunicula]

On the whole "disciples" thing (which is a common accusation on the part of people who hate Stefan Molyneux but can't actually refute his arguments), Stef says something that I think applies perfectly to the situation:

http://youtu.be/KLODu02R_gA?t=16m15s

Though the irony of referring to Stef's video in this context is not lost on me... 

Speaking of irony. What about the irony of labeling libertarian disciples 'philosopher kings?' Plato is about as Statist as one could possibly be. Seems like shit-piece is having a joke at his donors' expense.

[myrkul]

In a theoretical future ancap society, people would be able to choose to adhere to a religious set of mores, or not, by their own choosing, correct?

Would they also be able to raise their children within that same religious culture, or is that kind of cultural indoctriination coercion?

This quote sums up my opinion on religion quite well:

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.

Would a rabbi be permitted to circumcise an infant born to Jewish parents?  Would this be torture?  It would certainly fit your model, being very painful, having zero proven medical benefits, and without the concent of the child.  However, the infant never remembers this, due to his age.  While waiting till the child is an adult (traditionally 13) so that he can decide for himself is actually permissable under most interpretations, the downside is that he will most cerainly remember the suffering involved, and choosing not to do so at this point is to reject the commandments of his chosen God.

Well, it would certainly enforce the idea that he's making a commitment, wouldn't it? But no, circumcision is not torture. Torture is pain for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info. That's just elective surgery.

Are the parents of the infant child, when they decide to circumsize their son very young, trying to look out for (what they may consider) in their child's own best interests, violating his rights, or actually doing both at the same time?

Hmm. Well, it's just an elective surgery, it does no harm, and, as you say, the infant doesn't remember it. If they want to consent for an elective surgery for their child, they can. I personally would not, but then, I'm not Jewish.

In your view, would traditional forms of circumcision be worthy of an intervention?  Or simply none of your business unless you were a parent?

Well, that depends. The typical male circumcision, which while it confers no real benefit (aside from some slight cleanliness advantages), also does no real damage (again, aside from some slight desensitization) is fine, but I'd point out that other, more heinous acts are "traditional," such as removal of the glans, or female circumcision, which likewise usually involves the removal of the clitoris, and/or the sewing up of the vaginal opening. Those would be worthy of intervention.

[MoonShadow]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

[cunicula]

Was the judge's choice morally right?

I'm not sure how to prove that the moral righteousness of your opinion of the judge's moral righteousness cannot be proven, but whatever.

Proving a negative is historically very difficult, yes.

However: Logically, the decisions in this case are not (necessarily) up to the judge. They're up to the parties concerned; namely, the parents/guardians of the little girl, and the executor of the ex-criminal's estate, or whoever he has appointed to make his decisions in his stead, or who has gained that ability by default, such as a spouse or next-of kin. For the purposes of this discussion, we'll assume that those interested parties sought out the judge to make the decision for them. Perhaps their emotional attachment prevented them from reaching an equitable agreement.

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his. As to the actual decision, I can logically predict that it would most likely be to pull the plug on the ex-criminal and save the little girl...

a) Not exactly. You've re-framed the setting to suit your ethical preferences, which is fine. But the point was that one of the 2 options was morally better (according to the judge) than the other one.

And indeed, I logically determined which option was superior. But because the decision is properly the next-of-kin's, when they both agreed to pass the decision on to the judge, they agreed to abide by his decision, regardless of the outcome. That makes whatever decision he makes morally acceptable, because nobody has been coerced into the situation. But back on topic...

who's to say that yours trumps Moonshadow's?

It's simple logic:
MoonShadow's moral code:

Is it OK to force sex upon an adult?		Is it OK to force sex upon a child?
No		No
Is it OK to kill an adult?		Is it OK to kill a child?
No		No
Is it OK to torture an adult?		Is it OK to torture a child?
No		Yes (Wait, what?)

Not internally consistent.

Mine:

Is it OK to force sex upon an adult?		Is it OK to force sex upon a child?
No		No
Is it OK to kill an adult?		Is it OK to kill a child?
No		No
Is it OK to torture an adult?		Is it OK to torture a child?
No		No

Internally consistent.

What is this, the most simplistic morality wins?
I've got one for you.
Is it Okay to do X? Yes.

[MoonShadow]

Would a rabbi be permitted to circumcise an infant born to Jewish parents?  Would this be torture?  It would certainly fit your model, being very painful, having zero proven medical benefits, and without the concent of the child.  However, the infant never remembers this, due to his age.  While waiting till the child is an adult (traditionally 13) so that he can decide for himself is actually permissable under most interpretations, the downside is that he will most cerainly remember the suffering involved, and choosing not to do so at this point is to reject the commandments of his chosen God.

Well, it would certainly enforce the idea that he's making a commitment, wouldn't it? But no, circumcision is not torture. Torture is pain for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info. That's just elective surgery.

So, by your view, it's the intent of the offender that makes torture what it is? Is this generally correct?

Are the parents of the infant child, when they decide to circumsize their son very young, trying to look out for (what they may consider) in their child's own best interests, violating his rights, or actually doing both at the same time?

Hmm. Well, it's just an elective surgery, it does no harm, and, as you say, the infant doesn't remember it. If they want to consent for an elective surgery for their child, they can. I personally would not, but then, I'm not Jewish.

So I could, by your view, consent to my son to have (painful) elective surgery; but I cannot consent for the same child to coercive (perhaps painful, but with no lasting (demonstratable) harm) behavior conditioning?  Why, if my intent is in the interests of my child?  Does  that not qualify as a contradiciton?

In your view, would traditional forms of circumcision be worthy of an intervention?  Or simply none of your business unless you were a parent?

Well, that depends. The typical male circumcision, which while it confers no real benefit (aside from some slight cleanliness advantages), also does no real damage (again, aside from some slight desensitization) is fine, but I'd point out that other, more heinous acts are "traditional," such as removal of the glans, or female circumcision, which likewise usually involves the removal of the clitoris, and/or the sewing up of the vaginal opening. Those would be worthy of intervention.

Yes, but I chose my example deliberately; as a real world example of a religious activity that 1) does cause much temporary pain while 2) does not cause in real lasting harm but 3) is irreversable and of 4) questionable benefits.  Female cicumsisions most certainly do some lasting harm, and we can debate them later because that is an interesting contradiction as well.  Traditional male circumsision is an activity that many in our own society would very much hlike to prohibit, for many of the same reasons that you would very much like to prohibit corporeal punishment.  It's this realm of inquery that you display your own statist contradictions.  While you might be willing and able to foresee a society that has competing security agencies that could peacably coexist lacking any real geographic monopoly on force, you trip voer your own principles once confronted with a situation for whihc you consider morally abhorant.  I'm no different in this regard, I'll admit, but it is for this very reason that I can't regard a true ancap society as sustainable; for there are many cultures in our society that are inclined towards conflicts by this very nature.

[justusranvier]

One of the preconditions for a free society to form is a leap forward on generally accepted morality, in the same way that the abolition of slavery was a prerequisite for the invention of mechanized agriculture.

In a free society nobody it's not likely anyone will use force to stop parents from abusing children with circumcision or other forms of involuntary body modifications, but the parents will find it much more difficult to get away with.

Once society evolves beyond actively protecting and apologizing for child abusers it will become much more socially expensive to engage in it. Nobody would want to hire, work for, buy from, or be friends with a child abuser. Parents whose children managed to escape from them would not have a government to call on to force the children to return against their will. This alone would virtually eliminate child abuse. Slavery becomes unprofitable of the slave owners can't offload to the taxpayers the cost of catching and returning escaped slaves.

[myrkul]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

Would a rabbi be permitted to circumcise an infant born to Jewish parents?  Would this be torture?  It would certainly fit your model, being very painful, having zero proven medical benefits, and without the concent of the child.  However, the infant never remembers this, due to his age.  While waiting till the child is an adult (traditionally 13) so that he can decide for himself is actually permissable under most interpretations, the downside is that he will most cerainly remember the suffering involved, and choosing not to do so at this point is to reject the commandments of his chosen God.

Well, it would certainly enforce the idea that he's making a commitment, wouldn't it? But no, circumcision is not torture. Torture is pain for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info. That's just elective surgery.

So, by your view, it's the intent of the offender that makes torture what it is? Is this generally correct?

Largely, yes. Remember those qualifications: for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info.

Are the parents of the infant child, when they decide to circumsize their son very young, trying to look out for (what they may consider) in their child's own best interests, violating his rights, or actually doing both at the same time?

Hmm. Well, it's just an elective surgery, it does no harm, and, as you say, the infant doesn't remember it. If they want to consent for an elective surgery for their child, they can. I personally would not, but then, I'm not Jewish.

So I could, by your view, consent to my son to have (painful) elective surgery; but I cannot consent for the same child to coercive (perhaps painful, but with no lasting (demonstratable) harm) behavior conditioning?  Why, if my intent is in the interests of my child?  Does  that not qualify as a contradiciton?

Remember the qualifications for torture? if you're inflicting pain for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info?

You're making a point. Teaching a lesson. With pain. That's torture.

In your view, would traditional forms of circumcision be worthy of an intervention?  Or simply none of your business unless you were a parent?

Well, that depends. The typical male circumcision, which while it confers no real benefit (aside from some slight cleanliness advantages), also does no real damage (again, aside from some slight desensitization) is fine, but I'd point out that other, more heinous acts are "traditional," such as removal of the glans, or female circumcision, which likewise usually involves the removal of the clitoris, and/or the sewing up of the vaginal opening. Those would be worthy of intervention.

Yes, but I chose my example deliberately; as a real world example of a religious activity that 1) does cause much temporary pain while 2) does not cause in real lasting harm but 3) is irreversable and of 4) questionable benefits.  Female cicumsisions most certainly do some lasting harm, and we can debate them later because that is an interesting contradiction as well.  Traditional male circumsision is an activity that many in our own society would very much hlike to prohibit, for many of the same reasons that you would very much like to prohibit corporeal punishment.  It's this realm of inquery that you display your own statist contradictions.  While you might be willing and able to foresee a society that has competing security agencies that could peacably coexist lacking any real geographic monopoly on force, you trip voer your own principles once confronted with a situation for whihc you consider morally abhorant.  I'm no different in this regard, I'll admit, but it is for this very reason that I can't regard a true ancap society as sustainable; for there are many cultures in our society that are inclined towards conflicts by this very nature.

I see. Third party defense is statism now.  Well, I guess I've heard it all, now.

[MoonShadow]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

I would presume, but they are not alwasys people that can act or decide on their own behalf.

Would a rabbi be permitted to circumcise an infant born to Jewish parents?  Would this be torture?  It would certainly fit your model, being very painful, having zero proven medical benefits, and without the concent of the child.  However, the infant never remembers this, due to his age.  While waiting till the child is an adult (traditionally 13) so that he can decide for himself is actually permissable under most interpretations, the downside is that he will most cerainly remember the suffering involved, and choosing not to do so at this point is to reject the commandments of his chosen God.

Well, it would certainly enforce the idea that he's making a commitment, wouldn't it? But no, circumcision is not torture. Torture is pain for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info. That's just elective surgery.

So, by your view, it's the intent of the offender that makes torture what it is? Is this generally correct?

Largely, yes. Remember those qualifications: for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info.

Are the parents of the infant child, when they decide to circumsize their son very young, trying to look out for (what they may consider) in their child's own best interests, violating his rights, or actually doing both at the same time?

Hmm. Well, it's just an elective surgery, it does no harm, and, as you say, the infant doesn't remember it. If they want to consent for an elective surgery for their child, they can. I personally would not, but then, I'm not Jewish.

So I could, by your view, consent to my son to have (painful) elective surgery; but I cannot consent for the same child to coercive (perhaps painful, but with no lasting (demonstratable) harm) behavior conditioning?  Why, if my intent is in the interests of my child?  Does  that not qualify as a contradiciton?

Remember the qualifications for torture? if you're inflicting pain for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info?

You're making a point. Teaching a lesson. With pain. That's torture.

i'm not making a point.  I'm training a child.  Such as the example of the toddler that is too curious about the blue flame on the cooktop.  The intent is not to cause pain, but to associate pain with the activity.  Because a smack on the back of the hand is less painfull and less harmful than a burn.

In your view, would traditional forms of circumcision be worthy of an intervention?  Or simply none of your business unless you were a parent?

Well, that depends. The typical male circumcision, which while it confers no real benefit (aside from some slight cleanliness advantages), also does no real damage (again, aside from some slight desensitization) is fine, but I'd point out that other, more heinous acts are "traditional," such as removal of the glans, or female circumcision, which likewise usually involves the removal of the clitoris, and/or the sewing up of the vaginal opening. Those would be worthy of intervention.

Yes, but I chose my example deliberately; as a real world example of a religious activity that 1) does cause much temporary pain while 2) does not cause in real lasting harm but 3) is irreversable and of 4) questionable benefits.  Female cicumsisions most certainly do some lasting harm, and we can debate them later because that is an interesting contradiction as well.  Traditional male circumsision is an activity that many in our own society would very much hlike to prohibit, for many of the same reasons that you would very much like to prohibit corporeal punishment.  It's this realm of inquery that you display your own statist contradictions.  While you might be willing and able to foresee a society that has competing security agencies that could peacably coexist lacking any real geographic monopoly on force, you trip voer your own principles once confronted with a situation for whihc you consider morally abhorant.  I'm no different in this regard, I'll admit, but it is for this very reason that I can't regard a true ancap society as sustainable; for there are many cultures in our society that are inclined towards conflicts by this very nature.

I see. Third party defense is statism now.  Well, I guess I've heard it all, now.

And yet, you still cann't see it.  Your cognative dissonace is significant.

[myrkul]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

I would presume, but they are not alwasys people that can act or decide on their own behalf.

So are children. Would you beat a stroke victim to get the point across?

[cunicula]

And yet, you still cann't see it.  Your cognative dissonace is significant.

He is a cultist. What do you expect? Based on the wikipedia article, one of shit-piece's tactics is to convince his followers that all families are abusive, and therefore that they must cut off all contact with their relatives in order to be free from abuse. That is why Myrkul is so crazy about this abuse issue. This is a classic cult tactic. [Works for Mao; Works for shit-piece]

Myrkul, have you sent shit-piece any money?

[MoonShadow]

And yet, you still cann't see it.  Your cognative dissonace is significant.

He is a cultist. What do you expect? Based on the wikipedia article, one of shit-piece's tactics is to convince his followers that all families are abusive, and therefore that they must cut off all contact with their relatives in order to be free from abuse. That is why Myrkul is so crazy about this abuse issue. This is a classic cult tactic. [Works for Mao; Works for shit-piece]

Myrkul, have you sent shit-piece any money?

Are you talking about Stefan Molyneux?  I know nothing concerning his views on family, but I've read some of his articles about libertarianism.  Most of them are well reasoned, a few lean toward zealotry.  If he does actually advocate the idea that people who listen to him should sever all familiar ties, that certainly is a classic cult tactic.  However, even Jesus has been quoted as saying that, to follow him one must hate his father and mother.

Personally, I take no one's words as an absolute on anything.  Not even the writings of John claiming to be direct quotes of the living God.  I'm not that kind of Christian.  To the best of my knowledge, Jesus didn't write an autobiography.

[cunicula]

And yet, you still cann't see it.  Your cognative dissonace is significant.

He is a cultist. What do you expect? Based on the wikipedia article, one of shit-piece's tactics is to convince his followers that all families are abusive, and therefore that they must cut off all contact with their relatives in order to be free from abuse. That is why Myrkul is so crazy about this abuse issue. This is a classic cult tactic. [Works for Mao; Works for shit-piece]

Myrkul, have you sent shit-piece any money?

Are you talking about Stefan Molyneux?  I know nothing concerning his views on family, but I've read some of his articles about libertarianism.  Most of them are well reasoned, a few lean toward zealotry.  If he does actually advocate the idea that people who listen to him should sever all familiar ties, that certainly is a classic cult tactic.  However, even Jesus has been quoted as saying that, to follow him one must hate his father and mother.

Personally, I take no one's words as an absolute on anything.  Not even the writings of John claiming to be direct quotes of the living God.  I'm not that kind of Christian.  To the best of my knowledge, Jesus didn't write an autobiography.

Yeah, I'm talking about shit-piece. Read the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

In 2005, Molyneux published a controversial conclusion on maintaining relationships with parents based on his and his wife's evaluation:
Does this sound too radical? Do you think it extreme for me to say that almost all parents are horribly bad? Perhaps it is. However, if you look at the state of the world – the general blindness and the slow death of our liberties – the challenge you take on by disagreeing with me is this: if it’s not the parents, what is it?

Either the world is not sick, or parents are. Because, as my wife says, it all starts with the family. If you want to perform the greatest service for political liberty, all you have to do is turf all of your unsatisfying relationships. Parents, siblings, spouse, it doesn’t matter. If you can do that, you can speak honestly about freedom.
—Stefan Molyneux (emphasis in original), [38]
In 2008, one Freedomain Radio member's parents' complaints about these ideas were published as part of a series of newspaper articles. The parents claimed that Freedomain Radio is a therapeutic cult after the 18-year-old member left home and severed all contact with his family, an action that Freedomain Radio calls "deFOO" (borrowed from academic psychology, "FOO" is an acronym "Family of Origin").

It is clearly a cult. This makes a lot of sense by the way. A cult is the only structure under which an AnCap society could function. See quote in my signature.

[MoonShadow]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

I would presume, but they are not alwasys people that can act or decide on their own behalf.

So are children. Would you beat a stroke victim to get the point across?

Of course not.  I wouldn't beat a child to get a point across, either.  As already mentioned, I'm not trying to make a point, but condition a child to associate pain with dangerous activities.  To even attempt to do the same to a stroke victim, would serve no purpose.  Either the stroke victim has enough mental capacity to remember how to act, or they don't; such behavior conditioning of someone with a broken mind is futile.  I'm presuming that a small child's mind isn't broken, it's incomplete.  You try to oversimplyfy things by creating these catagories, and associating activities in one catagory with another; when you don't even make a real attempt to establish the catagories should even exist, much less do you show that equating activities among those catagories is reasonable.

The reality is much more complex.  Children are not a uniform group anymore than adults are uniformly capable of self-governance, or even critical thinking.  Your worldview is impossible; not because it's internally illogical, but because human beings are internally illogical.  All of us are; to varying degrees, creatures of habit, of instinct, of self-interest and of our own past experiences.  What we are not, as a rule, is rational.  That's a learned quality, and thus must be taught.  Yet, it cannot be taught to a child who has not, yet, developed the physical greymatter required to reason.  It is, thus, important that such a child live long enough to make it, and preferablely with all his body parts in good working order.  Behavior modification techniques exist to improve the odds of this success, not to make a point with a person who is not yet capable of getting the point.  If he could get the point, I could just warn him of the risks, for he would have already developed the capacity to reason!  I'm sure that when your daughters annoy you to no end with the series of "Why?" related questions, you're going to try to explain the world to them.  But eventually you will grow weary of all that, and simply say, "Because I said so!".  We all do it, and isn't an admission of defeat.  It is, however, an acceptance of the fact that they don't, presently, have the capacity to actually understand, no matter how wwell you explain it.

On an unrelated note, if my words come out jumbled, please just know that this form based posting method on this forum aggravates my mild case of dyxlexia, and the spellchecker doesn't seem to dive into these forum forms for some unknown reason.  So when I start getting my letters out of order, it's mostly a sign that I'm getting tired, not partaking in libations.

[MoonShadow]

See quote in my signature.

I literally cannot see the entire thing, and I don't understand why.

[myrkul]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

I would presume, but they are not alwasys people that can act or decide on their own behalf.

So are children. Would you beat a stroke victim to get the point across?

Of course not.  I wouldn't beat a child to get a point across, either.  As already mentioned, I'm not trying to make a point, but condition a child to associate pain with dangerous activities.  To even attempt to do the same to a stroke victim, would serve no purpose. 

A child needs to learn what is dangerous and what is not, a stroke victim needs to relearn this. Why is pain an acceptable means of teaching a child, but not a stroke victim?

[MoonShadow]

Yeah, I'm talking about shit-piece. Read the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

That's interesting.  These things have a way of working themselves out.  If he has kids of his own, odds are pretty good that at least a portion of them are going to take their parents advice.

[justusranvier]

If he has kids of his own, odds are pretty good that at least a portion of them are going to take their parents advice.

He has a four year old daughter, and frequently mentions that everything he's said applies to her.

Unlike some other people the man is no hypocrite. He publicly states she has no obligation to him whatsoever and it's his responsibility to earn a good relationship with her once she is an adult and free to choose her own associations. He treats his daughter with respect and deference as if she is free to leave him at any time so that she has no reason to want to leave.

But Stefan Molyneux is just one of many parents proving you and your barbaric book of fairy tales wrong.

[MoonShadow]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

I would presume, but they are not alwasys people that can act or decide on their own behalf.

So are children. Would you beat a stroke victim to get the point across?

Of course not.  I wouldn't beat a child to get a point across, either.  As already mentioned, I'm not trying to make a point, but condition a child to associate pain with dangerous activities.  To even attempt to do the same to a stroke victim, would serve no purpose. 

A child needs to learn what is dangerous and what is not, a stroke victim needs to relearn this. Why is pain an acceptable means of teaching a child, but not a stroke victim?

Again, equating catagories without providing a basis for the association.  A child's mind isn't broken.  A stroke victim's mind is provabley damaged.  Without evidence that the stroke victim is capable of relearning, the tow catagories are not even related.  Using behavior modification, whether or not pain conditioning is employed, presumes the the person is capable of learning, and therefore contributing to the odds of success.  With a stroke victim, such capacity is not a given.

That said, behavior conditioning is occasionaly prescribed for stroke victims, regardless of how I might feel about it.  It's more commonly used with elderly patients with dementia, however.

[MoonShadow]

If he has kids of his own, odds are pretty good that at least a portion of them are going to take their parents advice.

He has a four year old daughter, and frequently mentions that everything he's said applies to her.

Unlike some other people the man is no hypocrite. He publicly states she has no obligation to him whatsoever and it's his responsibility to earn a good relationship with her once she is an adult and free to choose her own associations. He treats his daughter with respect and deference as if she is free to leave him at any time so that she has no reason to want to leave.

But Stefan Molyneux is just one of many parents proving you and your barbaric book of fairy tales wrong.

We shall yet see about that, but even if so, one data point does not qualify as evidence.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

I really have to thank Myrkul for pointing out that website to me, I can do this all day.

[myrkul]

A child's mind isn't broken. 

Well, until you come along, at least.

[MoonShadow]

A child's mind isn't broken. 

Well, until you come along, at least.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

I told you I can do this all day.

[myrkul]

A child's mind isn't broken. 

Well, until you come along, at least.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

I told you I can do this all day.

Be wrong? Yes, you've established that. Months, in fact.
http://www.snapnetwork.org/psych_effects/how_abuse_andneglect.htm

[MoonShadow]

A child's mind isn't broken. 

Well, until you come along, at least.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

I told you I can do this all day.

Be wrong? Yes, you've established that. Months, in fact.
http://www.snapnetwork.org/psych_effects/how_abuse_andneglect.htm

And we've come back to this one rather quickly...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

That article is about abuse and neglect, and you use it to attempt to show that my parenting methods are harmful, but the very use of an article that starts with an example of a child entering an emergency room due to cigerette burns under the eye implys that your are already, and again, presuming your conclusion.  i'm sure that you're confident that you have already shown this, but you have failed to do so.

[Rudd-O]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

I would presume, but they are not alwasys people that can act or decide on their own behalf.

So are children. Would you beat a stroke victim to get the point across?

He certainly beats people up to get his anger across...

[Rudd-O]

If he has kids of his own, odds are pretty good that at least a portion of them are going to take their parents advice.

He has a four year old daughter, and frequently mentions that everything he's said applies to her.

Unlike some other people the man is no hypocrite. He publicly states she has no obligation to him whatsoever and it's his responsibility to earn a good relationship with her once she is an adult and free to choose her own associations. He treats his daughter with respect and deference as if she is free to leave him at any time so that she has no reason to want to leave.

But Stefan Molyneux is just one of many parents proving you and your barbaric book of fairy tales wrong.

Well said.

[cunicula]

If he has kids of his own, odds are pretty good that at least a portion of them are going to take their parents advice.

He has a four year old daughter, and frequently mentions that everything he's said applies to her.

Unlike some other people the man is no hypocrite. He publicly states she has no obligation to him whatsoever and it's his responsibility to earn a good relationship with her once she is an adult and free to choose her own associations. He treats his daughter with respect and deference as if she is free to leave him at any time so that she has no reason to want to leave.

But Stefan Molyneux is just one of many parents proving you and your barbaric book of fairy tales wrong.

Well said.

God Damn. They are all cultists. I feel like an idiot for not realizing this earlier.

[Rudd-O]

Edit: I note that the standard "Stefan Molyneux is a cultist" defamation has already spread here like the aidscancer that these false accusations are.  It was only to be expected, and only a matter of time, that malevolent people who are unmasked as sociopaths and sycophants by Stefan's work, would try to defame and attack him here -- what are snakes and scorpions going to do, but bite and sting?

If I may speak for Stefan for a moment: he is a man who has worked very hard, for many years, to build a completely free comprehensive database of knowledge on voluntaryism ranging from peaceful parenting, to family relationships, to friend relationships, to professional relationships, to politics.  He has done so at great personal sacrifice and -- as you can see from these petty and hateful people who shit-talk him gratuitously -- undeserved personal cost to himself.

In my personal experience, those who attack Stefan do so only because they can't contemplate the man and not feel self-hate and inadequacy at their own insignificance.  They can't reason, so they insult.  They can't debate, so they defame.  They can't discuss, so they attack.  They can't come to terms with their own misdeeds, so they project.

This is, by the way, particularly true of the politically-connected parents who got Stefan's wife into trouble -- they abused their kid so thoroughly, that their kid decided to ditch their sorry asses... what did these miserable assholes do?  Instead of coming to terms with what they had done to their son, they had Stefan and his wife publicly slandered in a newspaper hit piece.  Whenever you hear these "Stefan Molyneux cult" accusations, keep in mind that these accusations originated entirely from fabrications in that newspaper hit piece.  I was there.  I saw that happen.  I would know.

I'm confident that those of you who don't just listen to random asshats vomiting hate, will take the time to actually research these defamatory claims and find that they are as baseless as they are odious.  Stef is only called a "cultist" today, solely because two parents were cowardly enough to not accept that they were abusing their child, so they preferred to defame Stefan and blame him for his kid ditching their sorry asses.

That's how low people can stoop.  Yes, some snake people will conspire to leave you without bread on your table, leave your kids without food or a house, ruin your reputation thoroughly, if what you say reveals enough of their own malevolence.  These snakes will have no scruples whatsoever.  They are sociopaths.  And then the other sociopaths -- such as the ones in this very forum, posting on this very thread -- will giddily celebrate at your misfortune inflicted on you, and use that to gain Internet points (the vernacular is "for psychic gain").

Sociopaths, everywhere.

[cunicula]

Edit: I note that the standard "Stefan Molyneux is a cultist" defamation has already spread here like the aidscancer that these false accusations are.  It was only to be expected, and only a matter of time, that malevolent people who are unmasked as sociopaths and sycophants by Stefan's work, would try to defame and attack him here -- what are snakes and scorpions going to do, but bite and sting?

If I may speak for Stefan for a moment: he is a man who has worked very hard, for many years, to build a completely free comprehensive database of knowledge on voluntaryism ranging from peaceful parenting, to family relationships, to friend relationships, to professional relationships, to politics.  He has done so at great personal sacrifice and -- as you can see from these petty and hateful people who shit-talk him gratuitously -- undeserved personal cost to himself.

In my personal experience, those who attack Stefan do so only because they can't contemplate the man and not feel self-hate and inadequacy at their own insignificance.  They can't reason, so they insult.  They can't debate, so they defame.  They can't discuss, so they attack.  They can't come to terms with their own misdeeds, so they project.

This is, by the way, particularly true of the politically-connected parents who got Stefan's wife into trouble -- they abused their kid so thoroughly, that their kid decided to ditch their sorry asses... what did these miserable assholes do?  Instead of coming to terms with what they had done to their son, they had Stefan and his wife publicly slandered in a newspaper hit piece.  Whenever you hear these "Stefan Molyneux cult" accusations, keep in mind that these accusations originated entirely from fabrications in that newspaper hit piece.  I was there.  I saw that happen.  I would know.

I'm confident that those of you who don't just listen to random asshats vomiting hate, will take the time to actually research these defamatory claims and find that they are as baseless as they are odious.  Stef is only called a "cultist" today, solely because two parents were cowardly enough to not accept that they were abusing their child, so they preferred to defame Stefan and blame him for his kid ditching their sorry asses.

That's how low people can stoop.  Yes, some snake people will conspire to leave you without bread on your table, if what you say reveals enough of their own malevolence.  They will have no scruples whatsoever.  They are sociopaths.

Sociopaths, everywhere.

Uh-huh. Does shit-piece have a compound somewhere? How many wives does shit-piece have?

Ah, the cult has even made the newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/15/family-relationships-fdr-defoo-cult

MoonShadow. You may say this is off-topic, but the fact that their absurd views about family relationships come from a profiteering cult leader is highly relevant.

[MoonShadow]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

I would presume, but they are not alwasys people that can act or decide on their own behalf.

So are children. Would you beat a stroke victim to get the point across?

He certainly beats people up to get his anger across...

You make presumptions that you cannot support.  You have no evidence at all that I have ever done anything to any of my children out of anger.

[MoonShadow]

Edit: I note that the standard "Stefan Molyneux is a cultist" defamation has already spread here like the aidscancer that these false accusations are.  It was only to be expected, and only a matter of time, that malevolent people who are unmasked as sociopaths and sycophants by Stefan's work, would try to defame and attack him here -- what are snakes and scorpions going to do, but bite and sting?

If I may speak for Stefan for a moment: he is a man who has worked very hard, for many years, to build a completely free comprehensive database of knowledge on voluntaryism ranging from peaceful parenting, to family relationships, to friend relationships, to professional relationships, to politics.  He has done so at great personal sacrifice and -- as you can see from these petty and hateful people who shit-talk him gratuitously -- undeserved personal cost to himself.

In my personal experience, those who attack Stefan do so only because they can't contemplate the man and not feel self-hate and inadequacy at their own insignificance.  They can't reason, so they insult.  They can't debate, so they defame.  They can't discuss, so they attack.  They can't come to terms with their own misdeeds, so they project.

This is, by the way, particularly true of the politically-connected parents who got Stefan's wife into trouble -- they abused their kid so thoroughly, that their kid decided to ditch their sorry asses... what did these miserable assholes do?  Instead of coming to terms with what they had done to their son, they had Stefan and his wife publicly slandered in a newspaper hit piece.  Whenever you hear these "Stefan Molyneux cult" accusations, keep in mind that these accusations originated entirely from fabrications in that newspaper hit piece.  I was there.  I saw that happen.  I would know.

I'm confident that those of you who don't just listen to random asshats vomiting hate, will take the time to actually research these defamatory claims and find that they are as baseless as they are odious.  Stef is only called a "cultist" today, solely because two parents were cowardly enough to not accept that they were abusing their child, so they preferred to defame Stefan and blame him for his kid ditching their sorry asses.

That's how low people can stoop.  Yes, some snake people will conspire to leave you without bread on your table, leave your kids without food or a house, ruin your reputation thoroughly, if what you say reveals enough of their own malevolence.  These snakes will have no scruples whatsoever.  They are sociopaths.  And then the other sociopaths -- such as the ones in this very forum, posting on this very thread -- will giddily celebrate at your misfortune inflicted on you, and use that to gain Internet points (the vernacular is "for psychic gain").

Sociopaths, everywhere.

Project much?

[cunicula]

You make presumptions that you cannot support.  You have no evidence at all that I have ever done anything to any of my children out of anger.

Shit-piece says essentially all parents abuse their children. What more evidence do they need?

[MoonShadow]

MoonShadow. You may say this is off-topic, but the fact that their absurd views about family relationships come from a profiteering cult leader is highly relevant.

Only because they brought him up as support, but even then condeming their admiration of this man because of his other flaws would be...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

[MoonShadow]

You make presumptions that you cannot support.  You have no evidence at all that I have ever done anything to any of my children out of anger.

Shit-piece says essentially all parents abuse their children. What more evidence do they need?

More than that.

[cunicula]

MoonShadow. You may say this is off-topic, but the fact that their absurd views about family relationships come from a profiteering cult leader is highly relevant.

Only because they brought him up as support, but even then condeming their admiration of this man because of his other flaws would be...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

I don't agree with your analysis at all. You are trusting too much in logic.

If you can identify someone's motives for making an argument, it is much easier to identify the flaws in their argument (e.g. look at the assumptions in their argument; figure out which assumptions support their central motive and scrutinize these assumptions. These assumptions have typically been manipulated in order to obtain the desired conclusion.)

In this case, the bizarre assumption is that abuse is a 0/1 category. Philosophic logic actually facilitates this misunderstanding by failing to give due weight to matters of degree and quantity. Some mathematical logic would help here.

Promulgating this bizarre assumption helps shit-piece collect followers among teenagers that are rebelling against their parents. They have ambivalent feelings towards their family. The ambivalent feelings make them feel confused and unhappy. By offering a decisive yes or no answer, the community provides these confused individuals with reassurance and certainty. Much like faith in a religion might (though we might hope that the religious message would be 'love your family and do your best to be reconciled with them').

The followers then send shit-piece money in order to post in shit-piece's forum.

Shit-piece even does them the favor of editing out all dissenting voices. Even to the extent of rewriting dissenting posts without indicating his own editorial contributions.
http://michaelmcconkey.com/talk/what-is-stefan-molyneux-so-afraid-of/
LOL. Myrkul, weren't you lecturing me about Doublespeak just the other day?

[MoonShadow]

MoonShadow. You may say this is off-topic, but the fact that their absurd views about family relationships come from a profiteering cult leader is highly relevant.

Only because they brought him up as support, but even then condeming their admiration of this man because of his other flaws would be...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

Of course I had condemned them well before learning of any association. I just was wondering where they got views that are both a) bizarre and b) bizarrely uniform. Cult membership explains it.

I honestly hate to agree with you, Cunicula; but that is a plausible analysis.

[myrkul]

MoonShadow. You may say this is off-topic, but the fact that their absurd views about family relationships come from a profiteering cult leader is highly relevant.

Only because they brought him up as support, but even then condeming their admiration of this man because of his other flaws would be...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

Of course I had condemned them well before learning of any association. I just was wondering where they got views that are both a) bizarre and b) bizarrely uniform. Cult membership explains it.

I honestly hate to agree with you, Cunicula; but that is a plausible analysis.

Oh yes, because logic could never produce the same result twice, or even three times...

[justusranvier]

Oh yes, because logic could never produce the same result twice, or even three times...

Not to mention all those culty physicists which are weirdly uniform in their measurements of the mass of elementary particles or the gravitational constant.

But of course Reality has a well-known anarchist bias.

[Rudd-O]

MoonShadow. You may say this is off-topic, but the fact that their absurd views about family relationships come from a profiteering cult leader is highly relevant.

Only because they brought him up as support, but even then condeming their admiration of this man because of his other flaws would be...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

Of course I had condemned them well before learning of any association. I just was wondering where they got views that are both a) bizarre and b) bizarrely uniform. Cult membership explains it.

I honestly hate to agree with you, Cunicula; but that is a plausible analysis.

Oh yes, because logic could never produce the same result twice, or even three times...

Yeah, how bizarre is it that there is a bunch of people that all think 1+1=2. Must obviously be the fact that they are all a bunch of cultist mathematicsnoids. Obviously. They could not be possibly correct. Must be their cult.

This is the absurd "logic" of hate towards truth.

[MoonShadow]

This is the absurd "logic" of hate towards truth.

You keep using those words as if you know what they mean.  Perhaps your should step back from yourself for a bit and consider the possibility that you do not know what they mean.

[MoonShadow]

But of course Reality has a well-known anarchist bias.

  It most certainly does not.  Reality looks much more like what we have than what you imagine we should have.

[MoonShadow]

MoonShadow. You may say this is off-topic, but the fact that their absurd views about family relationships come from a profiteering cult leader is highly relevant.

Only because they brought him up as support, but even then condeming their admiration of this man because of his other flaws would be...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

Of course I had condemned them well before learning of any association. I just was wondering where they got views that are both a) bizarre and b) bizarrely uniform. Cult membership explains it.

I honestly hate to agree with you, Cunicula; but that is a plausible analysis.

Oh yes, because logic could never produce the same result twice, or even three times...

We're not discussing logic, and you should know that.  We're discussing human relationships.  Logic is a minor factor for some, and not a factor at all for most.  Never is logic a major factor in human relations, or your worldview might have more resemblance to the real world.  You guys really are deeply indoctrinated.  I suppose that it's good that it's just into a philosophy that does not encourage conflict, or you might be the fourth reich.