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

[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.