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

[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.

[1715651425]

1715651425

[1715651425]

1715651425

[1715651425]

1715651425

[1715651425]

1715651425

[1715651425]

1715651425

[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.