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

[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!