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

[MoonShadow]

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

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

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

[justusranvier]

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

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

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

[scribe]

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

[TheButterZone]

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

[Rudd-O]

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

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

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

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

[Rudd-O]

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

Hahaha! /thread!

[Rudd-O]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lethn]

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

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

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

[MoonShadow]

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

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

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

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

[MoonShadow]

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

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

[MoonShadow]

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

Another person who can't form an argument.

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

There, I fixed that for you.

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

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

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

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

You guys are continuing to prove my point.

[MoonShadow]

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

You'd have, at most 3 BTC.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Well of course having many children does not give me license to choose corporal punishment as a disiplinary option.  It's the fact that they are mine that does so.  And yes, they are mine.  They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense.  I created them, thus they are mine.  I nurtured them, thus I have "comigiled" my human labor time with developing them into what they are today, thus they are mine.  They are too young to express knowledge of, and therefore claim, human rights of self-ownership; thus they do not have self-ownership, and therefore my own cliams to ownership are superior to any others.

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

Well of course having many children does not give me license to choose corporal punishment as a disiplinary option.  It's the fact that they are mine that does so.  And yes, they are mine.  They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense.  I created them, thus they are mine.  I nurtured them, thus I have "comigiled" my human labor time with developing them into what they are today, thus they are mine.  They are too young to express knowledge of, and therefore claim, human rights of self-ownership; thus they do not have self-ownership, and therefore my own cliams to ownership are superior to any others.

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

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

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

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

[cunicula]

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

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

[MoonShadow]

Well of course having many children does not give me license to choose corporal punishment as a disiplinary option.  It's the fact that they are mine that does so.  And yes, they are mine.  They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense.  I created them, thus they are mine.  I nurtured them, thus I have "comigiled" my human labor time with developing them into what they are today, thus they are mine.  They are too young to express knowledge of, and therefore claim, human rights of self-ownership; thus they do not have self-ownership, and therefore my own cliams to ownership are superior to any others.

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

Well of course having many children does not give me license to choose corporal punishment as a disiplinary option.  It's the fact that they are mine that does so.  And yes, they are mine.  They literally belong to me, in every philsophical sense.  I created them, thus they are mine.  I nurtured them, thus I have "comigiled" my human labor time with developing them into what they are today, thus they are mine.  They are too young to express knowledge of, and therefore claim, human rights of self-ownership; thus they do not have self-ownership, and therefore my own cliams to ownership are superior to any others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MoonShadow]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[myrkul]

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

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

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

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

[justusranvier]

They are their own property at birth.

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

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

[myrkul]

They are their own property at birth.

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

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

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

[justusranvier]

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

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