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

[cunicula]

but that would not in any fashion excuse a rape.

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

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

[augustocroppo]

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

You cannot consider, but is still relevant. It shows that the will of violence not always arise from a rational decision. Human beings assumes different states of mind which weakens its rationality. For example, when the brain becomes affected by alcohol, it start to suppress all process which supports the rational state of mind. But the will of violence could arise from a very rational decision, which could be deemed extremely necessary over certain situations. A good example would be a police officer acting with violence to arrest a criminal threatening a hostage.

Therefore, I argue that violence cannot be dismissed completely. There will be always certain contexts where violence will be necessary.

This argument can be easily applied for this discussion. Every children presents a challenge in different contexts. There will be contexts where violence will be necessary, but there will be contexts where violence will not be necessary.

So I agree with most of your arguments because you have already demonstrated that you resort to violence as last resort, in the best interest of the children welfare.

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

It would excuse rape, but that does not mean that rape is an acceptable moral behavior. There are people which argues that rape arise from the lack of social conditioning. Moral behavior is a result of a rational decision since irrational animals cannot define the limits of what is acceptable or not acceptable. Therefore the natural instinct could justify the rape, but could not morally justify the act.

[MoonShadow]

but that would not in any fashion excuse a rape.

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

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

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

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

[augustocroppo]

I wish to read arguments regarding this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZhxktkN7EI

This video shows scenes of a rebellion inside a special prison in Brazil for children which have committed violent crimes, including murder. The detainees are all under 18 years old. They made the  civil servants of the prison hostage after few adult visitants managed to sneak fire guns inside the prison to free part of the detainees with links to a criminal faction. Few civil servants were beat and one was shoot. The police force had to intervene with rubber bullet guns.

What are your arguments regarding violence against children in the context of the above video?

[Rudd-O]

To my mind, it has been resolved,

Not an argument, Myrkul.

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

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

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

[Rudd-O]

but that would not in any fashion excuse a rape.

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

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

Well said.

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

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

[cunicula]

but that would not in any fashion excuse a rape.

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

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

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

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

The thread was too rich for me to resist.

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

[cunicula]

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

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

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

[augustocroppo]

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

Your assumption is based on a false premise. There is not more or less rationality. Rationality is not qualified by a degree of quantity.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rational?q=rationality#rational__5

Definition of rational
adjective

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

(...)

rationality

adverb

[cunicula]

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

Your assumption is based on a false premise. There is not more or less rationality. Rationality is not qualified by a degree of quantity.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rational?q=rationality#rational__5

Definition of rational
adjective

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

(...)

rationality

adverb

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

[myrkul]

To my mind, it has been resolved,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_{(hint: Mom and Dad)}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cunicula]

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

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

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

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

[augustocroppo]

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

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

[cunicula]

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

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

No.

[augustocroppo]

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

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

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

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

Notice that ownership require act, state or right to posses something. Only rational animals - human beings - recognize the meaning of act, state or right to posses something. To argue that life is a self-owner is completely incoherent.

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

This is a blatant flawed argument.

The incapacity of a living entity to act alone to survive is not derived from its progenitor, but from the natural forces which drives nature. When a bird generates another bird, is not the mistake of the progenitor which hinders the offspring to fly. It is the law of physics (gravity) and the biological structure (short wings) which prevent it to fly.

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

Definition of fault
noun

(...)

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

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

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

Following your logic, every new born entity is the result of a mistake and his conditions are defective. This is very untrue. Childhood is not a defective state of life which needs to be remedied. By the other way around. Childhood is a state of life with strong potential for perfectness. That is why human beings like to admire children, because their innocence and they appearance represent pureness, even if the children have some kind of disability.

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

Every kind of life is empowered to act violently. This is nature design. All animals have a method to cause physical damage. But this does not entitle a human being to harm children without a reasonable intent.

[augustocroppo]

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

No.

So if you are not willing to formulate an argument, I do not have any interest to debate with you. I will just ignore what you have already posted as I ignore the daily noise from a busy street.

Have a good time with Mr. Krugman.

[myrkul]

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

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

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

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

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

The incapacity of a living entity to act alone to survive is not derived from its progenitor, but from the natural forces which drives nature.

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

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

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

[MoonShadow]

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

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

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

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

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

Is it you, Myrkul?

[myrkul]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rudd-O]

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

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