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

[augustocroppo]

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?

I can only conclude from the above statement that you are intentionally using willful ignorance to not answer the question.

Let's try again:

- Few children in that prison are convicted murders.
- The parents of that children did not taught the children to kill neither they used violence against them.
- The authorities of the state did not taught the children to kill neither they used violence against them (at least, not before the imprisonment).

Regarding the above premises, who taught that children to murder? It was not the parents. It was not the authorities of the state.

Who or what beyond the parents and beyond the authorities of the state could teach the children to murder?

[MoonShadow]

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?

That is the position that I'm arguing under the 'rights of the child' perspective.  Again, I can argue this from many directions, but doing so at the same time is confusing to certain minds.

Before I respond to it, I have some questions, to clarify:
How will you know when he is capable of claiming his rights?

When he is capable of expressing that he knows that he has them.  The same way that I know you have rights, because you know that you have them.  If you don't know that you have them, you don't have any.

How will he do so?

By opening is mouth and forming coherent sentences, demonstrating that he is capable of reasoned thought.  It's a progression, though, so it's not so simple as him memorizing what I have to say and repeating same.

When he does so, will you then allow him to make those decisions you were previously making?

Some of them, yes.  Again, it's a progression, and doesn't happen suddenly.  The age of reason isn't a particular age or easily defined event, but once it's past it is easy enough to recognize; like art.  Still, most children are well past it by a certain age, and we can assume that once a child is old enough for high school they are past that point unless particular circumstances imply otherwise.

I do know where you're trying to lead with this, and it's still not relevent to the question unless you're going to attempt to prove that every two year old is already past this point and I simply cannot see it.

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?

Ceratinly, but we have yet to establish a baseline on the topic first.  I intend to prove, via reason, that a parent does have teh right to consider corporal punishment in order to achieve his/her goal of parenthood. I also intend to show that your personal opinion on my parental choices are not relevant.  Once we're done there, I would be willing to debate the finer points about the blurry line between harsh corporal punishment and abuse, but not until I'm done proving that not any use of force against my children is criminal any more than any use of force against a tresspasser is not criminal.

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.

Very well.

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.

Again, not every use of force is either criminal or unjustifiable.  If you are trying to raise pascifists, you're on the easy path, but I'm not.  That might be cultural, but again, you don't have any say in what culture I raise my children, either.

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?

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.

  Practially speaking, we could not have this debate at that time on the street, because one or both of us would be dead or dying.

[Rudd-O]

- The parents of that children did not taught the children to kill neither they used violence against them.

OK, so your claim is that "no one ever used violence against these children-turned-murderers, no one raped them, no one beat them up, no one yelled at them, in short, no one terrorized them enough to damage them and make them propense to violent acts including murder".

(Did I get that right?)

You're, in effect, disputing my contention that they were indeed abused.  (I don't think you're disputing the contention that abuse leads to dysfunctional individuals, some of whom turn very violent.  IF you were disputing that, you would be going against decades of medical and psychiatric evidence.).

And that is excellent, because we're finally making progress (thanks for the grammar fixup, by the way!).

Now prove that your claim is true.  If you dispute this claim, you surely must have some evidence you're relying on.  Let's have it, now.

We'll get to asking you to prove your other claims later.

[augustocroppo]

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?

If you intervene, then you failed to accept the natural right of the parent. That means, if the natural right of the child is only valid when the natural right of the parent is not valid, you are assuming a double standard. The natural right of both parent and child must be fully recognized or fully refuted.

The concept of jurius naturalis have been extensively discussed more than a century ago. The perspective of various writers indicate that the parent is the only authority to act in behalf of his/her child:

http://www.manchester.edu/kant/Home/indexRelated.htm

§. 55.

Ergo parentalis potestas est tantum ius in actiones prolis, ideoque ius, actiones liberorum pro lubitu eatenus dirigendi, quatenus haec directio cum conservatione ipsorum consistere potest. Parentibus itaque in prolem competit ius affirmativum, §. 82, I.

[myrkul]

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?

That is the position that I'm arguing under the 'rights of the child' perspective.  Again, I can argue this from many directions, but doing so at the same time is confusing to certain minds.

Indeed, doublethink is something few minds can handle. That yours is one of those is ceasing to be a surprise.

Before I respond to it, I have some questions, to clarify:
How will you know when he is capable of claiming his rights?

When he is capable of expressing that he knows that he has them.  The same way that I know you have rights, because you know that you have them.  If you don't know that you have them, you don't have any.

I see. And what would you consider an expresion of the knowledge and desire to have those rights respected? Would "No, daddy, don't spank me!" count, or would he have to include "Hitting is wrong!"?

How will he do so?

By opening his mouth and forming coherent sentences, demonstrating that he is capable of reasoned thought.  It's a progression, though, so it's not so simple as him memorizing what I have to say and repeating same.

Well, clearly.

When he does so, will you then allow him to make those decisions you were previously making?

Some of them, yes.  Again, it's a progression, and doesn't happen suddenly.  The age of reason isn't a particular age or easily defined event, but once it's past it is easy enough to recognize; like art.  Still, most children are well past it by a certain age, and we can assume that once a child is old enough for high school they are past that point unless particular circumstances imply otherwise.

I do know where you're trying to lead with this, and it's still not relevent to the question unless you're going to attempt to prove that every two year old is already past this point and I simply cannot see it.

Well, as you say, it's a progression. Certainly, before the child is in highschool, you let him dress himself, yes? I'm fairly certain a two-year old understands that hitting is wrong. It's the whole "except when daddy does it" that confuses them.

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?

Certainly, but we have yet to establish a baseline on the topic first.  I intend to prove, via reason, that a parent does have the right to consider corporal punishment in order to achieve his/her goal of parenthood. I also intend to show that your personal opinion on my parental choices are not relevant.  Once we're done there, I would be willing to debate the finer points about the blurry line between harsh corporal punishment and abuse, but not until I'm done proving that not any use of force against my children is criminal any more than any use of force against a tresspasser is not criminal.

It's not a blurry line at all. Hitting your kid is abuse. End of story. Unless you are going to claim that the child has somehow committed an act of aggression by disobeying you?

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.

Very well.

Well. That's the creepiest thing I have ever had the misfortune to read from you.

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.

Again, not every use of force is either criminal or unjustifiable.  If you are trying to raise pascifists, you're on the easy path, but I'm not.  That might be cultural, but again, you don't have any say in what culture I raise my children, either.

I'm not saying that every use of force is criminal or unjustifiable. I'm saying initiating the use of force is criminal or unjustifiable. Especially against someone who cannot fight back.

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.

  Practially speaking, we could not have this debate at that time on the street, because one or both of us would be dead or dying.

Lovely. First the slave comment, and now you've stated that you will defend your "right" to abuse your child with deadly force. You're really starting to disgust me.

[TheButterZone]

<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?

"They who can take away essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve no power to govern liberty or safety."
-Benny Frankel

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.

  Practially speaking, we could not have this debate at that time on the street, because one or both of us would be dead or dying.

Lovely. First the slave comment, and now you've stated that you will defend your "right" to abuse your child with deadly force. You're really starting to disgust me.

This sounds a lot like the "if guns weren't banned, all road rage incidents would end in fatalities!" Criminals' Union meme. As if people converse with only gunshots to the head.

[Rudd-O]

I'm fairly certain a two-year old understands that hitting is wrong. It's the whole "except when daddy does it" that confuses them.

Bolded, here rests the explanation for all scourges of mankind, including statist / nonstatist religions and other mafias.  "X is wrong, except when I, a magical authority / stronger than you, do it".

[Rudd-O]

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.

Very well.

Well. That's the creepiest thing I have ever had the misfortune to read from you.

What did I tell you, my man... this guy is seriously fucked in the head.

[augustocroppo]

OK, so your claim is that "no one ever used violence against these children-turned-murderers, no one raped them, no one beat them up, no one yelled at them, in short, no one terrorized them enough to damage them and make them propense to violent acts including murder".

You're, in effect, disputing my contention that they were indeed abused.  (I don't think you're disputing the contention that abuse leads to dysfunctional individuals, some of whom turn very violent.  IF you were disputing that, you would be going against decades of medical and psychiatric evidence.).

No, I am not disputing that they may had suffered abuse.

And that is excellent, because we're finally making progress (thanks for the grammar fixup, by the way!).

Now prove that your claim is true.  If you dispute this claim, you surely must have some evidence you're relying on.  Let's have it, now.

We'll get to asking you to prove your other claims later.

You admitted that parents or authorities of the state taught that children to murder. This is your claim and you did not provide any reference to prove it. Your request to me prove what I did not claimed is a failed attempt of deception.

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.

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).

Since your claim is a hasty generalization, I am challenging you to indicate to me who, beyond the parents or the authorities of the state, could teach the children to murder. Your failure to present an alternative claim to answer my question indicates that you are unable to answer objectively.

So there is no reason to further this discussion if you do not wish:

1. To substantiate your claim with appropriate evidence, which will prove that only parents or authorities of the state teach children to murder, or

2. Provide an alternative claim which satisfy my question.

Moreover, I provided another reference to you formulate an answer, but you ignored:

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.

Regarding the video I presented and the news in the above quote:

What or who, beyond the parents or the authorities of the state could teach children to murder?

[Rudd-O]

You admitted that parents or authorities of the state taught that children to murder.

No, I never said that.  I said that these murderers have surely been abused (to the point of damaging them and making them propense to murder).  I didn't say anything to the effect of "they were explicitly taught to murder other people" or anything of the sort.  Accordingly, I don't have to prove anything to you.

This is your claim

Nope.

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.

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).

See?  Contrary to your insistence, nowhere here do I ever say that these murderers were taught to murder.

I must assume that you are either mistaken (and willing to correct your allegations), or you don't have the capacity to parse what I'm saying (and therefore this conversation is futile), or you are deliberately trying to pervert my words to discredit me (in which case I see no reason why I should respond to a dishonest person).

What is it going to be?

[augustocroppo]

I do not resort to fallacies or swearing to hold my arguments. I recognize my mistakes and I respect the right to anyone to disagree with my philosophical ideals. I do not ignore any user in this forum because I am always willing to read different opinions.

I just realized that after I started to participate in this thread, few users included my username in their ignore list. Those users which ignored me are equivalent to people which close their ears during a verbal debate. They are willing to express whatever they deem necessary, but they refuse to hear whatever they deem unnecessary.

Selective reasoning: "I only consider your argument when I can refute it."

Appeal to contradiction: "You do not accept my expression of freedom, thus I will ignore your freedom of expression."

[augustocroppo]

I must assume that you are either mistaken (and willing to correct your allegations), or you don't have the capacity to parse what I'm saying (and therefore this conversation is futile), or you are deliberately trying to pervert my words to discredit me (in which case I see no reason why I should respond to a dishonest person).

What is it going to be?

All right, I failed to use exactly one word of your claim:
 

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.

Reformulated:

Since your claim is a hasty generalization, I am challenging you to indicate to me who, beyond the parents or the authorities of the state, could teach the children to resort to violence. Your failure to present an alternative claim to answer my question indicates that you are unable to answer objectively.

So there is no reason to further this discussion if you do not wish:

1. To substantiate your claim with appropriate evidence, which will prove that only parents or authorities of the state teach children to resort to violence, or

2. Provide an alternative claim which satisfy my question.

Moreover, I provided another reference to you formulate an answer, but you ignored:

(...)

Regarding the video I presented and the news in the above quote:

What or who, beyond the parents or the authorities of the state could teach children to resort to violence?

[myrkul]

What or who, beyond the parents or the authorities of the state could teach children to resort to violence?

Fail: Parents or State authority figures are not the only authority figures.

Other possibilities include: Grandparents, aunts and uncles, nannies and other caregivers (I include in this group private teachers and tutors, public school teachers are agents of the State), possibly even older siblings.

[augustocroppo]

What or who, beyond the parents or the authorities of the state could teach children to resort to violence?

Fail: Parents or State authority figures are not the only authority figures.

Other possibilities include: Grandparents, aunts and uncles, nannies and other caregivers (I include in this group private teachers and tutors, public school teachers are agents of the State), possibly even older siblings.

Do You want to discuss that? I can include your definition in my question:

What or who, beyond the parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, nannies, siblings, caregivers (including teachers and tutors) and authorities of the state, could teach children to resort to violence?

[myrkul]

What or who, beyond the parents or the authorities of the state could teach children to resort to violence?

Fail: Parents or State authority figures are not the only authority figures.

Other possibilities include: Grandparents, aunts and uncles, nannies and other caregivers (I include in this group private teachers and tutors, public school teachers are agents of the State), possibly even older siblings.

Do You want to discuss that? I can include your definition in my question:

What or who, beyond the parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, nannies, siblings, caregivers (including teachers and tutors) and authorities of the state, could teach children to resort to violence?

I don't understand the drive of your question, given that the original statement was:

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).

Given that, and the fact that you apparently latched on to "authorities" to mean "parents or government" - which has now been debunked - what's your point?

[MoonShadow]

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.

Very well.

Well. That's the creepiest thing I have ever had the misfortune to read from you.

I thought your concession was more than a little creepy as well, but I didn't desire to drag it out longer than necessary since it was still a concession.  Great going, there.

Again, not every use of force is either criminal or unjustifiable.  If you are trying to raise pascifists, you're on the easy path, but I'm not.  That might be cultural, but again, you don't have any say in what culture I raise my children, either.

I'm not saying that every use of force is criminal or unjustifiable. I'm saying initiating the use of force is criminal or unjustifiable. Especially against someone who cannot fight back.

If your daughter should try to run into traffic, would you attempt to reason with her, or grab her hand to stop her and reason with her later?  Obviously you would grab her hand and forcibly prevent her from harming herself, but you have just initiated force against her in order to do so.  By your logic, you would then be an abuser yourself.  The idea that I may be more proactive, and employ behavior conditioning (instead of attempting to reason with a two year old) in order to prevent a future repeat of this scene does not make me any more of a initiator of force than yourself.  Your going to have to recognize that, no matter how opposed to the use of force against your own children you stand philosophically; you will employ force against your children at times.  Now, your self-justifiable limit of acceptable force may be much lower than my own, but that certainly does not excuse your own use of force.  The reality is that you will rationalize your level of force in exactly the same manner that I rationalize mine; that you don't agree that your level of force constitutes violence (as you define it) and that other adults who have another opinion have no say in your situation.  

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.

 Practially speaking, we could not have this debate at that time on the street, because one or both of us would be dead or dying.

Lovely. First the slave comment, and now you've stated that you will defend your "right" to abuse your child with deadly force. You're really starting to disgust me.

The slave comment was your's, and I do have the right to defend my child with deadly force whether or not you perceive my actions as abuse or not.  Your perspectives could justify your actions against me, but my perspectives would also justify my actions against you.  If you are honestly starting to feel disgust, that's progress, because that's projection.

[augustocroppo]

I don't understand the drive of your question, given that the original statement was:

Given that, and the fact that you apparently latched on to "authorities" to mean "parents or government" - which has now been debunked - what's your point?

Are you going to answer the question as best you can or are you going to play the willful ignorant as Rudd-O?

I reformulated the question with your definition of authority. That is not enough? What will be next excuse to not answer the question?

My point is in the question. How many times I need to reformulate or to repeat the question before you decide to answer?

Answer the question or admit that you are not able to provide evidence to support your claims.

[TheButterZone]

The slave comment was your's, and I do have the right to defend my child with deadly force whether or not you perceive my actions as abuse or not.

Except that myrkul said "We would likely have something of this very conversation". So you would NOT be defending your child with deadly force, you would be responding to myrkul's mere vocalizations towards you with lead traveling at high velocity at his vital organs. That is a disproportionate response. How the frack can you justify killing a man for merely speaking to you? Jeezus...

[Rudd-O]

Since your claim is a hasty generalization,

No, no it's not.  Criminals almost universally were victims of child abuse -- verbal violence, physical violence, sexual violence.  You are only calling this a "hasty generalization" because you either don't know the facts surrounding violent individuals and their past abuse, or you don't want to acknowledge said facts.

Regarding those facts, I've shared them in this thread.  Consider your question answered.

Oh, and please don't pursue this sophistry further -- not only will you get zero answers from me (you need none, you have the requisite information) you'll also get your account on another ignore list.

[myrkul]

Again, not every use of force is either criminal or unjustifiable.  If you are trying to raise pascifists, you're on the easy path, but I'm not.  That might be cultural, but again, you don't have any say in what culture I raise my children, either.

I'm not saying that every use of force is criminal or unjustifiable. I'm saying initiating the use of force is criminal or unjustifiable. Especially against someone who cannot fight back.

If your daughter should try to run into traffic, would you attempt to reason with her, or grab her hand to stop her and reason with her later?  Obviously you would grab her hand and forcibly prevent her from harming herself, but you have just initiated force against her in order to do so.  By your logic, you would then be an abuser yourself.  The idea that I may be more proactive, and employ behavior conditioning (instead of attempting to reason with a two year old) in order to prevent a future repeat of this scene does not make me any more of a initiator of force than yourself.  Your going to have to recognize that, no matter how opposed to the use of force against your own children you stand philosophically; you will employ force against your children at times.  Now, your self-justifiable limit of acceptable force may be much lower than my own, but that certainly does not excuse your own use of force.  The reality is that you will rationalize your level of force in exactly the same manner that I rationalize mine; that you don't agree that your level of force constitutes violence (as you define it) and that other adults who have another opinion have no say in your situation.  

I've already said that intervention in order to prevent harm is acceptable. If you're walking out in front of a bus, certainly you would not object to my leaping across, knocking you to the ground in order to save your life. However, if I then turned you over my knee and proceeded to spank you for wandering into traffic, I feel fairly confident you would object, no matter how strenuously I stated that it was "for your own good."

You say you are "proactive" in your use of force. What do you mean by that? Is it as opposed to "reactive"? If so, then yes, you are indeed initiating force, not to prevent harm, but merely to "teach a lesson." The only justified use of force is to prevent (or prevent further) harm. The other component of justified force is it's proportionality. If you use "force" to restrain a child from going into the street - or to remove them from it - then that is the amount of force needed to prevent harm. Continuing the use of force - by beating the child - is no more justified than shooting a pickpocket dead.

The slave comment was your's, and I do have the right to defend my child with deadly force whether or not you perceive my actions as abuse or not.  Your perspectives could justify your actions against me, but my perspectives would also justify my actions against you.  If you are honestly starting to feel disgust, that's progress, because that's projection.

Uh huh. Sure. "Hey, stop hitting your kid!" *BANG* Yup, that's "defending your child." I am disgusted not because you would shoot me to prevent my kidnapping your child, but because you would shoot me in order that you may continue to beat your child. I'm sure a rapist feels perfectly justified in shooting a would-be rescuer of his rape victim, but that doesn't make it so.