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

[Rudd-O]

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.

Yes, fail.  This guy has failed numerous times in this thread, especially with his complex pretense that I somehow have to "prove" an alleged "hasty generalization" -- to wit, that violent abusers are almost universally abuse victims themselves -- that has reams of documented evidence, already shared in this conversation thread, that he could consult if he wanted to.

[Rudd-O]

This thread is full of malevolent people who want to excuse, apologize, defend, disclaim or perpetrate violent abuse against children.

Come out of the woodwork already, child abusers and wannabes, so I can add you to a public shaming list (and my private ignore list).

[TheButterZone]

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

[augustocroppo]

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.

So provide evidence to prove your claim. You presented none.

I have prepared evidence to support whatever claim I will do.

Moreover, I am not disputing that criminals have not suffered child abuse.

I am asking what are the other causes of violence rather than the ones you had proposed.

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

No, you did not shared any facts. All you made was to provide a claim.

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.

Oh, classic... The ignore list blackmail.

You are free to ignore me, but this is not going to substantiate your claim.

[MoonShadow]

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...

Because his intervention doesn't imply a polite conversation, but him grabbing my child in public.  That makes him the aggressor, from my perspectives.  Hence, my potential response.  He knows why and so do you, this bs argument is a distraction.

[MoonShadow]

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.

Then you have already qualified some use of force, even initiation of force, against your own child for her own good.  This is exactly the same as the classic story of the professor asking a female student if she'd sleep with him for $1 million, then half a milllion, then $200K, and when she says, "what kind of girl do you think that I am?!"  "Miss, we have already established that, now we are just haggling on a price."

We have already established that you are willing to accept the initiation of some degree of force against your own child, in the interests of protecting her from harm.  Now we are just haggling just how much force you would consider justifiable before we cross your threshhold of acceptability.  And that is the point; your's is not only different than mine, it's different than everyone else's as well.  There are certainly people in this world that could justify to themselves that forcing their children to go outside and choose their own switch is acceptable, while I would not; the difference between us is that I recognize that I'm not the one who gets to decide for them, no matter how uncomfortable I might be with it.

[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.

Then you have already qualified some use of force, even initiation of force, against your own child for her own good. 

And you're deliberately blurring the definition of "force" to make grabbing the child the same as hitting. You know the libertarian usage of the word. Violence. I'd hardly call grabbing a hand - or even snatching the child up out of the street - using violence against the child. Striking the child is certainly violence, however. Furthermore, even if grabbing the child is violence (and it's not), recall that there are three types of violence: initiatory, defensive, and retributive. Only defensive violence is justified. Initiatory is clearly wrong, and retributive is simply vengeance.

Are you really saying that vengeance against your child for disobeying you is acceptable?

You're also blurring the usage of initiate. To initiate the use of force against someone is to attack them when they have done nothing. The child is endangering herself. That justifies a limited amount of defensive force - just enough to rescue her from harm. As I said before, continuing after that point is simply retribution. The rule of thumb is that if you can justifiably do something to an adult in the same situation, you can - probably - justifiably do it to a child.

Are you really saying that vengeance against your child for endangering herself is acceptable?

Face it, man. You're fighting a losing battle, here, and you know it. Now, admit defeat, and go apologize to your kids.

[cunicula]

admit defeat, and go apologize to your kids.

It is more likely that he will smack them around because he feels defeated.
When the home football team loses, wives and kids get beaten http://www.nber.org/papers/w15497.

[augustocroppo]

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.

You're also blurring the usage of initiate. To initiate the use of force against someone is to attack them when they have done nothing.

Only defensive violence is justified. Initiatory is clearly wrong, and retributive is simply vengeance.

There is no use of force without an initiation, whatever is the intent of the initiator.

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.

In accordance with your own definition you would be a criminal if you knocked down a person. You have to initiate the use of force to leap across the street and knock down a person.

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

Definition of initiate
verb

1 cause (a process or action) to begin

[myrkul]

There is no use of force without an initiation, whatever is the intent of the initiator.

If you have to look up every word in the dictionary, you probably shouldn't be conversing in English.

[augustocroppo]

There is no use of force without an initiation, whatever is the intent of the initiator.

If you have to look up every word in the dictionary, you probably shouldn't be conversing in English.

What is up? You cannot cope with your own definitions? It is not my fault that you do not use the dictionary.

Typically, after the last ad hominem argument and after the last willful ignorance to answer my question, you are now pretending that I am not entitled to express my English language skills.

I have something to declare:

"Face it, man. You're fighting a losing battle, here, and you know it. Now, admit defeat, and go apologize to your tutors which taught your English language skills."

[myrkul]

There is no use of force without an initiation, whatever is the intent of the initiator.

If you have to look up every word in the dictionary, you probably shouldn't be conversing in English.

What is up? You cannot cope with your own definitions?

No, dictionary definitions do not convey the nuances of language which is learned from speaking a language natively.

To clarify: "The initiation of the use of force" does not mean "initiate" in the sense of "I started cooking," but rather in the sense of "He started the fight."

In other words, defensive violence is a response to initiative violence. In the case we are speaking of, the man in the street "initiated" things by stepping out in front of the bus, requiring the use of force to defend him from his own inattention.

Again, if you must consult a dictionary, you will come away with an over-narrow and literal sense of the word, which will damage your ability to convey and understand meaning in a conversation.

[augustocroppo]

No, dictionary definitions do not convey the nuances of language which is learned from speaking a language natively.

To clarify: "The initiation of the use of force" does not mean "initiate" in the sense of "I started cooking," but rather in the sense of "He started the fight."

This is redundant logic.

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

Definition of start
verb

(...)

2 [with object] cause to happen or begin

(...)

noun
[usually in singular]
1 the point in time or space at which something has its origin; the beginning.

In other words, defensive violence is a response to initiative violence. In the case we are speaking of, the man in the street "initiated" things by stepping out in front of the bus, requiring the use of force to defend him from his own inattention.

Please, explain how a man stepping in front of a bus is being violent. In other words, how this man had initiated a violent action by walking distractedly in the street?

Again, if you must consult a dictionary, you will come away with an over-narrow and literal sense of the word, which will damage your ability to convey and understand meaning in a conversation.

Consult a dictionary never damaged anyone's ability to understand the meaning of words. By the other way around, a dictionary is an essential reference to avoid the misuse of words.

[myrkul]

No, dictionary definitions do not convey the nuances of language which is learned from speaking a language natively.

To clarify: "The initiation of the use of force" does not mean "initiate" in the sense of "I started cooking," but rather in the sense of "He started the fight."

This is redundant logic.

See, this is what I'm talking about. A native speaker would understand the difference between those two phrases.

Please, explain how a man stepping in front of a bus is being violent. In other words, how this man had initiated a violent action by walking distractedly in the street?

Would you not call being hit by a bus "violent"? Considering the amount of force (physics) that would be channeled through his body should that occur, I would most certainly call it such. Since I can in no way stop the bus from moving through the space he occupies, I needs must remove him from that space. This requires a small amount of defensive force (violence) so as to protect him from the great deal of force (physics) that would surely kill him. MoonShadow suggests that I should then use retributive force (punishment) so as to make sure he is conditioned to pay more attention, but I consider that to be abuse. I would also at the very least offer some assistance up, and if I have damaged him or his property, restitution for that. But that's just me. Many would be content to have saved his life.

[augustocroppo]

Would you not call being hit by a bus "violent"? Considering the amount of force (physics) that would be channeled through his body should that occur, I would most certainly call it such.

No, I would not. A bus is not a living entity with will of violence. Violence requires intention to harm:

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

Definition of violence
noun

[mass noun]
1 behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something:

A bus do not have intention to harm.

Moreover:

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

Physics: an influence tending to change the motion of a body or produce motion or stress in a stationary body. The magnitude of such an influence is often calculated by multiplying the mass of the body and its acceleration.

Since I can in no way stop the bus from moving through the space he occupies, I needs must remove him from that space.

That means, intention to "remove him from that space".

This requires a small amount of defensive force (violence) so as to protect him from the great deal of force (physics) that would surely kill him.

No, it required intentional amount of force because even an action of defense is intentional:

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

Definition of defensive
adjective
1 used or intended to defend or protect

So back you your statment:

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.

Regarding your own definition, your intention of "to protect him from the great deal of force" by "remove him from that space" is "criminal or unjustifiable".

[myrkul]

Would you not call being hit by a bus "violent"? Considering the amount of force (physics) that would be channeled through his body should that occur, I would most certainly call it such.

No, I would not. A bus is not a living entity with will of violence. Violence requires intention to harm:

Well, since you clearly don't understand the language we're using to converse, I think we're done here. Come back when you understand English.

violent
adjective
1. acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force: a violent earthquake.
2. caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death.
3. intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.
4. roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: violent passions.
5. furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.: violent haste.

[MoonShadow]

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.

Then you have already qualified some use of force, even initiation
of force, against your own child for her own good.

And you're deliberately blurring the definition of "force" to make
grabbing the child the same as hitting.

I'm not the one blurring anything.  Force is required.  The only
difference between you grabbing your child's hand and the cop grabbing
your hand is intent. I find it depressing to see you continue to deny that
which you already know.

You know the libertarian usage of the word. Violence.

Nonsense, violence is simply the qualifier.  An escalation of the force
used, along a continueum.  Again it's the degree of force that you
are arguing is criminal; not it's employment.

I'd hardly call grabbing a hand - or even snatching the child up out of
the street - using violence against the child. Striking the child is
certainly violence, however. Furthermore, even if grabbing the child
is violence (and it's not), recall that there are three types of
violence: initiatory, defensive, and retributive. Only defensive
violence is justified. Initiatory is clearly wrong, and retributive is
simply vengeance.

You initiated the force you used when you grabbed her hand.  You can not
claim defensive use of force against your child, because your child was
not threatening yourself, nor did you use force against the traffic that
threatened your daughter.  You might be able to claim defensive use
of force on the idea that your daughter was threatening herself, but then
so can I, so that point is moot.

Are you really saying that vengeance against your child for disobeying you
is acceptable?

Of course not. Are you saying that the cop's use of a taser against you
for 'resisting' is acceptable?  You still don't seem to understand that we
are not really arguing whether or not the use of force is justifyable, but
simply how much force is prudent.  Therefore every strawman argument you
present applies to your position as well.  That's cognative dissonance.

You're also blurring the usage of initiate. To initiate the use of force
against someone is to attack them when they have done nothing. The
child is endangering herself. That justifies a limited amount of
defensive force - just enough to rescue her from harm. As I said
before, continuing after that point is simply retribution. The rule of
thumb is that if you can justifiably do something to an adult in the same
situation, you can - probably - justifiably do it to a child.

There it is, your intellectual admission that "limited" force is justifiable.  The distinction between our perspectives is just a question of intent.  You claim that attempting to condition my child to associate negative events to running into traffic must be retribution due to the delayed timing involved.  This is not a rational mindset.  You certaily know that you cannot, as a third party observer, determine my motives via one encounter.  You're projecting, and that is what is upsetting you.  You are afraid that, if you agreed with me and ever decided to utilise corporel punishment that you might take it too far.

[MoonShadow]

Would you not call being hit by a bus "violent"? Considering the amount of force (physics) that would be channeled through his body should that occur, I would most certainly call it such.

No, I would not. A bus is not a living entity with will of violence. Violence requires intention to harm:

Well, since you clearly don't understand the language we're using to converse, I think we're done here. Come back when you understand English.

I though he was doing quite well, myself, considering English is a second language for him.  His understanding of the term "inititation" is apparently better tuned than your own.

[myrkul]

There it is, your intellectual admission that "limited" force is justifiable.  The distinction between our perspectives is just a question of intent.  You claim that attempting to condition my child to associate negative events to running into traffic must be retribution due to the delayed timing involved. 

Tsk, tsk... I expected better of you, MoonShadow. Corporal punishment (hell, punishment itself) is retributive. It's even in the definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment

Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment

Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person, animal, organization or entity in response to behavior deemed unacceptable by an individual, group or other entity.

Surely you're not going to claim it's in defense?

[MoonShadow]

There it is, your intellectual admission that "limited" force is justifiable.  The distinction between our perspectives is just a question of intent.  You claim that attempting to condition my child to associate negative events to running into traffic must be retribution due to the delayed timing involved. 

Tsk, tsk... I expected better of you, MoonShadow. Corporal punishment (hell, punishment itself) is retributive. It's even in the definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment

Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment

Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person, animal, organization or entity in response to behavior deemed unacceptable by an individual, group or other entity.

Surely you're not going to claim it's in defense?

Now who is cherry picking definitions to suit their argument?  Very well, I have used the term "corporal punishment" when I should have stuck with "behavior conditioning".  I used the term only because that is the common term, but I should have expected that, once cornered, you would use that poor use of precision against me.  I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

And yes, it's in defense.  Defense against my own child's hazardous behavior in the future.  It's planning in the same way you plan to defend yourself by buying a weapon, it's concious pre-planning.