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

[myrkul]

I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

Like whipping the slave? That's "behavior modification," is it not? So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use? Electroshock therapy? Forcing noxious substances into the child's mouth? Perhaps you're more into the psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?

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.

Tsk, tsk... You know as well as I do you can't defend against a future action. You can plan, but you certainly can't shoot someone because they might try to kill you in the future. You're beating your child because she might act in the future? Yeah, that's initiating violence.

[augustocroppo]

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.

How pathetic you are.

Another ad hominem...

Did you even read what you posted?

The definition number 3 clearly express:

"Caused by..."

In the case of your own example, the bus did not hit the distracted walker. So no "violent" action happened neither any action "caused" harm or destruction.

Then:

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.

Of course, your pretension will not change the fact that "violent" in your statement means:

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.

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.

"If you're walking out in front of a bus violent".
"If you're walking out in front of a bus acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force."

Otherwise how would you justify that:

"If you're walking out in front of a bus caused by injurious or destructive force."

Back to your contradictory statement:

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.

"In other words, defensive violence is a response to initiative behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. In the case we are speaking of, the man in the street "initiated" things by stepping out in front of the acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force"

Therefore:

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.

[myrkul]

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.

How pathetic you are.

Another ad hominem...

No, not another ad hominem. I don't claim that you're incapable of making an argument, just that English is not the language you should be using. Since I don't savvy Portuguese, I'm afraid we're at an impasse, and can no longer communicate. My apologies.

[MoonShadow]

I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

Like whipping the slave? That's "behavior modification," is it not? So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use? Electroshock therapy? Forcing noxious substances into the child's mouth? Perhaps you're more into the psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?

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.

Tsk, tsk... You know as well as I do you can't defend against a future action. You can plan, but you certainly can't shoot someone because they might try to kill you in the future. You're beating your child because she might act in the future? Yeah, that's initiating violence.

Myrkul, you should really take some time and examine yourself and your logic.  As well as your goals in this conversation.  Do you really desire to argue the semantics of my use of the term "defense"?  Is that conducive to your true goals?  I suspect that it is, but that your true goal is not to convince me of the error of my ways, but to convince yourself of the veracity of your position.

I'm not upset, and never have been while we are on this topic.  If you are getting upset by some words written by some guy on the Interent you have never met, perhaps you should examine why this makes yo so emotional.

[myrkul]

I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

Like whipping the slave? That's "behavior modification," is it not? So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use? Electroshock therapy? Forcing noxious substances into the child's mouth? Perhaps you're more into the psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?

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.

Tsk, tsk... You know as well as I do you can't defend against a future action. You can plan, but you certainly can't shoot someone because they might try to kill you in the future. You're beating your child because she might act in the future? Yeah, that's initiating violence.

Myrkul, you should really take some time and examine yourself and your logic.  As well as your goals in this conversation.  Do you really desire to argue the semantics of my use of the term "defense"?  Is that conducive to your true goals?  I suspect that it is, but that your true goal is not to convince me of the error of my ways, but to convince yourself of the veracity of your position.

I'm not upset, and never have been while we are on this topic.  If you are getting upset by some words written by some guy on the Interent you have never met, perhaps you should examine why this makes yo so emotional.

I'm not upset. Perhaps that's you, projecting. Now, care to answer the questions I posed?

[MoonShadow]

I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

Like whipping the slave? That's "behavior modification," is it not? So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use? Electroshock therapy? Forcing noxious substances into the child's mouth? Perhaps you're more into the psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?

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.

Tsk, tsk... You know as well as I do you can't defend against a future action. You can plan, but you certainly can't shoot someone because they might try to kill you in the future. You're beating your child because she might act in the future? Yeah, that's initiating violence.

Myrkul, you should really take some time and examine yourself and your logic.  As well as your goals in this conversation.  Do you really desire to argue the semantics of my use of the term "defense"?  Is that conducive to your true goals?  I suspect that it is, but that your true goal is not to convince me of the error of my ways, but to convince yourself of the veracity of your position.

I'm not upset, and never have been while we are on this topic.  If you are getting upset by some words written by some guy on the Interent you have never met, perhaps you should examine why this makes yo so emotional.

I'm not upset. Perhaps that's you, projecting. Now, care to answer the questions I posed?

I would if you tried to restate them independently and coherently.  As they are up above they are confused and comingled.  Which is why I suspect that you're upset, that's a common effect on prose.

[myrkul]

I don't regard the judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain to be punishment, I consider to be behavior modification.  Try again.

Like whipping the slave? That's "behavior modification," is it not? So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use? Electroshock therapy? Forcing noxious substances into the child's mouth? Perhaps you're more into the psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?

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.

Tsk, tsk... You know as well as I do you can't defend against a future action. You can plan, but you certainly can't shoot someone because they might try to kill you in the future. You're beating your child because she might act in the future? Yeah, that's initiating violence.

Myrkul, you should really take some time and examine yourself and your logic.  As well as your goals in this conversation.  Do you really desire to argue the semantics of my use of the term "defense"?  Is that conducive to your true goals?  I suspect that it is, but that your true goal is not to convince me of the error of my ways, but to convince yourself of the veracity of your position.

I'm not upset, and never have been while we are on this topic.  If you are getting upset by some words written by some guy on the Interent you have never met, perhaps you should examine why this makes yo so emotional.

I'm not upset. Perhaps that's you, projecting. Now, care to answer the questions I posed?

I would if you tried to restate them independently and coherently.  As they are up above they are confused and comingled.  Which is why I suspect that you're upset, that's a common effect on prose.

So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use?
Do you force noxious substances into the child's mouth?
Do you prefer psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?
Are you beating your child because she might act in the future?

Is that better, or were you just setting up to exit the conversation, like you accused me of earlier?

[augustocroppo]

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.

How pathetic you are.

Another ad hominem...

No, not another ad hominem. I don't claim that you're incapable of making an argument, just that English is not the language you should be using. Since I don't savvy Portuguese, I'm afraid we're at an impasse, and can no longer communicate. My apologies.

You pretend that your are not claiming that I am "incapable of making an argument", but soon after the comma you claimed that "English is not the language" that I "should be using".

A rare case of an ad hominem justified by another ad hominem!

Double ad hominem: "Your argument that my 'Come back when you understand English' statement is an ad hominem is invalid because you should not be using English language."

[TheButterZone]

This thread has become punishing to read.

[MoonShadow]

So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use?
Do you force noxious substances into the child's mouth?

I have yes, but not in the manner proscribed by that link.  I've put vinegar onto my elder son's fingertips while he is asleep, to discourge him from bitting his nails.  Nothing that would cause pain, like hot sauce, just taste bad.

Do you prefer psychological torture, like forgetting them in a corner?

A timeout is always preferable to a spanking.  Again, pain as behavior conditioning should be the last resort for any behavior problem.  I've never had a child spend more than 10 minutes standing in a corner or more than 20 in a time out chair; and only that long because I got distracted while making lunch.  My rule of thumb is two minutes corner time per year of age, per infraction.  This gives them time to think about why it is that s/he is in trouble, and always ends with a quiz of why the child believes they are in timeout.  Unlike my own parents, I'm hyper-vigilant about leaving them in time-out for long periods, and I never go to bed, myself, without checking that each of my children is in bed and comfortable, so it would be practially impossible to do to my kids what my mother did to me.  I'd never be upset that my kid left time out if I forgot them anyway.  I'd feel really guilty about that.

Are you beating your child because she might act in the future?

If I use pain reinforcment for behavior modification, it's only after repeated events that strongly imply that my child in inclined towards that particular behavior, and other corrective measure have proven ineffective.  Children as at least as likely to gravitate towards self-destructive behaviors as adults are.  Even though you have girls, you are going to encounter this yourself.  Be strong, young man; for you will be put to the test.

Is that better, or were you just setting up to exit the conversation, like you accused me of earlier?

I'm fine.  My accusation was correct, I stated it so that you would re-examine your core motives and convict yourself.  I'm fairly sure that I was successful.  The meme has been planted, it will take time to grow.

[myrkul]

If I use pain reinforcment for behavior modification, it's only after repeated events that strongly imply that my child in inclined towards that particular behavior, and other corrective measure have proven ineffective.

To paraphrase, we've already established that you're an abuser. That you wait until you run out of patience is just haggling over the price.

You strike a child as a preemptive measure to prevent future actions. That's initiating violence.
You subject your children to psychological torture as retribution for their actions. The same methods used by your parents. You're a very conscientious abuser, since you make sure to limit the time spent in a corner. That a judge hands out light sentences does not make his caging people right.
That you have a discussion after the baby jail shows that you understand that they can be reasoned with. Yet you hit them and apply... what was the phrase you used for torture? Oh yes... "judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain." I'm sure they're grateful that you only hurt them a little.

If you want to raise animals, treat your children like animals. If you wish to raise adults, treat your children like adults.

[augustocroppo]

So, what forms of "behavior modification" do you use?
Do you force noxious substances into the child's mouth?

I have yes, but not in the manner proscribed by that link.  I've put vinegar onto my elder son's fingertips while he is asleep, to discourge him from bitting his nails.  Nothing that would cause pain, like hot sauce, just taste bad.

What a brilliant idea!

This is indeed a very good method to educate the involuntary responses of children. Something similar could be used to educate a child to not insert the fingers in his/her nose, which can provoke a minor affliction in the mucous membrane.

[MoonShadow]

If I use pain reinforcment for behavior modification, it's only after repeated events that strongly imply that my child in inclined towards that particular behavior, and other corrective measure have proven ineffective.

To paraphrase, we've already established that you're an abuser. That you wait until you run out of patience is just haggling over the price.

You strike a child as a preemptive measure to prevent future actions. That's initiating violence.
You subject your children to psychological torture as retribution for their actions. The same methods used by your parents. You're a very conscientious abuser, since you make sure to limit the time spent in a corner. That a judge hands out light sentences does not make his caging people right.

Distorting my words in order to fit your preconception of what I do doesn't alter the reality.

That you have a discussion after the baby jail shows that you understand that they can be reasoned with. Yet you hit them and apply... what was the phrase you used for torture? Oh yes... "judicious & immediate use of small levels of pain." I'm sure they're grateful that you only hurt them a little.

I'm fairly certain that last statement is correct, but irrelvent.

If you want to raise animals, treat your children like animals. If you wish to raise adults, treat your children like adults.

Best of luck with that theory.  I give you about even odds that your dauthers will hate you and your wife for reasons that you will never comprehend.

[augustocroppo]

If you want to raise animals, treat your children like animals. If you wish to raise adults, treat your children like adults.

You did not learned anything from this debate, did you?

His children are animals, rational animals.

Moreover, have you even heard of that phrase: "never give to the child the job of an adult"?

By the way, you are implying that irrational animals deserves punishment to be educated...

Oh dear... Myrkul cannot formulate his arguments in a coherent fashion without to misinterpret the meanings of well established words and concepts.

 

[myrkul]

If I use pain reinforcment for behavior modification, it's only after repeated events that strongly imply that my child in inclined towards that particular behavior, and other corrective measure have proven ineffective.

To paraphrase, we've already established that you're an abuser. That you wait until you run out of patience is just haggling over the price.

You strike a child as a preemptive measure to prevent future actions. That's initiating violence.
You subject your children to psychological torture as retribution for their actions. The same methods used by your parents. You're a very conscientious abuser, since you make sure to limit the time spent in a corner. That a judge hands out light sentences does not make his caging people right.

Distorting my words in order to fit your preconception of what I do doesn't alter the reality.

Nor does distorting your perception of your actions. Reality is Reality. And striking someone for something they might do is initiating violence. You yourself called being sat in the corner psychological torture:

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.

You were abused, and you abuse. It's OK, I understand. As soon as you admit your problem, you can work on fixing it.

[augustocroppo]

Best of luck with that theory.  I give you about even odds that your dauthers will hate you and your wife for reasons that you will never comprehend.

I have already lived with my three females cousins while they were teenagers. I consider my aunt a champion of persistent reasoning! She was able to raise my cousins without the support of my uncle (they are divorced). Myrkul is about to discover how much difficult is to deal with biological bodies producing high doses of hormones at every second!

Myrkul, prepare your voice and strength your larynx. You are going to need very much in few years ahead!

[Rudd-O]

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.

I agree, this underhanded blurring of the definition of "violence" is exactly what your interlocutor is doing.  He wants to equate snatching a child out of traffic with beating him up after-the-fact, because he needs to find an ideological excuse to rationalize his own brutality and child abuse, so he can keep believing "See? I'm a good dad.".

He's not a good dad.  He is a shithead.

[justusranvier]

Fortunately the awareness of how ethics should be applied to children is spreading in spite of the holdouts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5buheknXwM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEmoSzuYpZs

The reason I don't waste much time arguing about this stuff is because the truth is winning. It can't be stopped any more - twenty years from now spanking children will be considered as shameful as being a member of the KKK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZau_ZlyoYU

[Rudd-O]

Fortunately the awareness of how ethics should be applied to children is spreading in spite of the holdouts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5buheknXwM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEmoSzuYpZs

The reason I don't waste much time arguing about this stuff is because the truth is winning. It can't be stopped any more - twenty years from now spanking children will be considered as shameful as being a member of the KKK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZau_ZlyoYU

Amen brother.

[myrkul]

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I found a web copy of that book, The Origins of War in Child Abuse, and am currently converting it to ePub. I'll host it and post the link here.

I'm scanning over it as I get everything formatted, and all I can say is... wow. Well, that's not entirely true. I can say a great many other things, but they're not fit to print.