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

[myrkul]

As for an AnCap justice system, Hell will freeze over before a civilised, workable system is described in detail.

this has already been done.  Is hell cold?

No it has not been done. Myrkul's ramblings about multi-tiered private arbitration and justice mysteriously "floating to the top" sounded quite vague.

If you're using this forum as the sole source of libertarian thought, that might explain why you're unaware of these things.
http://wiki.mises.org/ is a good place to start.

LoL - did you edit some of those pages? The vague utopian writing style -- peppered with pejorative terms whenever referring to a government activity -- seems awfully familiar.

Nope, I haven't touched that wiki.

I did manage to find a page called "restorative justice", but despite all the rhetoric and well-meaning criticism of the ways governments do things, details on implementation remain absent. Basic sanity-check questions remain unanswered:

a) how do you make sure the victim in a conflict is "mysteriously restored" to his position before the conflict?

It's called "restitution." If you're unfamiliar with the term, the definition should be found in any standard English dictionary.

b) how do you make sure the criminal in a conflict is mysteriously restored to a "state of integration with society"?

this is a little more tough, but typically, having to pay restitution will do that... debt is a powerful motivator.

c) how do you correctly identify the victim vs. the criminal?

Can you not tell who swung first? It's just that simple.

d) Presumably the victim would have to be the driving force for justice. Where does the victim get all his money and power from to stand up against the criminal?

In a practical system, most people would be insured against loss. The insurance company covers that loss, and then seeks damages. This is, of course, only one option.

e) What incentive does the criminal have to co-operate with this restorative justice ritual, rather than just intimidating or silencing the victim?

If he refuses, he is casting himself outside of the protection of the system - outlaw in the original and truest sense. Ask yourself: Would you trust Trendon Shavers with your money, now?

f) What if the victim goes too far? How is this prevented or dealt with? When does the process end?

I believe that is the purpose of the Arbitrator, to decide upon a fair restitution.

g) How is making the process private and profit-driven supposed to actually help? What are these "efficiency gains" they speak of?

How did McDonalds come to be the market giant it is today?

h) In a profit-driven system, how do you prevent 'arbitrators' from milking the system, creating more crime, or prolonging proceedings? It is their business after all. If the crimes are too simple or there is just not enough of them, the arbitrators won't get enough money! The US is infamous for its bloated lawyer industry. Wouldn't that kind of parasitism just get worse?

Prolonging proceedings wouldn't help, since I don't know of any arbitrators who bill hourly. As for creating more crime, how would you suggest they do that? They don't have the option that the US lawyers do, to get more laws passed. If there is not enough crime, or the crimes are too "simple", there will be fewer arbitrators, or they will have other jobs, as well.

i) Why should arbitrators compete against each other, when they can just form a cartel?

Because the one that breaks the cartel gets an immediate reward of more business. It's the same reason cartels have always fallen apart.

j) What if neither side has any money? What incentive do arbitrators have in getting involved?

Even the poorest family in the US has a color TV. If there is a market need for low-cost services, it will be provided.

k) What if the criminal has no money? After the victim initially finances the proceedings, does the criminal get enslaved and forced to work off his debt?

I believe the term you're looking for is "indentured servitude," and that would not likely get used. More often than not, work will be available to those willing to work. And the victim may not need to finance the proceedings. For instance, judge.me Arbitrators have the option to assign all or part of the arbitration fee to either party.

[myrkul]

Don't waste your time with anything that has Mises von Shithead in the title. When I originally set out to learn economics I read all the classics: Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, Keynes. I eventually headed on down to Mises. And I thought what's this? This is propoganda and fucking philosophy, not economics. Marx is better. Fortunately, nothing von Shithead wrote made it into the educational curriculum. Our children are safe.

Well, of course anything that casts the State in anything less than the rosy glow of the Divine Right to rule is going to grate on you. That doesn't mean that those of us who have not been so thoroughly brainwashed as to immediately reject crimethink can't learn something from Ludwig von Mises.

[MoonShadow]

Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.

How does the third-party know to step in if he keeps his children as prisoners? Should anyone have the right to enter his home to audit his conduct? Should we restrict this right to child protective services? Should we just allow torture because auditing private conduct is too invasive?

[Yes, I would outlaw homeschooling or audit it strictly. Homeschooling is a form of imprisonment. Only the State can legitimately imprison people.]

Not sending the kids to a government indoctrination center is not imprisonment. I have no doubt that his children play in or otherwise visit the world outside his four walls. They may even leave the yard! 

Well, we've cut back on the extra-domicile activities this year.  They only have co-op on Thursdays, Swim lessons a the YMCA on Tuesdays & Thursdays, Church on Wednesdays & Sundays, and middle schoolers' events one Friday night each month.  Before it was much worse, dance lessons twice a week, singing & art lessons, Spanish, book club, etc.  Yeah, they don't get out much.  Otherwise, they might *talk*; they might even talk to an *adult*, and then I might have a social worker come *visit*.  Oh, wait; I already do.  I have two visits a month, because I'm a foster parent.  Huh, I wonder what those kids might be saying about me during their interviews!  It's a wonder I havn't been locked up!

[myrkul]

Moved.

[justusranvier]

All this abstract talk of restitution and non state-based is a pointless distraction from the subject of the tread.

What is important and relevant to parenting is that, historical propaganda notwithstanding, children owe no obligations to their parents. The act of being born does not incur a debt, no contract can be implied by which a child must repay parental support since the child did not choose to be born.

Adult relationships are voluntary, and if adult children are not satisfied with the care and attention they received while subject to their parents they are fully free to leave the relationship.

Everybody knows this, which is why corrupt parents have to spend so much time propagandizing their children with the myths of filial obligation. Deep down they know they don't deserve one second of their children's time on their own merits so they must invent obligations to bind their adult children to them in spite of not deserving it.

[Rudd-O]

Were they in some way your property, you'd be right. But they're not. They're human beings, with full rights, and if those rights are being violated, a third party can, and morally should, step in.

How does the third-party know to step in if he keeps his children as prisoners? Should anyone have the right to enter his home to audit his conduct? Should we restrict this right to child protective services? Should we just allow torture because auditing private conduct is too invasive?

[Yes, I would outlaw homeschooling or audit it strictly. Homeschooling is a form of imprisonment. Only the State can legitimately imprison people.]

Not sending the kids to a government indoctrination center is not imprisonment. I have no doubt that his children play in or otherwise visit the world outside his four walls. They may even leave the yard! 

Exactly.  In fact, it can be argued that imprisonment would be forcing children to go to a government indoctrination center.

[MoonShadow]

Loosely related to the topic....

http://www.strike-the-root.com/teach-your-children-well-part-ii

I think that this author is close enough to the middle of the road that both sides here can see his point.

[Rudd-O]

Don't waste your time with anything that has Mises von Shithead in the title. When I originally set out to learn economics I read all the classics: Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, Keynes. I eventually headed on down to Mises. And I thought what's this? This is propoganda and fucking philosophy, not economics. Marx is better. Fortunately, nothing von Shithead wrote made it into the educational curriculum. Our children are safe.

Well, of course anything that casts the State in anything less than the rosy glow of the Divine Right to rule is going to grate on you. That doesn't mean that those of us who have not been so thoroughly brainwashed as to immediately reject crimethink can't learn something from Ludwig von Mises.

I find it extremely amusing that cunicula thinks philosophy is so bad or useless, that it warrants being prefixed with the word "fucking".

He obviously has no idea what philosophy is -- but he sure as hell hates it.  Normal, as people who hate the truth can't do anything but hate philosophy.

[myrkul]

Loosely related to the topic....

http://www.strike-the-root.com/teach-your-children-well-part-ii

I think that this author is close enough to the middle of the road that both sides here can see his point.

Not at all loosely related. These parts especially are relevant:

Human vs. Object: Does the parent view and treat the child as another human being, one who needs help and guidance but in every other way is an individual worthy of respect and dignity? Or is the child an object, a piece of property that needs to perform certain tasks in a certain manner and her feelings and opinions are not a factor? A strict command and obey structure utilizing rewards and punishments “works” for training pets when considered from the trainer’s point of view, but this may not be an optimal method for instilling independence into a developing human being.

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivations: Does the child act out of intrinsic motivations, taking into account her own needs while also respecting and valuing the needs of others? Or does she take actions based on receiving punishments and rewards, motivations created by external sources? What will happen when the child grows up and suddenly loses her primary source of extrinsic motivations? Will she seek out such motivators through other sources? Why yes, I believe she will.

Take note of these, MoonShadow. Internalize the lessons found within.

[MoonShadow]

Loosely related to the topic....

http://www.strike-the-root.com/teach-your-children-well-part-ii

I think that this author is close enough to the middle of the road that both sides here can see his point.

Not at all loosely related. These parts especially are relevant:

Human vs. Object: Does the parent view and treat the child as another human being, one who needs help and guidance but in every other way is an individual worthy of respect and dignity? Or is the child an object, a piece of property that needs to perform certain tasks in a certain manner and her feelings and opinions are not a factor? A strict command and obey structure utilizing rewards and punishments “works” for training pets when considered from the trainer’s point of view, but this may not be an optimal method for instilling independence into a developing human being.

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivations: Does the child act out of intrinsic motivations, taking into account her own needs while also respecting and valuing the needs of others? Or does she take actions based on receiving punishments and rewards, motivations created by external sources? What will happen when the child grows up and suddenly loses her primary source of extrinsic motivations? Will she seek out such motivators through other sources? Why yes, I believe she will.

Take note of these, MoonShadow. Internalize the lessons found within.

I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article.  I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could.  In many ways, you are too predictable Myrkel.

[myrkul]

I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article.  I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could. 

Feel free. I doubt you could find anything so telling against my strategy as I found against yours. After all, I will be consistent in applying any restrictions, treat my children as people, with their own motivations, and encourage independence, to a much greater degree, in fact, than yourself.

In short, Bring it.

[MoonShadow]

I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article.  I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could.

Feel free. I doubt you could find anything so telling against my strategy as I found against yours. After all, I will be consistent in applying any restrictions, treat my children as people, with their own motivations, and encourage independence, to a much greater degree, in fact, than yourself.

In short, Bring it.

A child must see that temporary parental authority is natural and useful and very different from all other forms of non-parental “authority.” A child never sits down and signs papers acknowledging that she grants authority to her parents—it just happens. And if the parents delegate their authority to other adults, that also just happens and is beyond the power of the child to control. So it seems quite natural for the child to view authority as something that exists outside of her immediate control, and when someone tells her they have it, and are backed by the parents, then they have it. That's just how it is.

When a parent has authority over a child, what does this mean from the child’s point of view? Well, it can mean that the authority is there to help and to guide and to teach and also at times to restrict, even if force may be required to maintain the child's safety. Ideally, the authority figures that are parents also have love and respect attached to them. So to the child, the parental authority is a package of love, strength, wisdom, protection, and boundaries. This becomes their first authority archetype.

<snip>

“My house, my rules.” Parents have power and power corrupts, so be mindful of that fact. Parents are not magically exempt from this old chestnut. Of course there are rules, but ideally they should be consistent and well understood so as to clearly contrast with all the other false “authority” archetypes and their arbitrary mandates.

I’m not saying that every facet of domination can be eliminated. The bottom line is the parent does indeed have authority, and many times imperfect children try the patience of imperfect adults and anger can overtake calm reasoning. But these instances can also provide good teaching moments for both parent and child, as an examination as to how we humans are built and the unfortunate consequences that can arise when a person tests the patience of another. But exceptions are by no means rules, and that’s the crucial distinction that needs to be drawn in the child’s mind.

<snip>
Human vs. Object: Does the parent view and treat the child as another human being, one who needs help and guidance but in every other way is an individual worthy of respect and dignity? Or is the child an object, a piece of property that needs to perform certain tasks in a certain manner and her feelings and opinions are not a factor? A strict command and obey structure utilizing rewards and punishments “works” for training pets when considered from the trainer’s point of view, but this may not be an optimal method for instilling independence into a developing human being. (I've already acknowledged that corporeal punishment isn't ideal, and may not even be most effective; I only argue that I, not you, are the final arbitor of such)

<snip>

Parents naturally have the responsibility to care for a child and should assume authority out of love for the child. No other external “authority” has this motivation, although they will all claim to possess it. The primary goal of taking on this mantle of parental authority is to assist the child to develop into an independent adult. The child must be armed with knowledge and confidence before she ventures out on her own so she won't be an easy target for predators.

<snip>

I don’t pretend to be an expert in this field, and I am not here to criticize how anyone’s parents raised them or how anyone is raising their kids. I am encouraging everyone to do a little introspecting and see how perhaps some of the behaviors that fall outside the scope of government have been influenced by the pervasive and coercive external “authority” mindset. One does not necessarily need to violate the NAP in order to cause harm, especially to kids. (This one applies equally well to you, Myrkul, as it does I)

[Crypt_Current]

I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article.  I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could. 

Feel free. I doubt you could find anything so telling against my strategy as I found against yours. After all, I will be consistent in applying any restrictions, treat my children as people, with their own motivations, and encourage independence, to a much greater degree, in fact, than yourself.

In short, Bring it.

You're an inexperienced fool.  I can't believe this thread is still happening.
There are myriad ways to "encourage independence" and many of them are found through hands-on experience / trial-and-error, which you obviously have none of.
Armchair childrearing is probably the worst branch of armchair philosophy.
Have lots of kids and have "fun", jackass.

[myrkul]

It's interesting that many of these passages are the very ones I considered pointing out to you...

A child must see that temporary parental authority is natural and useful and very different from all other forms of non-parental “authority.”

Indeed, it's natural because until the child can wipe it's own ass, you have the authority and responsibility to do that. And it's temporary because once the child can wipe it's own ass, you no longer have that authority. This goes for all other aspects of the child's life, as well. As soon as the child can take care of a particular task on it's own, it's your duty to get the fuck out of the way.

also at times to restrict, even if force may be required to maintain the child's safety.

How did I know you'd use this part? You're just as predictable as I, MoonShadow. Force is sometime necessary to maintain a child's safety, such as the previously discussed example of snatching the child out of the street, or slapping their hand away from the stove. That is defensive force. Punishing the child because they did not do as told, however, is treating the child as an object, and is, at best, retaliatory force.

“My house, my rules.” Parents have power and power corrupts, so be mindful of that fact.

You didn't extend the bold on that far enough, I've remedied that. Be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking your authority absolute. You only have authority over what the child can not do for themselves.

I’m not saying that every facet of domination can be eliminated. The bottom line is the parent does indeed have authority

Yes, as I said, over those things which the child cannot do for themselves, either legally, such as in the case of contracts, or physically, such as in the case of ass-wiping.

But exceptions are by no means rules, and that’s the crucial distinction that needs to be drawn in the child’s mind.

I suppose you're going to use this to try and weasel out of responsibility for striking your child in frustration?

A strict command and obey structure utilizing rewards and punishments “works” for training pets when considered from the trainer’s point of view, but this may not be an optimal method for instilling independence into a developing human being. (I've already acknowledged that corporeal punishment isn't ideal, and may not even be most effective; I only argue that I, not you, are the final arbitor of such)

I'm not arguing efficiency, effectiveness, or any of that. I'm arguing morality. I am stating that you are treating the child not a a person, but as an animal or object, when you use corporal punishment. You are violating the NAP by using coercion to get your way.

Parents naturally have the responsibility to care for a child and should assume authority out of love for the child. No other external “authority” has this motivation, although they will all claim to possess it.

I never argued that you don't mean well. I know you do. But you know that saying about the road to hell...

One does not necessarily need to violate the NAP in order to cause harm, especially to kids. (This one applies equally well to you, Myrkul, as it does I)

Indeed, though how my treating a child as a person and not an object could bring them harm, I'm not certain. I'm well aware of the boundaries that I must set for the children, and when those boundaries should be removed.

I'll close with one more quote from the article that I think really sums up our conversation:

Striking the root of external authority just may mean turning the axe on yourself and eliminating some behaviors that are considered perfectly normal in this society and perfectly natural for you, because that is what you learned as a child. Your first reaction perhaps will be to take offense. But whenever an automatic and strong emotional response kicks in, that is usually a red flag that there is something that doesn’t want to be critically examined. That in itself should be motivation for a closer examination.

Armchair childrearing is probably the worst branch of armchair philosophy.

If you're going to comment, at least read enough of the thread to not stuff your foot in your mouth. I have two children. I am raising them in the manner I advocate. It is anything but armchair parenting. Jackass.

[MoonShadow]

I had a feeling that you would gravitate to certain portions of that article.  I won't bother doing the same to you, although I easily could. 

Feel free. I doubt you could find anything so telling against my strategy as I found against yours. After all, I will be consistent in applying any restrictions, treat my children as people, with their own motivations, and encourage independence, to a much greater degree, in fact, than yourself.

In short, Bring it.

You're an inexperienced fool.  I can't believe this thread is still happening.
There are myriad ways to "encourage independence" and many of them are found through hands-on experience / trial-and-error, which you obviously have none of.
Armchair childrearing is probably the worst branch of armchair philosophy.
Have lots of kids and have "fun", jackass.

Don't worry, he's got two very young daughters.  He'll get his due in another 12 years or so.

[justusranvier]

Don't worry, he's got two very young daughters.  He'll get his due in another 12 years or so.

Alternately, you'll get your due when the world changes and starts treating all  parents who didn't renounce the use of force against children when they had the chance as social pariahs, to live out their twilight years isolated and alone.

It's possible you could be safe though. It might not happen this generation.

Maybe.

[myrkul]

Don't worry, he's got two very young daughters.  He'll get his due in another 12 years or so.

Alternately, you'll get your due when the world changes and starts treating all  parents who didn't renounce the use of force against children when they had the chance as social pariahs, to live out their twilight years isolated and alone.

As a third alternative, I could set up some sort of reminder to tell me to let MoonShadow know how they turned out. But a dozen years seems rather long to wait just for a "Ha! Told you so!"

[MoonShadow]

It's interesting that many of these passages are the very ones I considered pointing out to you...

A child must see that temporary parental authority is natural and useful and very different from all other forms of non-parental “authority.”

Indeed, it's natural because until the child can wipe it's own ass, you have the authority and responsibility to do that. And it's temporary because once the child can wipe it's own ass, you no longer have that authority. This goes for all other aspects of the child's life, as well. as soon as the child can take care of a particular task on it's own, it's your duty to get the fuck out of the way.

Again, I don't contest this.  I stated from the beginning that my authority dies once my children reach the age of reason.  Neither my 10 year old son, nor my 12 year old daughter, have experienced any form of corporal punishment in several years.  It's simply not necessary, as they can be reasoned with.  My tots don't get any corporal punishment (as defined by the state, they do get time-outs and corner time) because they are surviors of real abuse and are now officially adopted; but that is a decision based on their particular background, not related to any argument that you can present.  And the last child doesn't get punished because she is 1) another foster child and therefore exempt due to contract and 2) she's only 6 months old and quite incapable of any activity that would call for such intervention anyway.  So, in practice, my children are not spanked; but not because I don't consider it a useful parental tool, and not because you claim a say in how I raise my kids.

also at times to restrict, even if force may be required to maintain the child's safety.

How did I know you'd use this part? You're just as predictable as I, MoonShadow. Force is sometime necessary to maintain a child's safety, such as the previously discussed example of snatching the child out of the street, or slapping their hand away from the stove. That is defensive force. Punishing the child because they did not do as told, however, is treating the child as an object, and is, at best, retaliatory force.

Well, DUH!  Of course I'm going to use this part, after you asked me to "bring it on".  Again, your opinion as to what is retalitory force is irrelevant.  It's my opinion that matters for my own children.

“My house, my rules.” Parents have power and power corrupts, so be mindful of that fact.

You didn't extend the bold on that far enough, I've remedied that. Be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking your authority absolute. You only have authority over what the child can not do for themselves.

Perhaps, but only I have such authority of my kids.  You don't.

I’m not saying that every facet of domination can be eliminated. The bottom line is the parent does indeed have authority

Yes, as I said, over those things which the child cannot do for themselves, either legally, such as in the case of contracts, or physically, such as in the case of ass-wiping.

And reasoning, such as safety training and self-preservation.  Once they can reason well enough, they don't need my help here anymore.

But exceptions are by no means rules, and that’s the crucial distinction that needs to be drawn in the child’s mind.

I suppose you're going to use this to try and weasel out of responsibility for striking your child in frustration?

I'm not, but I think that you have a shock coming.

A strict command and obey structure utilizing rewards and punishments “works” for training pets when considered from the trainer’s point of view, but this may not be an optimal method for instilling independence into a developing human being. (I've already acknowledged that corporeal punishment isn't ideal, and may not even be most effective; I only argue that I, not you, are the final arbitor of such)

I'm not arguing efficiency, effectiveness, or any of that. I'm arguing morality. I am stating that you are treating the child not a a person, but as an animal or object, when you use corporal punishment. You are violating the NAP by using coercion to get your way.

That is your opinion, and you have a right to it.  In your own home.

You do not have the right to impose your own interpretation of the NAP on my household, nor any other moral code.

Parents naturally have the responsibility to care for a child and should assume authority out of love for the child. No other external “authority” has this motivation, although they will all claim to possess it.

I never argued that you don't mean well. I know you do. But you know that saying about the road to hell...

You be strong, and remember you said this once rebellion touches your household.  You really have no idea what you are in for.

One does not necessarily need to violate the NAP in order to cause harm, especially to kids. (This one applies equally well to you, Myrkul, as it does I)

Indeed, though how my treating a child as a person and not an object could bring them harm, I'm not certain. I'm well aware of the boundaries that I must set for the children, and when those boundaries should be removed.

Again, be strong.  I can respect your determination, if not your conclusion, and a sudden change in parental styles would do far more lasting harm than either of our perspectives.  But I think that you will come to regret taking such a moral stand.

I'll close with one more quote from the article that I think really sums up our conversation:

Striking the root of external authority just may mean turning the axe on yourself and eliminating some behaviors that are considered perfectly normal in this society and perfectly natural for you, because that is what you learned as a child. Your first reaction perhaps will be to take offense. But whenever an automatic and strong emotional response kicks in, that is usually a red flag that there is something that doesn’t want to be critically examined. That in itself should be motivation for a closer examination.

Again, be careful what you wish for, Myrkul.  If there is a God, you will be judged not only on what you have done, but also on what you did not do; and what you believed about those actions yourself.

[myrkul]

 Again, your opinion as to what is retalitory force is irrelevant.  It's my opinion that matters for my own children.

It's not my opinion, it's the definition of the act. Either you're punishing, in which case it's in retaliation for the act, or you're attempting to condition the child, in which case it's preemptive, and thus initiatory. Opinion doesn't enter into it.

Perhaps, but only I have such authority of my kids.  You don't.

I'm not claiming authority over your children. I don't need such authority over them to protect them from abuse.

You do not have the right to impose your own interpretation of the NAP on my household, nor any other moral code.

I see. You're one of those types that sees the wife as property, too? Should I not step in if I see you beating her?

Parents naturally have the responsibility to care for a child and should assume authority out of love for the child. No other external “authority” has this motivation, although they will all claim to possess it.

I never argued that you don't mean well. I know you do. But you know that saying about the road to hell...

You be strong, and remember you said this once rebellion touches your household.  You really have no idea what you are in for.

Slaves rebel. I won't be raising slaves, but independent people. Since I won't be trying to dominate them, what will they rebel against?

One does not necessarily need to violate the NAP in order to cause harm, especially to kids. (This one applies equally well to you, Myrkul, as it does I)

Indeed, though how my treating a child as a person and not an object could bring them harm, I'm not certain. I'm well aware of the boundaries that I must set for the children, and when those boundaries should be removed.

Again, be strong.  I can respect your determination, if not your conclusion, and a sudden change in parental styles would do far more lasting harm than either of our perspectives.  But I think that you will come to regret taking such a moral stand.

I doubt I will, but you're right, a sudden change would ruin that "consistency" thing.

I'll close with one more quote from the article that I think really sums up our conversation:

Striking the root of external authority just may mean turning the axe on yourself and eliminating some behaviors that are considered perfectly normal in this society and perfectly natural for you, because that is what you learned as a child. Your first reaction perhaps will be to take offense. But whenever an automatic and strong emotional response kicks in, that is usually a red flag that there is something that doesn’t want to be critically examined. That in itself should be motivation for a closer examination.

Again, be careful what you wish for, Myrkul.  If there is a God, you will be judged not only on what you have done, but also on what you did not do; and what you believed about those actions yourself.

As will you.

[justusranvier]

What makes religious justifications for child abuse so obscene is not that the proponents hold up as their highest moral ideal the behaviour of bronze age barbarians, not the complete blindness to extensive evidence proving the harm their actions cause, and not even the deplorable lack of empathy with their own children that should clue them in to the fact that something's wrong.

What makes religious justifications for child abuse so obscene is that people can enter into important discussions about the care, nurturing and education of young human beings, bring up fairy tales about their imaginary friends, and expect to be taken seriously.

That is beyond depraved.