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

[MoonShadow]

Spanking as a pre-emptive conditioning measure:

Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature; and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.  I contest both those unstated premises, and you willfully avoid the topic because we cannot agree upon first principles.

[1714779290]

1714779290

[1714779290]

1714779290

[myrkul]

Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature;

Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable.

Sure seems violent to me. Unless "deliberate infliction of pain" isn't violence under your definition?

Here, let me help you:

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

Where we differ, I think, is in the portion I have underlined. You claim that your intentional use of force, or the threat of same, will not cause psychological harm or maldevelopment. I contend that it does, and that the evidence of that fact is all around you.

and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

[MoonShadow]

Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature;

Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable.

Sure seems violent to me. Unless "deliberate infliction of pain" isn't violence under your definition?

First off, I have already stated that I don't accept your definitions, because they also presume the conclusions that you seek.  Shall I get out your "yourfallacyis" links out next?

Second, there are many forms of pain that do not require violence; so no, those are not equatible statements.

Furthermore, not all forms of corporal punishment actually involve pain.

Here, let me help you:

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization

Your argument is invalid.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

Where we differ, I think, is in the portion I have underlined. You claim that your intentional use of force, or the threat of same, will not cause psychological harm or maldevelopment. I contend that it does, and that the evidence of that fact is all around you.

No, our disagreement is more basic than that.  I do contest the validity of your perceptions, but that is actually beside the point.  My poin is 'who gets to decide'?  The answer is, I do and you do not.  I do, singularly; and you do not, even collectively.  Could I be wrong and end up screwing up my kids' lives?  That remains a possibility for which I am ever aware.  The same rings true for you, however; which does ot seem to be something for which you are aware.  You will be.  I have met many young parents (and childless couples) who advocate for such a "zero corporeal punishment" style of parenting.  However, I have met very few older parents who stuck to that method.  Among those who did; one has two boys in prison, one has one child who is a drug addict, one has a daughter who was pregnent at 15, and one has an adult son that never moved out.  Obviously, these same parents also had many other children who were not so screwed up, but I'd wager that some non-neglible percentagle of their grandchildren will either 1) end up screwed up or 2) be raised without such a zero-corporel punishment theories.

Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways.  However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually.  You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.

and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

..because I can actually justify my own actions, therefore I'm not the hypocrite here.  You are trying to apply your own interpretations of the NAP, and your own (cherrypicked) definitions of certain magic words in a futile attempt to convince myself that your interpretation is the correct one.  I have my own interpretations, and there is nothing that you can do about that without using force against me.  Something that you have already stated you would be willing to do.  All that arguing with statists that ancap societies would be tolerant of subcultures that disagree with the NAP, such as hippie communes, and may or may not use force internally; and you rush right to the use of force (individually or collectively) when confronted with a contrived situation for which you find beyond your own capacity to tolerate.  No matter how you spin it, or how it would work out in the real world; if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.  Your interpretations in this context become irrelevent.

[myrkul]

Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature;

Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable.

Sure seems violent to me. Unless "deliberate infliction of pain" isn't violence under your definition?

First off, I have already stated that I don't accept your definitions, because they also presume the conclusions that you seek.  Shall I get out your "yourfallacyis" links out next?

Second, there are many forms of pain that do not require violence; so no, those are not equatible statements.

Furthermore, not all forms of corporal punishment actually involve pain.

Wikipedia is biased, eh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment

Here, let me help you:

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization

Your argument is invalid.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Using a definition is hardly an appeal to authority, especially since I did not use it "in the place of an argument," I used it as the backing for my argument, which is: Corporal punishment is violence, which, enacted upon defenseless children, is the cause of many societal ills, not least of which is the deadly idea that government force is justified, that if someone in "authority" commits, or tells you to commit, an act of violence, That's OK, because they have "authority."

as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

Where we differ, I think, is in the portion I have underlined. You claim that your intentional use of force, or the threat of same, will not cause psychological harm or maldevelopment. I contend that it does, and that the evidence of that fact is all around you.

No, our disagreement is more basic than that.  I do contest the validity of your perceptions, but that is actually beside the point.  My poin is 'who gets to decide'?  The answer is, I do and you do not.  I do, singularly; and you do not, even collectively.  Could I be wrong and end up screwing up my kids' lives?  That remains a possibility for which I am ever aware.  The same rings true for you, however; which does ot seem to be something for which you are aware.  You will be.  I have met many young parents (and childless couples) who advocate for such a "zero corporeal punishment" style of parenting.  However, I have met very few older parents who stuck to that method.  Among those who did; one has two boys in prison, one has one child who is a drug addict, one has a daughter who was pregnent at 15, and one has an adult son that never moved out.  Obviously, these same parents also had many other children who were not so screwed up, but I'd wager that some non-neglible percentagle of their grandchildren will either 1) end up screwed up or 2) be raised without such a zero-corporel punishment theories.

Your logical fallacy is...

I'm quite aware that I might fuck up in raising my kids...I worry about it every day. But I fail to see how treating them with the respect due a fellow human being could be the cause of that fuck up.

Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways.  However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually.  You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.

And you, by leaving those options on the table, have undermined the rest of your parenting strategy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vehigjflGHA

and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

No... Are you saying that there is some third option besides "corporal punishment is abuse" and "corporal punishment is not abuse"? Because it is my position that it is, and if you are in opposition to my position, then your position must be that it is not, or this mysterious third position.

if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

I never said I would take your kid. I never even said I would lay a hand on them. I said I would tell you to stop. To which, I might add, you stated that you would reply with deadly force...

[MoonShadow]

as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

Where we differ, I think, is in the portion I have underlined. You claim that your intentional use of force, or the threat of same, will not cause psychological harm or maldevelopment. I contend that it does, and that the evidence of that fact is all around you.

No, our disagreement is more basic than that.  I do contest the validity of your perceptions, but that is actually beside the point.  My poin is 'who gets to decide'?  The answer is, I do and you do not.  I do, singularly; and you do not, even collectively.  Could I be wrong and end up screwing up my kids' lives?  That remains a possibility for which I am ever aware.  The same rings true for you, however; which does ot seem to be something for which you are aware.  You will be.  I have met many young parents (and childless couples) who advocate for such a "zero corporeal punishment" style of parenting.  However, I have met very few older parents who stuck to that method.  Among those who did; one has two boys in prison, one has one child who is a drug addict, one has a daughter who was pregnent at 15, and one has an adult son that never moved out.  Obviously, these same parents also had many other children who were not so screwed up, but I'd wager that some non-neglible percentagle of their grandchildren will either 1) end up screwed up or 2) be raised without such a zero-corporel punishment theories.

Your logical fallacy is...

Ha!  That one almost works, except I wasn't using that anecdote as an argument, I was using as an example. 

Your readiness to jump to that site to discredit your detractors is arguablely...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

I'm quite aware that I might fuck up in raising my kids...I worry about it every day. But I fail to see how treating them with the respect due a fellow human being could be the cause of that fuck up.

You fail to see many things, young man, than you are likely to revisit many times.  One likely failure is your assumption that your daughters are likely to respect you back, or even agree with your political & moral  perspectives.  Then again, they might, and you are just as likely to forever view your parentals styles as the root cause, and it's just as likely as not to be so.  You aslo presume that conditioning a toddler to associate dangerous activities with pain is necessarily "disrespect".

Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways.  However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually.  You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.

And you, by leaving those options on the table, have undermined the rest of your parenting strategy:

Perhaps, perhaps not.  You rally don't know the details of my parenting strategy, beyond the fact that I'm unwilling to exclude corporeal punishment from consideration.  You have no idea how rear or common my use of same may be.  You also don't care; again, the black and white fallacy.

and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

No... Are you saying that there is some third option besides "corporal punishment is abuse" and "corporal punishment is not abuse"? Because it is my position that it is, and if you are in opposition to my position, then your position must be that it is not, or this mysterious third position.

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.

if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

I never said I would take your kid. I never even said I would lay a hand on them. I said I would tell you to stop. To which, I might add, you stated that you would reply with deadly force...

Okay, we're going to have to dive back into the thread history.  But not today.  Time for bed.

[myrkul]

Your logical fallacy is...

Ha!  That one almost works, except I wasn't using that anecdote as an argument, I was using as an example. 

Your readiness to jump to that site to discredit your detractors is arguablely...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Tsk... I only call them as I see them. I'm not saying your argument is wrong because you use fallacies, I'm saying you use fallacies because your argument is wrong. (and you're one to talk about throwing links to that site around...)

I'm quite aware that I might fuck up in raising my kids...I worry about it every day. But I fail to see how treating them with the respect due a fellow human being could be the cause of that fuck up.

You fail to see many things, young man, than you are likely to revisit many times.  One likely failure is your assumption that your daughters are likely to respect you back, or even agree with your political & moral  perspectives.  Then again, they might, and you are just as likely to forever view your parentals styles as the root cause, and it's just as likely as not to be so.  You aslo presume that conditioning a toddler to associate dangerous activities with pain is necessarily "disrespect".

Treating a toddler like a dog that must be conditioned rather than reasoned with is not disrespect?

Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways.  However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually.  You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.

And you, by leaving those options on the table, have undermined the rest of your parenting strategy:

Perhaps, perhaps not.  You rally don't know the details of my parenting strategy, beyond the fact that I'm unwilling to exclude corporeal punishment from consideration.  You have no idea how rear or common my use of same may be.  You also don't care; again, the black and white fallacy.

Listen to what Stefan has to say on the matter. The mere fact that it's not excluded is enough to undermine the rest of the strategy.

and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

No... Are you saying that there is some third option besides "corporal punishment is abuse" and "corporal punishment is not abuse"? Because it is my position that it is, and if you are in opposition to my position, then your position must be that it is not, or this mysterious third position.

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.

No, My argument has always been that corporal punishment is child abuse, and that such (and much worse) abuse has been the cause of violence, particularly institutionalized violence, later in the children's lives.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.

If parents get to decide what is and what is not abuse, would it be OK if I decided that forcibly having sex with my children were not abuse? Would that make it so?

I think not.

if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

Be my guest...If you can.

I never said I would take your kid. I never even said I would lay a hand on them. I said I would tell you to stop. To which, I might add, you stated that you would reply with deadly force...

Okay, we're going to have to dive back into the thread history.  But not today.  Time for bed.

Oh goody. Tomorrow I get to watch you eat your words. I can't wait.

[cunicula]

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.

I have to agree with MoonShadow here. One funny thing about libertarians is that they often start from the proposition that everyone is free to do as they like and then end with the conclusion that everyone must behave in exactly the same way.

Though I think MoonShadow is an idiot and making bad decisions about how to raise his children, I don't think the children should take them away from him or that any other kind of intervention should take place. Children should only be removed if the corporal punishment MoonShadow's children suffer is sufficiently bad that they would be better off in foster homes. Evidence suggests that abuse has to be very severe before children are better off being separated from their parents.

MoonShadow is nowhere near as stupid as Myrkul.

[myrkul]

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

Be my guest...If you can.

Here, let me help: This is the post in which I first stated that I would intervene if I saw you beating your child, just as I would intervene if I saw a mugging or assault...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333595#msg1333595

And here is the reply in which you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I would be snatching your child from you...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333687#msg1333687

The response to that one, in which I explicitly deny that claim...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333819#msg1333819

And your response to my response, in which you stated you would reply with deadly force...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333845#msg1333845
(Note, the quotes are messed up, so that your response comes under the heading "Quote" and my statement to which you are responding comes under the heading "Quote from MoonShadow," because you cut out a reply of your own - specifically, the one from the second link, above - and incorrectly judged the number of tags to remove.)

I'll accept apology in the form of a public statement, and/or monetary compensation. 

[Rudd-O]

MoonBeaterOfChildren doesn't accept "your definitions" (translation: the normal meanings of the words you're using) because your definitions trivially prove him malevolent.  Sorta like the famous sociopath who said "well, no, I've never done anything violent, I killed a guy once, but nothing violent".

You, myrkul, clearly are an evil dictionarynoid oppressing Mr. Beating Children Is Not Violent Because I SAY SO, what with you bringing up your Fallacious Fascist Dictionary Authorities:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLODu02R_gA&feature=youtu.be&t=17m13s

Sociopathy at play, my man, sociopathy at play.

[MoonShadow]

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.

I have to agree with MoonShadow here. One funny thing about libertarians is that they often start from the proposition that everyone is free to do as they like and then end with the conclusion that everyone must behave in exactly the same way.

Though I think MoonShadow is an idiot and making bad decisions about how to raise his children, I don't think the children should take them away from him or that any other kind of intervention should take place. Children should only be removed if the corporal punishment MoonShadow's children suffer is sufficiently bad that they would be better off in foster homes. Evidence suggests that abuse has to be very severe before children are better off being separated from their parents.

MoonShadow is nowhere near as stupid as Myrkul.

My home is a foster home.  I agreed, by contract and in advance, to monthly visits by social workers.  My methods are not considered abuse by the state social structure.  Even so, I additionally agreed to not use corporal punishment of any form on the two foster boys, because they were removed from a physically abusive home.  The father avoided prison by surrendering his parental rights.  I abide by my agreements.

[MoonShadow]

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

Be my guest...If you can.

Here, let me help: This is the post in which I first stated that I would intervene if I saw you beating your child, just as I would intervene if I saw a mugging or assault...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333595#msg1333595

And here is the reply in which you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I would be snatching your child from you...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333687#msg1333687

The response to that one, in which I explicitly deny that claim...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333819#msg1333819

And your response to my response, in which you stated you would reply with deadly force...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333845#msg1333845
(Note, the quotes are messed up, so that your response comes under the heading "Quote" and my statement to which you are responding comes under the heading "Quote from MoonShadow," because you cut out a reply of your own - specifically, the one from the second link, above - and incorrectly judged the number of tags to remove.)

I'll accept apology in the form of a public statement, and/or monetary compensation. 

I'll review this at a later date.

[myrkul]

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

Be my guest...If you can.

Here, let me help: This is the post in which I first stated that I would intervene if I saw you beating your child, just as I would intervene if I saw a mugging or assault...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333595#msg1333595

And here is the reply in which you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I would be snatching your child from you...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333687#msg1333687

The response to that one, in which I explicitly deny that claim...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333819#msg1333819

And your response to my response, in which you stated you would reply with deadly force...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333845#msg1333845
(Note, the quotes are messed up, so that your response comes under the heading "Quote" and my statement to which you are responding comes under the heading "Quote from MoonShadow," because you cut out a reply of your own - specifically, the one from the second link, above - and incorrectly judged the number of tags to remove.)

I'll accept apology in the form of a public statement, and/or monetary compensation. 

I'll review this at a later date.

You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

[TheButterZone]

[Rudd-O]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/537673_351493224948722_683100895_n.jpg

That picture...

...too true.  I wish I had thought of that picture *I have it saved somewhere in my JPGs folder* and posted it earlier.

[MoonShadow]

Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

Be my guest...If you can.

Here, let me help: This is the post in which I first stated that I would intervene if I saw you beating your child, just as I would intervene if I saw a mugging or assault...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333595#msg1333595

This is your exact quote...

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?

Emphasis is mine.  So you state that you would intervene as if I was a mugger attacking someone.  First off, this is  a dangerous position to take anyway, because not only do you really now know what is going on, whether or not you were correct you would be risking yourself for another. Perhaps a nobal goal, but you had better be damn sure that you're correct in your initial assumptions.  There are cases of people going to jail for intervening in conflicts for which their assumptions were incorrect.

But back to my point.  You state that you would intervene as if I were a mugger on the street.  Am I to assume that you would intervene by trying to reason with me?  Of course not.  The implication here is that you would do one of two things; either you would intervene using force of your own, or call the police to do it for you.  It should be obvious enough that you didn't mean the latter, sicne you are so opposed to government monopolies, I should rationally be able to assume you ment the former.  If you really believed that what I was doing was criminal, and that you had some obligation to stop it, by what logic would you depend upon retoric?

The response to that one, in which I explicitly deny that claim...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333819#msg1333819

And this is the quote wherein you deny the obvious interpretation...

Oh, I have no intention of attempting to kidnap your child, nor of calling the police (or in an AnCap society, a defense agency) on you. 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.

Again, emphasis is mine.  Again, you you state that you are "damn sure" going to step in and stop me from "beating" my child in front of me.  Again, you had better be certain of your interpretation of the situtation.  But how would be certain to do such a thing?  You follow up with the bullshit that we would have such a discussion on the street.  No we would not, because in order for you to stop me, you would have had to come between us.  Do you really imagine that you would be negotiating with anyone at this point.  I pride myself on my level-headed-ness, but I know that I'd be in condition 2 before you had the chance to speak.  Anyone more jumpy and armed and you'd be a gurgling mass.


EDIT:  More precisely, I'd be in Condition Orange.  I'm generally in Condition 2 when I carry, so the immediate shift would be mental, from Yellow to Orange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Combat_Mindset.E2.80.94The_Cooper_Color_Code

I'll accept apology in the form of a public statement, and/or monetary compensation.  

You'll get neither from me, as I still contend that I interpreted the situation correctly.  You may, once again, try backpedaling from your original statements, and pretend that you didn't ever intend it the way you said it; or you could man up and admit that you were implying that you would really have 'intervened' exactly as I interpreted it.

[lebing]

[myrkul]

 No we would not, because in order for you to stop me, you would have had to come between us.  

Yes, bodily interpose myself between you and your victim. That is not to say I would snatch up your kid and try to take them away. I might lay hands on you, the aggressor, to stop you from hitting the kid, but I would not yank the kid up and run off. I would, of course, start off with "Hey! Quit beating that kid!" which would only escalate to interposing myself if you did not desist.

[MoonShadow]

 No we would not, because in order for you to stop me, you would have had to come between us.  

Yes, bodily interpose myself between you and your victim. That is not to say I would snatch up your kid and try to take them away. I might lay hands on you, the aggressor, to stop you from hitting the kid, but I would not yank the kid up and run off. I would, of course, start off with "Hey! Quit beating that kid!" which would only escalate to interposing myself if you did not desist.

And what do you think might happen next?

[TheButterZone]

Everything seems to be outlined already, except for that unfortunate escalation earlier in the thread where you said you would use deadly force as soon as Myrkul started yelling at you in public.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit beating that kid!"
Aggressor: /keeps beating kid
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor
Aggressor: /pushes past Myrkul, keeps beating kid
Myrkul: "I said stop, god damnit!" /lays hands on the aggressor, likely a grab from behind to stop the kid's beating
Aggressor: /whirls around, backs up to draw gun, shoots Myrkul, goes to prison for claiming "self-defense" is justified against people who try to stop child abuse

[FirstAscent]

Everything seems to be outlined already, except for that unfortunate escalation earlier in the thread where you said you would use deadly force as soon as Myrkul started yelling at you in public.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit beating that kid!"
Aggressor: /keeps beating kid
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor
Aggressor: /pushes past Myrkul, keeps beating kid
Myrkul: "I said stop, god damnit!" /lays hands on the aggressor, likely a grab from behind to stop the kid's beating
Aggressor: /whirls around, backs up to draw gun, shoots Myrkul, goes to prison for claiming "self-defense" is justified against people who try to stop child abuse

All false. Not once have I heard mention the severity of the kid beating. It makes all the difference in the world, as the world is not black and white. All we have here is talk.