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

[MoonShadow]

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.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit beating that kid!"
Aggressor: /keeps beating kid
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.

MoonShadow: /pushes past Myrkul, Continues to address his child's misbehaviors in his own way.
Myrkul, the aggressor: "I said stop, god damnit!" /lays hands on MoonShadow, likely a grab from behind to stop the activity.

FTFY

MoonShadow: /whirls around, backs up to draw gun, shoots Aggressive interloper

Potentially shoots Myrkul.  Wheterh or not I actually did, and whether or not I was prosecuted in my own state, depends entirely upon the details.

And yet, this strawman is entirely beside the point.  As noted, Myrkul orriginally stated that he would treat me as if I were a (presumedly violent) street mugger.  To later state that he intended that we would  simply step between us(even if theat were possible) is irrational.  One does not deal with a mugger by stepping between a violent person and his current target, and then try to talk to them.  Therefore, it would have been irrational for me to have assumed that he intended anything other than the deliberate use of force against myself, or my child, inorder to affect change.  That makes him the aggressor, from my perspective, and the results predictable.  To argue that my perspectives are not correct is irrelevant, for those would be the first impressions of anyone who were in such a situation that Myrkul describes.  I simply turned his strawman situtation around upon him, and told him how the real end result of such an unlikely encounter.  To later backpedal and state that he didn't intend it the way I interpreted it is, again, beside the point.  To interprete his original statements how he, later, professes them would have been irrational.

[1715062320]

1715062320

[1715062320]

1715062320

[TheButterZone]

Not sure how acting as human shields and using our backs with arms up in the air to block adult violence against children counts as aggression, but I guess that's the absolutely fucked up world that we live in and take offense to.

[myrkul]

Note: What follows is an exact quote, but with only a few words changed. See if you can guess which!

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.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit raping that woman!"
Aggressor: /keeps raping woman
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.

Still make sense?

[MoonShadow]

Not sure how acting as human shields and using our backs with arms up in the air to block adult violence against children counts as aggression, but I guess that's the absolutely fucked up world that we live in and take offense to.

Well, for starters, simply making the deliberate act of seperating a child from their parent in a public space is an act of aggression.  But as I have already noted, that's not the same strawman that Myrkul started with, although that's the one that he would have prefered once I hit him with reality.  Even still, his odds of making through such a confrontation without harm are higher in my presence than most, and still not very high even if he didn't intend to cause harm.  His actions would not have been interpreted that way, even by someone who was rational.  Anyone less than rational is unlikely to have interpreted his actions in any way more favorable than I anyway.

[MoonShadow]

Note: What follows is an exact quote, but with only a few words changed. See if you can guess which!

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.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit raping that woman!"
Aggressor: /keeps raping woman
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.

Still make sense?

Of course not.  no one does this to stop a rapist...

Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

Although I do have to admire your persistance, even if your rationality is is question.

[myrkul]

Note: What follows is an exact quote, but with only a few words changed. See if you can guess which!

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.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit raping that woman!"
Aggressor: /keeps raping woman
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.

Still make sense?

Of course not.  no one does this to stop a rapist...

Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

Although I do have to admire your persistance, even if your rationality is is question.

You're the one who has questionable rationality, here. If stopping a rapist is not aggressing, why is it when I try to stop someone beating their kid?

[MoonShadow]

Note: What follows is an exact quote, but with only a few words changed. See if you can guess which!

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.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit raping that woman!"
Aggressor: /keeps raping woman
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.

Still make sense?

Of course not.  no one does this to stop a rapist...

Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

Although I do have to admire your persistance, even if your rationality is is question.

You're the one who has questionable rationality, here. If stopping a rapist is not aggressing, why is it when I try to stop someone beating their kid?

Wow, you are thick.

I did not say that stopping a rapist wasn't an aggressive act, I said that no one does it like you are trying to imply.  Stopping a rape certainly is an aggressive act, which is one reason that you had best be certain that you have interpreted the situation correctly.  If you happen upon a screamer and her boyfriend having wild, consentual, sex in some seedy area's backally; and you interfere, you are the aggressor no matter how it is you believed the situation.  If it's a true rape, use of force to protect the victim is justifiable (if you are correct) but it is still force.  This is a case in point about outcomes, it's not your perceptions that matter, but the woman's.  If you are wrong, and her boyfriend is harmed, you are liable for that harm.

Yet, that is still beside the point, because this is not the situation that your original strawman implied, and by now you know it.  I interpreted your statement "I will intervene just as if I see a mugging on the street" cannot be interpreted in the way (passive aggressive) that you claim that you intended it.  It can only, rationally, be interpreted that you inplied tht you would intervene with deliberate and immediate force.  That is why I responded in the way that I did, and you continue to claim that I am wrong.  I, quite literally, can't be wrong in this situation; because I'm the character in this strawman play that is interpreting your intent.  What you may have wanted to imply, or say, or convey; is entirely irrelevant.

[myrkul]

Stopping a rape certainly is an aggressive act...

No, it is a defensive act, specifically, third-party defense. Aggression is initiating the use of force. If I stop a rape, I am not initiating the use of force, I'm stopping it.

If I interrupt a screamer and her boyfriend, then I am initiating the use of force, because there was no force being used in the first place. In that situation, I am the aggressor, and would apologize and leave, very embarrassed.

Beating a kid is decidedly the use of force, and intervening is not aggression, it's defense - stopping the use of force, by force if necessary.

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

[MoonShadow]

You're the one who has questionable rationality, here. If stopping a rapist is not aggressing, why is it when I try to stop someone beating their kid?

Furthermore, your interpretation of this strawman situation is critical.  If I were, as a matter of fact, some nutcase ruthlessly beating a child (mine or someone else's), then your interference; whether of the passive aggressive type you claim, or of the more normally aggressive variety, is entirely justifiable.

However, if instead, you were to see me simply spanking my miss-behaving child (already a very unlikey event, in my case) in a public place, and you chose to intervene (by whatever method) you would still be an aggressor.  You would have to be able to justify your actions (assuming you survived the encounter), and you cannot do that without my child agreeing with your perspectives.  In most places in these United States, corporel punishment is legal (whether you like that or not) and the law treats the parents as 'guardian ad litem', or guardians under the law, and thus the child's rights are exercised by the parents until of legal age. (18 unless the parents chose to 'emancipate' as noted earlier)  So, unless you can convince a judge to appoint another 'guardian ad litem', you would have to ask the parents to agree with your perspectives.  Do you not see your problem?  There is nothing in ancap theories, nor in the non-agression principle, that solves the root disagreement here.  We disagree on this very core issue, and your problem is that you can't seem to fall back upon your own ancap principles and accept that, as the parent, I have the greater claim to my own children and their interests.

[myrkul]

You would have to be able to justify your actions (assuming you survived the encounter), and you cannot do that without my child agreeing with your perspectives.

Pretty damned sure they'd want you to stop hitting them.

[TheButterZone]

Not sure how acting as human shields and using our backs with arms up in the air to block adult violence against children counts as aggression, but I guess that's the absolutely fucked up world that we live in and take offense to.

Well, for starters, simply making the deliberate act of seperating a child from their parent in a public space is an act of aggression.  But as I have already noted, that's not the same strawman that Myrkul started with, although that's the one that he would have prefered once I hit him with reality.  Even still, his odds of making through such a confrontation without harm are higher in my presence than most, and still not very high even if he didn't intend to cause harm.  His actions would not have been interpreted that way, even by someone who was rational.  Anyone less than rational is unlikely to have interpreted his actions in any way more favorable than I anyway.

Yes, because real life is a MMORPG, where you have a tag hovering over your head constantly that says Parent and all children have a Child tag hovering over their heads that indicates they are within striking distance of their Parent.

Even in your world where child abuse isn't violence, that's fucking irrational as fuck.

If you are beating a child in public then you will be treated exactly the same as a violent criminal, because THAT is what you appear to be. Your logic dictates that we should assume all rapists should be viewed as consensual lovers of their bruised, bloodied, torn clothes, screaming "no" victims in dark alleys by default. BULLSHIT.

[MoonShadow]

Stopping a rape certainly is an aggressive act...

No, it is a defensive act, specifically, third-party defense. Aggression is initiating the use of force. If I stop a rape, I am not initiating the use of force, I'm stopping it.

If I interrupt a screamer and her boyfriend, then I am initiating the use of force, because there was no force being used in the first place. In that situation, I am the aggressor, and would apologize and leave, very embarrassed.

And yet, you cannot see the error in your logic, even now.  

And you would not apologize and leave.  You would, at a minimum, have to face restitution for whatever harm you caused; even in your ideal ancap world.  And that's the best case scenario.  If your intentions were misinterpreted by the lovers, you'd as likely be shot; and under such case their interpretations of your intent would be the material one.

Beating a kid is decidedly the use of force, and intervening is not aggression, it's defense - stopping the use of force, by force if necessary.

You insist on using a biased strawman argument, but whatever.  Again, defense is use of force.  Whether or not it is defensive in nature, in third party defensive situtations, is not dependent upon your interpretaion of the situation, but your presumed victim's.  Again, if you are wrong, you are the aggressor.  Everyting flows from the interpretaion after the fact, but in the heat of the moment there can be many interpretions.

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.   Granted, that guy went to prison for pulling a weapon on police, not for missinterpreting an encounter or harming anyone, and he shouldn't be there; but there he is.  I would ceratinly take much more care to understand such a situation, if for no other reason than the protection of people that I don't know is less of an obligation upon myself than protecting myself from the aggressions of any party to a conflict.  I am not obligated, by the NAP or otherwise, to intervene at all.

[MoonShadow]

You would have to be able to justify your actions (assuming you survived the encounter), and you cannot do that without my child agreeing with your perspectives.

Pretty damned sure they'd want you to stop hitting them.

Perhaps.  I'm pretty sure that he wanted to continue to beat on his little brother unhindered as well, before your strawman character walked around the corner.

And don't had me some bullshit about how peaceful and loving my children would have been to each other had I only tried to reason with them as toddlers.  If you actually believe that boys aren't naturally inclined to dominate each other (particularly their slightly younger peers) then you have no experience with children at all.  Girls will do the same thing, BTW; although they may not do so quite as readily.  One of the only things that will get my wife to go directly to corporal punishment with our children has always been one hitting the other.  My oldest child is female, and her little brother two years younger.  When he was still an infant, she treated him like a precious doll.  But once he was old enough to move around and play with "her" toys, she would regularly strike him (quite hard, mind you) in order to take the toy away, while screaming "MINE!"

How old are your daughters, BTW?  Now I'm curious.

[justusranvier]

tl;dr

MoonShadow will never admit that it's wrong to hit children, because that would require confessing to unjustified aggression against children. Instead of coming clean he's chosen the route of doubling down on wrong.

I don't think there's much that can be done at this point other than to spread the knowledge that relationships are voluntary, so that the children he's raising will encounter it when they are no longer under his control and realize they aren't bound or obligated in any way to maintain a relationship with someone who hit them.

[MoonShadow]

If you are beating a child in public then you will be treated exactly the same as a violent criminal, because THAT is what you appear to be. Your logic dictates that we should assume all rapists should be viewed as consensual lovers of their bruised, bloodied, torn clothes, screaming "no" victims in dark alleys by default. BULLSHIT.

My logic assume no such thing.  This is why it's best to call the cops, even if you are an ancap, and let the agents of the state hash things out.  Under no conditions am I obligated to intervene at all.

[MoonShadow]

I don't think there's much that can be done at this point other than to spread the knowledge that relationships are voluntary, so that the children he's raising will encounter it when they are no longer under his control and realize they aren't bound or obligated in any way to maintain a relationship with someone who hit them.

That is, probably, the most rational thing you have said in this thread.  You are welcome to do exactly what you profess above.  You will, most definately, be shocked at just how unlikely it is that my children will take you up on your advice.

[myrkul]

Beating a kid is decidedly the use of force, and intervening is not aggression, it's defense - stopping the use of force, by force if necessary.

You insist on using a biased strawman argument, but whatever.  Again, defense is use of force.  Whether or not it is defensive in nature, in third party defensive situtations, is not dependent upon your interpretaion of the situation, but your presumed victim's.  Again, if you are wrong, you are the aggressor.  Everyting flows from the interpretaion after the fact, but in the heat of the moment there can be many interpretions.

Not of an adult beating a child. There's only one interpretation of that: abuse. I don't care if it's your kid, or if he mouthed off to you, or whatever excuse you're using to hit him. You are striking a person who, even if they were inclined to defend themselves, would be absolutely incapable. That's wrong on the face of it. It needs no deeper interpretations. And if he was hitting his sister, how does you hitting him drive home the point that hitting is wrong?

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.

And that justifies their actions, how, exactly? Freedom of speech goes out the window when you're talking to cops? Throwing peanuts at someone makes them ganging up and kicking the shit out of you OK?

Granted, that guy went to prison for pulling a weapon on police, not for missinterpreting an encounter or harming anyone, and he shouldn't be there; but there he is.  I would ceratinly take much more care to understand such a situation, if for no other reason than the protection of people that I don't know is less of an obligation upon myself than protecting myself from the aggressions of any party to a conflict.  I am not obligated, by the NAP or otherwise, to intervene at all.

No, you are not obliged to intervene. But I'm sure that if it were you on the ground, you'd like the passerby to stop, yes? Or Does "Do unto others" not mean anything? I thought you were a Christian. My opinion of you, your morals, and your intellectual integrity has dropped dramatically over the course of this thread, and I don't think I can comfortably say I would want to live anywhere near you anymore.

[justusranvier]

You will, most definately, be shocked at just how unlikely it is that my children will take you up on your advice.

Slavery was one of humanity's oldest, and seemingly invulnerable, institutions, right up until it ceased to exist.

It was evil the entire time, of course, but every generation of slave owners escaped the consequences of their crimes until the last one. That generation lost everything.

You might get away with it too, but then again again you might not.

You've just got to ask yourself, "Do I feel lucky?"

[TheButterZone]

If you are beating a child in public then you will be treated exactly the same as a violent criminal, because THAT is what you appear to be. Your logic dictates that we should assume all rapists should be viewed as consensual lovers of their bruised, bloodied, torn clothes, screaming "no" victims in dark alleys by default. BULLSHIT.

My logic assume no such thing.  This is why it's best to call the cops, even if you are an ancap, and let the agents of the state hash things out.  Under no conditions am I obligated to intervene at all.

Of course it doesn't.

If "the cops" exist, I will call them after there is probable cause for an arrest, and it will not be after I allow it to escalate to murder or attempted murder. Under no conditions are the cops obligated to intervene at all, merely fill out crime reports and perhaps transport arrestees to jail, presentment to magistrate. If two people are having sex in public, then the 1st (rolling video, then yelling) and 2nd Amendment (mere visibility of arms, then active use thereof) force scale gives them a chance to stop and explain themselves when I shout "hey, what are you doing?" at them. Then if the rapist/victim gives me probable cause (rapist covers mouth, I see a weapon being used by either party, victim screams rape, help, etc...), and "step away from each other and lay face down with your arms above your head" doesn't work, then the actual intervention and liability begins, which as a human being I must oblige, even in the total absence of a practiced religion.

[MoonShadow]

Beating a kid is decidedly the use of force, and intervening is not aggression, it's defense - stopping the use of force, by force if necessary.

You insist on using a biased strawman argument, but whatever.  Again, defense is use of force.  Whether or not it is defensive in nature, in third party defensive situtations, is not dependent upon your interpretaion of the situation, but your presumed victim's.  Again, if you are wrong, you are the aggressor.  Everyting flows from the interpretaion after the fact, but in the heat of the moment there can be many interpretions.

Not of an adult beating a child. There's only one interpretation of that: abuse. I don't care if it's your kid, or if he mouthed off to you, or whatever excuse you're using to hit him. You are striking a person who, even if they were inclined to defend themselves, would be absolutely incapable. That's wrong on the face of it. It needs no deeper interpretations.

So sayaith Judge Dred himself, eh?

And if he was hitting his sister, how does you hitting him drive home the point that hitting is wrong?

It doesn't, it merely conditions an irrational child to associate certain behaviors with certain consquences.  In the case of hitting his siblings, the natural consequences may not be enough of an incentive to deter him.  After all, if my son were to hit his big sister, what more could I have done that his sister would not have already?  Is the defense of the younger child also not the responsibility of the parent?  Or are the rules different simply because the aggressor also happens to be a child?  What if the neighborhood bully were to enter your own front yard to smack around your daughter?  Are you just going to try to reason with him, or are you going to intervene?  What difference does the age of the attacker, or the relative size of the defender, matter in tis context?  None at all, but you make special cases within your own mind to justify to yourself your own perspectives.  The truth is that there exists no consistant method of how to treat pre-age-of-reason children in any version of ancap or libertarian theories.  Usually the matter is left entirely unaddressed.  As such, my own interpretation is a valid as your own, you just refuse to accept that.

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.

And that justifies their actions, how, exactly? Freedom of speech goes out the window when you're talking to cops? Throwing peanuts at someone makes them ganging up and kicking the shit out of you OK?

I didn't say it justified their actions, I just pointed out that the potential of misinterpreting a situation is high, and carries it's own consquences.  I live in this world, your's remains theoretical.  Even so, there is a old principle known as "fighting words" that can be considered aggression in it's own right.  There is a very good reason that, historically speaking, armed societies were polite socities.  There is no reason to assume that an ancap society would be different in this regard.  This one certainly isn't.  If this same skinhead were doing the same thing to a group of young black men, would you have expected their reactions to have been differnet?  If not, why not?  And if it were these young black men who that guy with the 38 special had encountered, how would that have affected the accuracy of his interpretations?  Sure, he had the power to intervene, but should he have excersized that power?  Would he have done so, if he had boune witness to the confrontations that led upto the part he did see?  Hard to say, and therein lies the rub.  If it's hard to say, you shouldn't be inclined to jump into other people's businesses.

Granted, that guy went to prison for pulling a weapon on police, not for missinterpreting an encounter or harming anyone, and he shouldn't be there; but there he is.  I would ceratinly take much more care to understand such a situation, if for no other reason than the protection of people that I don't know is less of an obligation upon myself than protecting myself from the aggressions of any party to a conflict.  I am not obligated, by the NAP or otherwise, to intervene at all.

No, you are not obliged to intervene. But I'm sure that if it were you on the ground, you'd like the passerby to stop, yes? Or Does "Do unto others" not mean anything? I thought you were a Christian. My opinion of you, your morals, and your intellectual integrity has dropped dramatically over the course of this thread, and I don't think I can comfortably say I would want to live anywhere near you anymore.

I feel the same about you, I must say.  I think having someone so cocksure of himself and so ready to default towards the use of force against others would be unwise to invite into my own sphere of relations under any conditions.  Most likley, however, you're not really a hypocrite; just young and inexperienced.  I'm sure that you will grow out of it.