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

[MoonShadow]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

I would presume, but they are not alwasys people that can act or decide on their own behalf.

Would a rabbi be permitted to circumcise an infant born to Jewish parents?  Would this be torture?  It would certainly fit your model, being very painful, having zero proven medical benefits, and without the concent of the child.  However, the infant never remembers this, due to his age.  While waiting till the child is an adult (traditionally 13) so that he can decide for himself is actually permissable under most interpretations, the downside is that he will most cerainly remember the suffering involved, and choosing not to do so at this point is to reject the commandments of his chosen God.

Well, it would certainly enforce the idea that he's making a commitment, wouldn't it? But no, circumcision is not torture. Torture is pain for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info. That's just elective surgery.

So, by your view, it's the intent of the offender that makes torture what it is? Is this generally correct?

Largely, yes. Remember those qualifications: for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info.

Are the parents of the infant child, when they decide to circumsize their son very young, trying to look out for (what they may consider) in their child's own best interests, violating his rights, or actually doing both at the same time?

Hmm. Well, it's just an elective surgery, it does no harm, and, as you say, the infant doesn't remember it. If they want to consent for an elective surgery for their child, they can. I personally would not, but then, I'm not Jewish.

So I could, by your view, consent to my son to have (painful) elective surgery; but I cannot consent for the same child to coercive (perhaps painful, but with no lasting (demonstratable) harm) behavior conditioning?  Why, if my intent is in the interests of my child?  Does  that not qualify as a contradiciton?

Remember the qualifications for torture? if you're inflicting pain for pain's sake, to make a point, or to extract info?

You're making a point. Teaching a lesson. With pain. That's torture.

i'm not making a point.  I'm training a child.  Such as the example of the toddler that is too curious about the blue flame on the cooktop.  The intent is not to cause pain, but to associate pain with the activity.  Because a smack on the back of the hand is less painfull and less harmful than a burn.

In your view, would traditional forms of circumcision be worthy of an intervention?  Or simply none of your business unless you were a parent?

Well, that depends. The typical male circumcision, which while it confers no real benefit (aside from some slight cleanliness advantages), also does no real damage (again, aside from some slight desensitization) is fine, but I'd point out that other, more heinous acts are "traditional," such as removal of the glans, or female circumcision, which likewise usually involves the removal of the clitoris, and/or the sewing up of the vaginal opening. Those would be worthy of intervention.

Yes, but I chose my example deliberately; as a real world example of a religious activity that 1) does cause much temporary pain while 2) does not cause in real lasting harm but 3) is irreversable and of 4) questionable benefits.  Female cicumsisions most certainly do some lasting harm, and we can debate them later because that is an interesting contradiction as well.  Traditional male circumsision is an activity that many in our own society would very much hlike to prohibit, for many of the same reasons that you would very much like to prohibit corporeal punishment.  It's this realm of inquery that you display your own statist contradictions.  While you might be willing and able to foresee a society that has competing security agencies that could peacably coexist lacking any real geographic monopoly on force, you trip voer your own principles once confronted with a situation for whihc you consider morally abhorant.  I'm no different in this regard, I'll admit, but it is for this very reason that I can't regard a true ancap society as sustainable; for there are many cultures in our society that are inclined towards conflicts by this very nature.

I see. Third party defense is statism now.  Well, I guess I've heard it all, now.

And yet, you still cann't see it.  Your cognative dissonace is significant.

[myrkul]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

I would presume, but they are not alwasys people that can act or decide on their own behalf.

So are children. Would you beat a stroke victim to get the point across?

[cunicula]

And yet, you still cann't see it.  Your cognative dissonace is significant.

He is a cultist. What do you expect? Based on the wikipedia article, one of shit-piece's tactics is to convince his followers that all families are abusive, and therefore that they must cut off all contact with their relatives in order to be free from abuse. That is why Myrkul is so crazy about this abuse issue. This is a classic cult tactic. [Works for Mao; Works for shit-piece]

Myrkul, have you sent shit-piece any money?

[MoonShadow]

And yet, you still cann't see it.  Your cognative dissonace is significant.

He is a cultist. What do you expect? Based on the wikipedia article, one of shit-piece's tactics is to convince his followers that all families are abusive, and therefore that they must cut off all contact with their relatives in order to be free from abuse. That is why Myrkul is so crazy about this abuse issue. This is a classic cult tactic. [Works for Mao; Works for shit-piece]

Myrkul, have you sent shit-piece any money?

Are you talking about Stefan Molyneux?  I know nothing concerning his views on family, but I've read some of his articles about libertarianism.  Most of them are well reasoned, a few lean toward zealotry.  If he does actually advocate the idea that people who listen to him should sever all familiar ties, that certainly is a classic cult tactic.  However, even Jesus has been quoted as saying that, to follow him one must hate his father and mother.

Personally, I take no one's words as an absolute on anything.  Not even the writings of John claiming to be direct quotes of the living God.  I'm not that kind of Christian.  To the best of my knowledge, Jesus didn't write an autobiography.

[cunicula]

And yet, you still cann't see it.  Your cognative dissonace is significant.

He is a cultist. What do you expect? Based on the wikipedia article, one of shit-piece's tactics is to convince his followers that all families are abusive, and therefore that they must cut off all contact with their relatives in order to be free from abuse. That is why Myrkul is so crazy about this abuse issue. This is a classic cult tactic. [Works for Mao; Works for shit-piece]

Myrkul, have you sent shit-piece any money?

Are you talking about Stefan Molyneux?  I know nothing concerning his views on family, but I've read some of his articles about libertarianism.  Most of them are well reasoned, a few lean toward zealotry.  If he does actually advocate the idea that people who listen to him should sever all familiar ties, that certainly is a classic cult tactic.  However, even Jesus has been quoted as saying that, to follow him one must hate his father and mother.

Personally, I take no one's words as an absolute on anything.  Not even the writings of John claiming to be direct quotes of the living God.  I'm not that kind of Christian.  To the best of my knowledge, Jesus didn't write an autobiography.

Yeah, I'm talking about shit-piece. Read the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

In 2005, Molyneux published a controversial conclusion on maintaining relationships with parents based on his and his wife's evaluation:
Does this sound too radical? Do you think it extreme for me to say that almost all parents are horribly bad? Perhaps it is. However, if you look at the state of the world – the general blindness and the slow death of our liberties – the challenge you take on by disagreeing with me is this: if it’s not the parents, what is it?

Either the world is not sick, or parents are. Because, as my wife says, it all starts with the family. If you want to perform the greatest service for political liberty, all you have to do is turf all of your unsatisfying relationships. Parents, siblings, spouse, it doesn’t matter. If you can do that, you can speak honestly about freedom.
—Stefan Molyneux (emphasis in original), [38]
In 2008, one Freedomain Radio member's parents' complaints about these ideas were published as part of a series of newspaper articles. The parents claimed that Freedomain Radio is a therapeutic cult after the 18-year-old member left home and severed all contact with his family, an action that Freedomain Radio calls "deFOO" (borrowed from academic psychology, "FOO" is an acronym "Family of Origin").

It is clearly a cult. This makes a lot of sense by the way. A cult is the only structure under which an AnCap society could function. See quote in my signature.

[MoonShadow]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

I would presume, but they are not alwasys people that can act or decide on their own behalf.

So are children. Would you beat a stroke victim to get the point across?

Of course not.  I wouldn't beat a child to get a point across, either.  As already mentioned, I'm not trying to make a point, but condition a child to associate pain with dangerous activities.  To even attempt to do the same to a stroke victim, would serve no purpose.  Either the stroke victim has enough mental capacity to remember how to act, or they don't; such behavior conditioning of someone with a broken mind is futile.  I'm presuming that a small child's mind isn't broken, it's incomplete.  You try to oversimplyfy things by creating these catagories, and associating activities in one catagory with another; when you don't even make a real attempt to establish the catagories should even exist, much less do you show that equating activities among those catagories is reasonable.

The reality is much more complex.  Children are not a uniform group anymore than adults are uniformly capable of self-governance, or even critical thinking.  Your worldview is impossible; not because it's internally illogical, but because human beings are internally illogical.  All of us are; to varying degrees, creatures of habit, of instinct, of self-interest and of our own past experiences.  What we are not, as a rule, is rational.  That's a learned quality, and thus must be taught.  Yet, it cannot be taught to a child who has not, yet, developed the physical greymatter required to reason.  It is, thus, important that such a child live long enough to make it, and preferablely with all his body parts in good working order.  Behavior modification techniques exist to improve the odds of this success, not to make a point with a person who is not yet capable of getting the point.  If he could get the point, I could just warn him of the risks, for he would have already developed the capacity to reason!  I'm sure that when your daughters annoy you to no end with the series of "Why?" related questions, you're going to try to explain the world to them.  But eventually you will grow weary of all that, and simply say, "Because I said so!".  We all do it, and isn't an admission of defeat.  It is, however, an acceptance of the fact that they don't, presently, have the capacity to actually understand, no matter how wwell you explain it.

On an unrelated note, if my words come out jumbled, please just know that this form based posting method on this forum aggravates my mild case of dyxlexia, and the spellchecker doesn't seem to dive into these forum forms for some unknown reason.  So when I start getting my letters out of order, it's mostly a sign that I'm getting tired, not partaking in libations.

[MoonShadow]

See quote in my signature.

I literally cannot see the entire thing, and I don't understand why.

[myrkul]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

I would presume, but they are not alwasys people that can act or decide on their own behalf.

So are children. Would you beat a stroke victim to get the point across?

Of course not.  I wouldn't beat a child to get a point across, either.  As already mentioned, I'm not trying to make a point, but condition a child to associate pain with dangerous activities.  To even attempt to do the same to a stroke victim, would serve no purpose. 

A child needs to learn what is dangerous and what is not, a stroke victim needs to relearn this. Why is pain an acceptable means of teaching a child, but not a stroke victim?

[MoonShadow]

Yeah, I'm talking about shit-piece. Read the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

That's interesting.  These things have a way of working themselves out.  If he has kids of his own, odds are pretty good that at least a portion of them are going to take their parents advice.

[justusranvier]

If he has kids of his own, odds are pretty good that at least a portion of them are going to take their parents advice.

He has a four year old daughter, and frequently mentions that everything he's said applies to her.

Unlike some other people the man is no hypocrite. He publicly states she has no obligation to him whatsoever and it's his responsibility to earn a good relationship with her once she is an adult and free to choose her own associations. He treats his daughter with respect and deference as if she is free to leave him at any time so that she has no reason to want to leave.

But Stefan Molyneux is just one of many parents proving you and your barbaric book of fairy tales wrong.

[MoonShadow]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

I would presume, but they are not alwasys people that can act or decide on their own behalf.

So are children. Would you beat a stroke victim to get the point across?

Of course not.  I wouldn't beat a child to get a point across, either.  As already mentioned, I'm not trying to make a point, but condition a child to associate pain with dangerous activities.  To even attempt to do the same to a stroke victim, would serve no purpose. 

A child needs to learn what is dangerous and what is not, a stroke victim needs to relearn this. Why is pain an acceptable means of teaching a child, but not a stroke victim?

Again, equating catagories without providing a basis for the association.  A child's mind isn't broken.  A stroke victim's mind is provabley damaged.  Without evidence that the stroke victim is capable of relearning, the tow catagories are not even related.  Using behavior modification, whether or not pain conditioning is employed, presumes the the person is capable of learning, and therefore contributing to the odds of success.  With a stroke victim, such capacity is not a given.

That said, behavior conditioning is occasionaly prescribed for stroke victims, regardless of how I might feel about it.  It's more commonly used with elderly patients with dementia, however.

[MoonShadow]

If he has kids of his own, odds are pretty good that at least a portion of them are going to take their parents advice.

He has a four year old daughter, and frequently mentions that everything he's said applies to her.

Unlike some other people the man is no hypocrite. He publicly states she has no obligation to him whatsoever and it's his responsibility to earn a good relationship with her once she is an adult and free to choose her own associations. He treats his daughter with respect and deference as if she is free to leave him at any time so that she has no reason to want to leave.

But Stefan Molyneux is just one of many parents proving you and your barbaric book of fairy tales wrong.

We shall yet see about that, but even if so, one data point does not qualify as evidence.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

I really have to thank Myrkul for pointing out that website to me, I can do this all day.

[myrkul]

A child's mind isn't broken. 

Well, until you come along, at least.

[MoonShadow]

A child's mind isn't broken. 

Well, until you come along, at least.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

I told you I can do this all day.

[myrkul]

A child's mind isn't broken. 

Well, until you come along, at least.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

I told you I can do this all day.

Be wrong? Yes, you've established that. Months, in fact.
http://www.snapnetwork.org/psych_effects/how_abuse_andneglect.htm

[MoonShadow]

A child's mind isn't broken. 

Well, until you come along, at least.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

I told you I can do this all day.

Be wrong? Yes, you've established that. Months, in fact.
http://www.snapnetwork.org/psych_effects/how_abuse_andneglect.htm

And we've come back to this one rather quickly...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

That article is about abuse and neglect, and you use it to attempt to show that my parenting methods are harmful, but the very use of an article that starts with an example of a child entering an emergency room due to cigerette burns under the eye implys that your are already, and again, presuming your conclusion.  i'm sure that you're confident that you have already shown this, but you have failed to do so.

[Rudd-O]

http://edphilosopher.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/murray-rothbard-libertarianism-and-why-children-are-not-simply-houseguests/

Here is another article about the libertarian/anarchist conundrum concerning children.

So, are stroke victims people?

I would presume, but they are not alwasys people that can act or decide on their own behalf.

So are children. Would you beat a stroke victim to get the point across?

He certainly beats people up to get his anger across...

[Rudd-O]

If he has kids of his own, odds are pretty good that at least a portion of them are going to take their parents advice.

He has a four year old daughter, and frequently mentions that everything he's said applies to her.

Unlike some other people the man is no hypocrite. He publicly states she has no obligation to him whatsoever and it's his responsibility to earn a good relationship with her once she is an adult and free to choose her own associations. He treats his daughter with respect and deference as if she is free to leave him at any time so that she has no reason to want to leave.

But Stefan Molyneux is just one of many parents proving you and your barbaric book of fairy tales wrong.

Well said.

[cunicula]

If he has kids of his own, odds are pretty good that at least a portion of them are going to take their parents advice.

He has a four year old daughter, and frequently mentions that everything he's said applies to her.

Unlike some other people the man is no hypocrite. He publicly states she has no obligation to him whatsoever and it's his responsibility to earn a good relationship with her once she is an adult and free to choose her own associations. He treats his daughter with respect and deference as if she is free to leave him at any time so that she has no reason to want to leave.

But Stefan Molyneux is just one of many parents proving you and your barbaric book of fairy tales wrong.

Well said.

God Damn. They are all cultists. I feel like an idiot for not realizing this earlier.

[Rudd-O]

Edit: I note that the standard "Stefan Molyneux is a cultist" defamation has already spread here like the aidscancer that these false accusations are.  It was only to be expected, and only a matter of time, that malevolent people who are unmasked as sociopaths and sycophants by Stefan's work, would try to defame and attack him here -- what are snakes and scorpions going to do, but bite and sting?

If I may speak for Stefan for a moment: he is a man who has worked very hard, for many years, to build a completely free comprehensive database of knowledge on voluntaryism ranging from peaceful parenting, to family relationships, to friend relationships, to professional relationships, to politics.  He has done so at great personal sacrifice and -- as you can see from these petty and hateful people who shit-talk him gratuitously -- undeserved personal cost to himself.

In my personal experience, those who attack Stefan do so only because they can't contemplate the man and not feel self-hate and inadequacy at their own insignificance.  They can't reason, so they insult.  They can't debate, so they defame.  They can't discuss, so they attack.  They can't come to terms with their own misdeeds, so they project.

This is, by the way, particularly true of the politically-connected parents who got Stefan's wife into trouble -- they abused their kid so thoroughly, that their kid decided to ditch their sorry asses... what did these miserable assholes do?  Instead of coming to terms with what they had done to their son, they had Stefan and his wife publicly slandered in a newspaper hit piece.  Whenever you hear these "Stefan Molyneux cult" accusations, keep in mind that these accusations originated entirely from fabrications in that newspaper hit piece.  I was there.  I saw that happen.  I would know.

I'm confident that those of you who don't just listen to random asshats vomiting hate, will take the time to actually research these defamatory claims and find that they are as baseless as they are odious.  Stef is only called a "cultist" today, solely because two parents were cowardly enough to not accept that they were abusing their child, so they preferred to defame Stefan and blame him for his kid ditching their sorry asses.

That's how low people can stoop.  Yes, some snake people will conspire to leave you without bread on your table, leave your kids without food or a house, ruin your reputation thoroughly, if what you say reveals enough of their own malevolence.  These snakes will have no scruples whatsoever.  They are sociopaths.  And then the other sociopaths -- such as the ones in this very forum, posting on this very thread -- will giddily celebrate at your misfortune inflicted on you, and use that to gain Internet points (the vernacular is "for psychic gain").

Sociopaths, everywhere.