Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 13. (Read 24721 times)

Heh.  IQ is a particularly useless metric with regard to measuring intelligence, moreso when trying to apply such a metric to entire populations.  IQ is a relative rate of learning, and was never intended to measure actual intellectual ability.  It was intended to measure the memory retention of applicable data; in mentally defective persons.  By definition, 100 is the average score of a 'normal' person; and is similar in usefulness to the 20/20 vision measurement.  Numbers close to or better than average have no practical meaning, and everything is measured relative to a given population.  Put another way, if your society is, on average, increasing their IQ; that means that your society is improving relative to prior generations not relative to other societies at the same time.  Standardized IQ testing cannot measure people from significantly different educational backgrounds, nor people with different first languages.  This is one reason that homeschoolers in the US consistantly crush these kinds of tests even though they come from across the class & racial spectrum in the US; the tests are designed to measure students from an 'average' educational background, and have no practical way to account for the differences in the quality of educational backgrounds.  While this would imply that the deviation of IQ scores could indicate relative improvements in education (something that I would admit is intuitively likely for Singapore in particular), it's more than the evidence can support to use such metrics as evidence that US poor children are uneducated relative to other countries.  The truth is much more complex.

And the definitions of what is "poor" in the US should give anyone else pause, since only 2% of the official poverty level American household is actually homeless by any standard; and the average poverty level household is likely to have at least one adult with a cell phone, one car 7 years old or less, one flat screen television, one computer, either broadband internet service or cable tv, and more square footage of living space than the average middle class household in 90%+ of the rest of the nations on Earth, including every nation in Europe be they wealthy or not.

I have to admit, you have a point here.  Yet, we live in a world where states force this issue; not one that conforms to anyone's ideal.  This fact doesn't really change the questions posed, since she is (literally speaking) not a prisoner and her parents are not her wardens.

http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/stories/pregnant-woman-beaten-up-by-supermarket-for-stealing-milk.html

Interested as to what libertarians will think of this story.

Pregnant woman shoplifts baby milk powder (~US$20). Detected by supermarket manager she is detained for ransom (~US$500).
After contacting her family and finding no one willing to pay the ransom. Supermarket employees beat her for 30 minutes, breaking her arm and causing a miscarriage.

Most Legit Chinese Netizens: Beating up a pregnant women is outrageous and criminal.
Hired State Goons (aka '50 centers' because the piece-rate is 0.50 per post) posing as Netizens: She stole private property. The store owner was protecting his property. She violated the one-child policy. The fetus would have grown up to be a thief anyway, etc, etc. anyway.

My Position: Turn her over to State thugs to deal with. Any private enforcement action besides detaining her is unlawful and illegitimate. The store employees and owner should also be turned over to State thugs. Kidnapping and assault are crimes.

Now that is what I think. What is the correct position (i.e. the view deduced from the Axioms of Natural Law)?  

The capability of mature women is up to the district judge to evaluate. In most cases, women were judged capable.

Broken clock.  Right twice a day.  You know the drill.

Ahh, there's the Cunicula we know and love to hate.

Here I thought you might actually have been suggesting that we treat a reproductively mature woman as capable of handling that portion of her life.... Guess not.

What are you talking about? In Singapore we have always approved of family planning. Of course, if your daughters are of inferior breeding stock we might recommend some stronger measures. If your daughter shows mental incapacity or undesirable tendencies (e.g. libertarian thoughts), the state may authorize sterilization measures on her behalf. At the peak, about 20 percent of our female breeding age population participated in our sterilization programs. Unfortunately, now, after decades of family planning conditioning, we are having trouble convincing people to breed again.


Your country is welcome to continue allowing the poor, uneducated, and mentally incompetent to procreate. We'll compare average IQ scores again in a few decades.
Good luck making up your current deficit. (unless you are in South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Japan in which case we plan to surpass you on all lists)  

http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

... Holy shit.

Cunicula suggested a sensible solution. Am I dreaming? Someone pinch me.

How about just taking the girls to get birth control at 13? Seems simple enough. Let the boys stay overnight if it is mutually agreeable.
Have a daughter. Don't understand the problem.

Unfortunately, she is a prisoner in her parents' house. Held not by her parents, but by the State. And we know what happens when one party is made to be a prisoner, and one is made to be a guard... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

If she were free to leave, it would be a different matter.

Except that I wouldn't treat an adult like that.

And my daughters' names are Rowan and Willow. Not Bambam.

By my own perspectives, this girl is not a child.  What would the consequences be if she refused to particicapate in her humiliation?  Since she can manage to sneak boys into her house for sex after hours, I imagine that she isn't exactly a prisoner in her family home.  Is it not reasonable to assume that she wishes to continue to live under her parents' roof of her own free will?  Furthermore, is it not reasonable to assume that the ultimate consequeces of refusing to obey her parents is that she is evicted?  Does "My house, my rules" not apply to teens in your view?  If not, I think that either you are going to change your mind, Myrkul, or your girls are going to put you through hell.

Yeah, this is a very good heuristic.  Some adults often humiliate or otherwise abuse their kids in ways that would get their faces split in two if they did the exact same thing to an adult -> it follows that people who do that are cowardly scum.

I use a very simple test: Would doing this to an adult be "OK?" If not, it's not OK to use the tactic with a child. Public humiliation is not exactly a violation of the NAP, but it's definitely not cool to use with an adult, so you shouldn't use it with a child.

edit: Whoops!

If you're punishing children at all you're doing it wrong.

The entire retaliation-based parenting parenting paradigm should be scrapped as abusive and counterproductive.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-parents-be-allowed-to-humiliate-kids-in-public/

I wonder what you guys think of this tactic, perticularly you myrkul.  I foresee similar problems with your two girls, particularly if you don't homeschool them.

His 'opinions' are derived using logic based on the axioms of natural law. That makes them facts, not 'opinions.'

Thanks.  That is correct.

I'm not confused about that, no.

BTW, Rudd-O is already famous for his attitude beyond my own interactions with him, both on this forum and in Wikipedia's forum.  So perhaps more like the kettle calling the pot racist.

I think you may be confusing calling someone who abuses their children, even a little, a child abuser, and calling someone who disagrees with you an asshole (for disagreeing with you).