OK, so now that you know what the word means, would you like to explain how it applies?
The content expressed by Rudd-O indicates that he/she thinks to have higher moral standards than is the case.
Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 15. (Read 24726 times)
November 17, 2012, 10:18:03 AM
The content expressed by Rudd-O indicates that he/she thinks to have higher moral standards than is the case.
November 17, 2012, 10:06:49 AM
What a load of hypocritical crap!
Maybe you should look it up in the dictionary.
I did before to post:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hypocritical?q=hypocritical
Quote
Definition of hypocritical
adjective
behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case:
adjective
behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case:
OK, so now that you know what the word means, would you like to explain how it applies?
November 17, 2012, 10:01:24 AM
What a load of hypocritical crap!
Maybe you should look it up in the dictionary.
I did before to post:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hypocritical?q=hypocritical
Quote
Definition of hypocritical
adjective
behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case:
adjective
behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case:
November 17, 2012, 09:56:17 AM
What a load of hypocritical crap!
Maybe you should look it up in the dictionary.
November 17, 2012, 09:53:33 AM
Rudd-O, the moral example of ethical values:
http://rudd-o.com/sonofabitch
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://rudd-o.com/sonofabitch
Quote
SudoGhost and his mother
The henhouse that is Wikipedia is controlled by the fox
SudoGhost is an incompetent control freak who by happenstance wrongfully obtained editorial control of Wikipedia, and he misuses this privilege to make Wikipedia a more content-free and less rumor-free encyclopedia; also his mother is filthier than the legendary whore of Babylon.
The henhouse that is Wikipedia is controlled by the fox
SudoGhost is an incompetent control freak who by happenstance wrongfully obtained editorial control of Wikipedia, and he misuses this privilege to make Wikipedia a more content-free and less rumor-free encyclopedia; also his mother is filthier than the legendary whore of Babylon.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
November 17, 2012, 09:49:54 AM
I agree, knowledge deserves to be free (not as in "free" healthcare, but as in freedom)... especially knowledge that helps the human species advance and progress morally.
This is the way Rudd-O wish for the "human species advance and progress morally":
http://rudd-o.com/archives/spanking-your-child-isnt-the-same-as-beating-him-up.-its-far-worse
Quote from: Rudd-O
This place -- indeed, the whole planet -- is far too small for us to harbor child abusers, much less hypocritical rats who try and rationalize their child abuse.
You might have noticed an absence of "science", "proof", "evidence" or "studies" in my post. This is intentional. Though the studies on child abuse are copious and conclusive, those of you who aren't child abusers don't need the evidence, and those who are child abusers will resist believing it anyway.
As I'm sure you have personally witnessed already in the past days, child abusers are resistant to reason. Their compulsion for child abuse does not respond to logic and evidence. They are doing what they do, either because they want to clear their own consciences of the irreparable damage they have inflicted, or because they want to bury the anxiety and dread that comes with recognizing that they were abuse victims (what we call Livestockholm Syndrome when the abuser is the State). Their whole intervention in defense of child abuse is easily reduced to the irrational plea "make this not be true".
The practical corollary to this observation, you are already very familiar with: One simply can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into; this is particularly true for child abusers, since they were usually beaten and broken into their corrupt and malevolent belief ("they turned out alright", I'm sure they will tell you).
That leaves us with only one option, and one option only: Those of you who have a conscience, join me in deliberately and openly ostracizing defenders and rationalizers of child abuse. Test, ask questions, attempt to persuade, and if your interlocutor resists reason and continues to advocate child abuse, triage, ostracize and move on. You must do this. You may not be able to change their minds, but you sure as hell are able to derail their participation, and you can definitely highlight their defense of child abuse as (rightly) abominable. If we are not to act to defend and uphold your values, then who will?
The root of statism is quite literally the doublethink of "the NAP for my in-group, and aggression for the rest". It has always been like that -- "the NAP for everybody but Negroes", or "for everybody but women", or "for everybody but foreigners". "The NAP for everybody but children" is not how a free society will arise. We will never have a non-violent society, ever, I swear to you on my life, until and unless we treat the most defenseless members of our society with the same respect and according to the same principles that we openly advocate and demand for ourselves and everybody else.
I'm done entertaining stupidities and venalities from child abusers who want to pretend that what they do isn't abusive. You should be done too.
You might have noticed an absence of "science", "proof", "evidence" or "studies" in my post. This is intentional. Though the studies on child abuse are copious and conclusive, those of you who aren't child abusers don't need the evidence, and those who are child abusers will resist believing it anyway.
As I'm sure you have personally witnessed already in the past days, child abusers are resistant to reason. Their compulsion for child abuse does not respond to logic and evidence. They are doing what they do, either because they want to clear their own consciences of the irreparable damage they have inflicted, or because they want to bury the anxiety and dread that comes with recognizing that they were abuse victims (what we call Livestockholm Syndrome when the abuser is the State). Their whole intervention in defense of child abuse is easily reduced to the irrational plea "make this not be true".
The practical corollary to this observation, you are already very familiar with: One simply can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into; this is particularly true for child abusers, since they were usually beaten and broken into their corrupt and malevolent belief ("they turned out alright", I'm sure they will tell you).
That leaves us with only one option, and one option only: Those of you who have a conscience, join me in deliberately and openly ostracizing defenders and rationalizers of child abuse. Test, ask questions, attempt to persuade, and if your interlocutor resists reason and continues to advocate child abuse, triage, ostracize and move on. You must do this. You may not be able to change their minds, but you sure as hell are able to derail their participation, and you can definitely highlight their defense of child abuse as (rightly) abominable. If we are not to act to defend and uphold your values, then who will?
The root of statism is quite literally the doublethink of "the NAP for my in-group, and aggression for the rest". It has always been like that -- "the NAP for everybody but Negroes", or "for everybody but women", or "for everybody but foreigners". "The NAP for everybody but children" is not how a free society will arise. We will never have a non-violent society, ever, I swear to you on my life, until and unless we treat the most defenseless members of our society with the same respect and according to the same principles that we openly advocate and demand for ourselves and everybody else.
I'm done entertaining stupidities and venalities from child abusers who want to pretend that what they do isn't abusive. You should be done too.
What a load of hypocritical
November 17, 2012, 09:37:30 AM
I agree, this underhanded blurring of the definition of "violence" is exactly what your interlocutor is doing. He wants to equate snatching a child out of traffic with beating him up after-the-fact, because he needs to find an ideological excuse to rationalize his own brutality and child abuse, so he can keep believing "See? I'm a good dad.".
He's not a good dad. He is a shithead.
He's not a good dad. He is a shithead.
Rudd-O is an user unable to construct logical arguments. He/she intentionally distort the meaning of words and concepts and he/she is a self-declared willful ignorant. Rudd-O is certainly not skilled to determine which definition the user Moonshadow is assuming for the word violence. Rudd-O, like a typical arselicker, agrees with the fallacious arguments of Myrkul without to recognize his/her own clueless assumptions.
From Rudd-O Internet page:
http://rudd-o.com/archives/spanking-your-child-isnt-the-same-as-beating-him-up.-its-far-worse
Quote from: Rudd-O
Starting from the most fundamental basics: "spanking" (a term used to describe a certain particular form of initiation of violence) is an initiation of violence, and therefore it is an obvious and open violation of the NAP.
There is no difference whatsoever, not morally and not even legally either, between "spanking" and battery. If you hit another person -- whether adult or child, with an open hand or a closed fist -- it is the same action regardless of how you do it or who your victim is, because you initiated the violence. (...)
There is no difference whatsoever, not morally and not even legally either, between "spanking" and battery. If you hit another person -- whether adult or child, with an open hand or a closed fist -- it is the same action regardless of how you do it or who your victim is, because you initiated the violence. (...)
Spanking and battery means:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/spanking?q=spanking
Quote
noun
an act of slapping, especially on the buttocks as a punishment for children:
you deserve a good spanking like any spoiled child
an act of slapping, especially on the buttocks as a punishment for children:
you deserve a good spanking like any spoiled child
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/battery?q=battery
Quote
5 [mass noun] Law: the infliction of unlawful personal violence on another person, even where the contact does no physical harm
In accordance with the above quotes, battery differs from spanking because:
1. It is a term generally used in Law.
2. Do not regard physical harm as the only reference to determine the infliction of violence.
Therefore, Rudd-0's fundamental basics are wrong.
Quote from: Rudd-O
(...) Calling it a different word doesn't change the observable reality of the action.
This is ironic! Rudd-O contradicting his/her future arguments.
Quote from: Rudd-O
In addition to that, "spanking" is also extremely cowardly. Unlike initiating violence against a six-foot-four person (who could break your back in one self-defense swing), child abusers choose to violate the NAP against people far smaller and weaker than them, who literally cannot defend themselves against such an aggression. Their actions literally terrorize a defenseless creature who cannot fight back.
Spanking means the act of slapping a child, while a coward is a person lacking courage to endure dangerous things. The fallacy of Rud-O's statement relies on the general assumption of an aggressor whose intention is to harm a defenseless person because it is afraid to endure pain. This general assumption contradicts the basic meaning of spanking. The intention to punish a child does not imply the apprehension of being harmed.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/coward?q=coward
Quote
Definition of coward
noun
a person who is contemptibly lacking in the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things:
they had run away—the cowards!
adjective
1 literary excessively afraid of danger or pain.
noun
a person who is contemptibly lacking in the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things:
they had run away—the cowards!
adjective
1 literary excessively afraid of danger or pain.
Quote from: Rudd-O
Finally, "spanking" is also corrupt. It is corrupt because the use of the word "spanking" as an euphemism for hitting children, is deliberately done to falsely conceal the nature of violent, aggressive, immoral and cowardly actions against defenseless people.
I have far more respect for a person who openly states "You know, I beat children up". Such a person, at least, isfar more honest than the cowards to say "I spank my kids" or "spanking is good" or "but how are we to educate our children, if we aren't allowed to spank?".
I have far more respect for a person who openly states "You know, I beat children up". Such a person, at least, isfar more honest than the cowards to say "I spank my kids" or "spanking is good" or "but how are we to educate our children, if we aren't allowed to spank?".
Spanking cannot be corrupt because:
Quote
Definition of corrupt
adjective
1 having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain:
adjective
1 having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain:
Punishing the child with the use of force does not imply willingness to obtain money or personal gains.
Quote from: Rudd-O
So there you have it: "spanking" is evil, it is cowardly, and it is corrupt. I don't know how more clear-cut this issue can get.
Rud-O user assumed a wrong meaning for spanking and then proceeded to substantiate his claims with incoherent statements. After all that idiocy, Rud-O concluded that spanking is evil without providing any reference or evidence to support his conclusion.
November 17, 2012, 04:04:22 AM
Dr. Spock didn't, at first, openly challenge the use of corporal punishment; although all of his books were certainly in that vein. However, Dr. Spock's views on corporal punishment had no relation to the liberty arguments presented herein, because he openly admitted that he was a pacifist and a liberal, and his views on how society at large operated colored his views on this matter.
Liberal = Considerate towards children.
Libertarian = Child Abuser.
Is that the association I'm supposed to make? Sounds about right.
The LOL thing is you are using this association to justify your support for abuse.
November 17, 2012, 03:37:48 AM
I refuse to read a book on the web. Since I have a Kindle, and Calibre, I prefer to keep my ebooks in ePub format and convert them for my Kindle. So, most of this work is done for myself. The only real "service" is to toss it onto DropBox and post a link here, which I'm glad to do. Knowledge, especially this sort, deserves to be free (both in terms of beer, and speech).
Cool! I do the PDF thing in my Kindle and in my Android phone. I agree, knowledge deserves to be free (not as in "free" healthcare, but as in freedom)... especially knowledge that helps the human species advance and progress morally.
November 17, 2012, 12:31:54 AM
Fortunately the awareness of how ethics should be applied to children is spreading in spite of the holdouts.
The reason I don't waste much time arguing about this stuff is because the truth is winning. It can't be stopped any more - twenty years from now spanking children will be considered as shameful as being a member of the KKK.
The reason I don't waste much time arguing about this stuff is because the truth is winning. It can't be stopped any more - twenty years from now spanking children will be considered as shameful as being a member of the KKK.
Interesting prediction. I doubt it, really. Again, my own parents were adherents to the no-spanking theories; but reality intervened enough that they ended up compromising the spirit of the idea, although not the letter. I would be quite surprised to discover that I was comparable to a KKK in another 20 years, for no other fact than one of the greatest proponets of no-contact parenting was Dr. Spock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Spock) whose first book on parenting was published in 1946. Dr. Spock didn't, at first, openly challenge the use of corporal punishment; although all of his books were certainly in that vein. However, Dr. Spock's views on corporal punishment had no relation to the liberty arguments presented herein, because he openly admitted that he was a pacifist and a liberal, and his views on how society at large operated colored his views on this matter. (http://nospank.net/spock2.htm) Said another way, his views on corporal punishment were not ideological, but pragmatic; and to some degree he certainly had many points. However, his concerns about how corporal punishment affected the child long term doesn't seem to hold water, and some studies done on the matter since imply that, at worst, being spanked as children had no effect at all whether the grown child had social or psycological issue, or whether or not s/he was successful or criminal. Some studies show quite the opposite on a lot of those metrics, such as success and general happiness as an adult. (http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669)
I'm inclined to wager that it's as likely that such absolutist parental theories are going to die out around the same time as the idea that global warming is predominately caused by human activities, and for the same reasons. The scientific 'consensus' can ignore it's own detractors from within it's own ranks for decades, but eventually the truth of the matter prevails.
November 17, 2012, 12:27:05 AM
I'm scanning over it as I get everything formatted, and all I can say is... wow. Well, that's not entirely true. I can say a great many other things, but they're not fit to print.
It will change the way you look at the world.Alice Miller has also done some great work along those lines:
http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm
Thanks for your service to the world, my man. Stef has done the audiobook version of Origins of War -- that is how I "read" that particular book. Really fascinating stuff.
I refuse to read a book on the web. Since I have a Kindle, and Calibre, I prefer to keep my ebooks in ePub format and convert them for my Kindle. So, most of this work is done for myself. The only real "service" is to toss it onto DropBox and post a link here, which I'm glad to do. Knowledge, especially this sort, deserves to be free (both in terms of beer, and speech).
November 16, 2012, 11:55:23 PM
I'm scanning over it as I get everything formatted, and all I can say is... wow. Well, that's not entirely true. I can say a great many other things, but they're not fit to print.
It will change the way you look at the world.Alice Miller has also done some great work along those lines:
http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm
Thanks for your service to the world, my man. Stef has done the audiobook version of Origins of War -- that is how I "read" that particular book. Really fascinating stuff.
November 16, 2012, 11:38:05 PM
I'm scanning over it as I get everything formatted, and all I can say is... wow. Well, that's not entirely true. I can say a great many other things, but they're not fit to print.
It will change the way you look at the world.Alice Miller has also done some great work along those lines:
http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm
November 16, 2012, 11:34:26 PM
I'm scanning over it as I get everything formatted, and all I can say is... wow. Well, that's not entirely true. I can say a great many other things, but they're not fit to print.
It will change the way you look at the world.Alice Miller has also done some great work along those lines:
http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm
November 16, 2012, 11:30:47 PM
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I found a web copy of that book, The Origins of War in Child Abuse, and am currently converting it to ePub. I'll host it and post the link here.
I'm scanning over it as I get everything formatted, and all I can say is... wow. Well, that's not entirely true. I can say a great many other things, but they're not fit to print.
I'm scanning over it as I get everything formatted, and all I can say is... wow. Well, that's not entirely true. I can say a great many other things, but they're not fit to print.
November 16, 2012, 11:24:09 PM
Fortunately the awareness of how ethics should be applied to children is spreading in spite of the holdouts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5buheknXwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEmoSzuYpZs
The reason I don't waste much time arguing about this stuff is because the truth is winning. It can't be stopped any more - twenty years from now spanking children will be considered as shameful as being a member of the KKK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZau_ZlyoYU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5buheknXwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEmoSzuYpZs
The reason I don't waste much time arguing about this stuff is because the truth is winning. It can't be stopped any more - twenty years from now spanking children will be considered as shameful as being a member of the KKK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZau_ZlyoYU
Amen brother.
November 16, 2012, 11:11:10 PM
Fortunately the awareness of how ethics should be applied to children is spreading in spite of the holdouts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5buheknXwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEmoSzuYpZs
The reason I don't waste much time arguing about this stuff is because the truth is winning. It can't be stopped any more - twenty years from now spanking children will be considered as shameful as being a member of the KKK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZau_ZlyoYU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5buheknXwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEmoSzuYpZs
The reason I don't waste much time arguing about this stuff is because the truth is winning. It can't be stopped any more - twenty years from now spanking children will be considered as shameful as being a member of the KKK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZau_ZlyoYU
November 16, 2012, 11:00:06 PM
Quote
Quote
Again, not every use of force is either criminal or unjustifiable. If you are trying to raise pascifists, you're on the easy path, but I'm not. That might be cultural, but again, you don't have any say in what culture I raise my children, either.
I'm not saying that every use of force is criminal or unjustifiable. I'm saying initiating the use of force is criminal or unjustifiable. Especially against someone who cannot fight back.If your daughter should try to run into traffic, would you attempt to reason with her, or grab her hand to stop her and reason with her later? Obviously you would grab her hand and forcibly prevent her from harming herself, but you have just initiated force against her in order to do so. By your logic, you would then be an abuser yourself. The idea that I may be more proactive, and employ behavior conditioning (instead of attempting to reason with a two year old) in order to prevent a future repeat of this scene does not make me any more of a initiator of force than yourself. Your going to have to recognize that, no matter how opposed to the use of force against your own children you stand philosophically; you will employ force against your children at times. Now, your self-justifiable limit of acceptable force may be much lower than my own, but that certainly does not excuse your own use of force. The reality is that you will rationalize your level of force in exactly the same manner that I rationalize mine; that you don't agree that your level of force constitutes violence (as you define it) and that other adults who have another opinion have no say in your situation.
Then you have already qualified some use of force, even initiation of force, against your own child for her own good.
I agree, this underhanded blurring of the definition of "violence" is exactly what your interlocutor is doing. He wants to equate snatching a child out of traffic with beating him up after-the-fact, because he needs to find an ideological excuse to rationalize his own brutality and child abuse, so he can keep believing "See? I'm a good dad.".
He's not a good dad. He is a shithead.
November 14, 2012, 05:48:48 PM
Best of luck with that theory. I give you about even odds that your dauthers will hate you and your wife for reasons that you will never comprehend.
I have already lived with my three females cousins while they were teenagers. I consider my aunt a champion of persistent reasoning! She was able to raise my cousins without the support of my uncle (they are divorced). Myrkul is about to discover how much difficult is to deal with biological bodies producing high doses of hormones at every second!
Myrkul, prepare your voice and strength your larynx. You are going to need very much in few years ahead!
November 14, 2012, 05:42:41 PM
If I use pain reinforcment for behavior modification, it's only after repeated events that strongly imply that my child in inclined towards that particular behavior, and other corrective measure have proven ineffective.
To paraphrase, we've already established that you're an abuser. That you wait until you run out of patience is just haggling over the price.
You strike a child as a preemptive measure to prevent future actions. That's initiating violence.
You subject your children to psychological torture as retribution for their actions. The same methods used by your parents. You're a very conscientious abuser, since you make sure to limit the time spent in a corner. That a judge hands out light sentences does not make his caging people right.
Distorting my words in order to fit your preconception of what I do doesn't alter the reality.
Nor does distorting your perception of your actions. Reality is Reality. And striking someone for something they might do is initiating violence. You yourself called being sat in the corner psychological torture:
I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours. Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner. I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed. My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission. My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.
You were abused, and you abuse. It's OK, I understand. As soon as you admit your problem, you can work on fixing it.
Jump to: