Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 17. (Read 24721 times)

See, this is what I'm talking about. A native speaker would understand the difference between those two phrases.


Would you not call being hit by a bus "violent"? Considering the amount of force (physics) that would be channeled through his body should that occur, I would most certainly call it such. Since I can in no way stop the bus from moving through the space he occupies, I needs must remove him from that space. This requires a small amount of defensive force (violence) so as to protect him from the great deal of force (physics) that would surely kill him. MoonShadow suggests that I should then use retributive force (punishment) so as to make sure he is conditioned to pay more attention, but I consider that to be abuse. I would also at the very least offer some assistance up, and if I have damaged him or his property, restitution for that. But that's just me. Many would be content to have saved his life.

This is redundant logic.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/start?q=start


Please, explain how a man stepping in front of a bus is being violent. In other words, how this man had initiated a violent action by walking distractedly in the street?


Consult a dictionary never damaged anyone's ability to understand the meaning of words. By the other way around, a dictionary is an essential reference to avoid the misuse of words.

No, dictionary definitions do not convey the nuances of language which is learned from speaking a language natively.

To clarify: "The initiation of the use of force" does not mean "initiate" in the sense of "I started cooking," but rather in the sense of "He started the fight."

In other words, defensive violence is a response to initiative violence. In the case we are speaking of, the man in the street "initiated" things by stepping out in front of the bus, requiring the use of force to defend him from his own inattention.

Again, if you must consult a dictionary, you will come away with an over-narrow and literal sense of the word, which will damage your ability to convey and understand meaning in a conversation.

What is up? You cannot cope with your own definitions? It is not my fault that you do not use the dictionary.

Typically, after the last ad hominem argument and after the last willful ignorance to answer my question, you are now pretending that I am not entitled to express my English language skills.

I have something to declare:

"Face it, man. You're fighting a losing battle, here, and you know it. Now, admit defeat, and go apologize to your tutors which taught your English language skills."

If you have to look up every word in the dictionary, you probably shouldn't be conversing in English.

There is no use of force without an initiation, whatever is the intent of the initiator.


In accordance with your own definition you would be a criminal if you knocked down a person. You have to initiate the use of force to leap across the street and knock down a person.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/initiate?q=initiate

It is more likely that he will smack them around because he feels defeated.
When the home football team loses, wives and kids get beaten http://www.nber.org/papers/w15497.

And you're deliberately blurring the definition of "force" to make grabbing the child the same as hitting. You know the libertarian usage of the word. Violence. I'd hardly call grabbing a hand - or even snatching the child up out of the street - using violence against the child. Striking the child is certainly violence, however. Furthermore, even if grabbing the child is violence (and it's not), recall that there are three types of violence: initiatory, defensive, and retributive. Only defensive violence is justified. Initiatory is clearly wrong, and retributive is simply vengeance.

Are you really saying that vengeance against your child for disobeying you is acceptable?

You're also blurring the usage of initiate. To initiate the use of force against someone is to attack them when they have done nothing. The child is endangering herself. That justifies a limited amount of defensive force - just enough to rescue her from harm. As I said before, continuing after that point is simply retribution. The rule of thumb is that if you can justifiably do something to an adult in the same situation, you can - probably - justifiably do it to a child.

Are you really saying that vengeance against your child for endangering herself is acceptable?

Face it, man. You're fighting a losing battle, here, and you know it. Now, admit defeat, and go apologize to your kids.

Then you have already qualified some use of force, even initiation of force, against your own child for her own good.  This is exactly the same as the classic story of the professor asking a female student if she'd sleep with him for $1 million, then half a milllion, then $200K, and when she says, "what kind of girl do you think that I am?!"  "Miss, we have already established that, now we are just haggling on a price."

We have already established that you are willing to accept the initiation of some degree of force against your own child, in the interests of protecting her from harm.  Now we are just haggling just how much force you would consider justifiable before we cross your threshhold of acceptability.  And that is the point; your's is not only different than mine, it's different than everyone else's as well.  There are certainly people in this world that could justify to themselves that forcing their children to go outside and choose their own switch is acceptable, while I would not; the difference between us is that I recognize that I'm not the one who gets to decide for them, no matter how uncomfortable I might be with it.

Because his intervention doesn't imply a polite conversation, but him grabbing my child in public.  That makes him the aggressor, from my perspectives.  Hence, my potential response.  He knows why and so do you, this bs argument is a distraction.

So provide evidence to prove your claim. You presented none.

I have prepared evidence to support whatever claim I will do.

Moreover, I am not disputing that criminals have not suffered child abuse.

I am asking what are the other causes of violence rather than the ones you had proposed.


No, you did not shared any facts. All you made was to provide a claim.


Oh, classic... The ignore list blackmail.

You are free to ignore me, but this is not going to substantiate your claim.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

This thread is full of malevolent people who want to excuse, apologize, defend, disclaim or perpetrate violent abuse against children.

Come out of the woodwork already, child abusers and wannabes, so I can add you to a public shaming list (and my private ignore list).

Yes, fail.  This guy has failed numerous times in this thread, especially with his complex pretense that I somehow have to "prove" an alleged "hasty generalization" -- to wit, that violent abusers are almost universally abuse victims themselves -- that has reams of documented evidence, already shared in this conversation thread, that he could consult if he wanted to.

I've already said that intervention in order to prevent harm is acceptable. If you're walking out in front of a bus, certainly you would not object to my leaping across, knocking you to the ground in order to save your life. However, if I then turned you over my knee and proceeded to spank you for wandering into traffic, I feel fairly confident you would object, no matter how strenuously I stated that it was "for your own good."

You say you are "proactive" in your use of force. What do you mean by that? Is it as opposed to "reactive"? If so, then yes, you are indeed initiating force, not to prevent harm, but merely to "teach a lesson." The only justified use of force is to prevent (or prevent further) harm. The other component of justified force is it's proportionality. If you use "force" to restrain a child from going into the street - or to remove them from it - then that is the amount of force needed to prevent harm. Continuing the use of force - by beating the child - is no more justified than shooting a pickpocket dead.

Uh huh. Sure. "Hey, stop hitting your kid!" *BANG* Yup, that's "defending your child." I am disgusted not because you would shoot me to prevent my kidnapping your child, but because you would shoot me in order that you may continue to beat your child. I'm sure a rapist feels perfectly justified in shooting a would-be rescuer of his rape victim, but that doesn't make it so.

No, no it's not.  Criminals almost universally were victims of child abuse -- verbal violence, physical violence, sexual violence.  You are only calling this a "hasty generalization" because you either don't know the facts surrounding violent individuals and their past abuse, or you don't want to acknowledge said facts.

Regarding those facts, I've shared them in this thread.  Consider your question answered.

Oh, and please don't pursue this sophistry further -- not only will you get zero answers from me (you need none, you have the requisite information) you'll also get your account on another ignore list.

Except that myrkul said "We would likely have something of this very conversation". So you would NOT be defending your child with deadly force, you would be responding to myrkul's mere vocalizations towards you with lead traveling at high velocity at his vital organs. That is a disproportionate response. How the frack can you justify killing a man for merely speaking to you? Jeezus...

Are you going to answer the question as best you can or are you going to play the willful ignorant as Rudd-O?

I reformulated the question with your definition of authority. That is not enough? What will be next excuse to not answer the question?

My point is in the question. How many times I need to reformulate or to repeat the question before you decide to answer?

Answer the question or admit that you are not able to provide evidence to support your claims.

Since the intention is also not your perview, I assume that you are cheekily conceding this point?