Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 19. (Read 24721 times)

As far as I know, you originally asked me who taught these adolescents to commit murder, and I responded to you that it was authority figures (likely their parents) who taught them violence first-hand.  I think that should resolve your question.  Or maybe I got the question wrong?

if was not the parents neither the authorities of the state who taught the children to murder

I don't want to be mean, but I answered this question already and I honestly don't feel like repeating myself.  Maybe you're asking a different question?

I'm not interested in another appeal to authority faliacy, no.

And you can have any opinoin you wish, so long as you don't try to impose that opinion upn me and claim it's reason.

I beg to differ, respectfully.  I consider Myrkul's analysis and participation here to be a resounding success.  I agree with Myrkul that statism, like any other religion or other authoritarian cult, can be understood as a disease characterized by humans abusing each other, mainly propagated from parent (or other authority figure) to child, when the authority figure beats or yells at the child "because I say so / for your own good".  Regardless of the dictionary definition of statism.

There's incredible amounts of evidence supporting this view, too.  If you're interested, Lloyd deMause's work "The origins of war in child abuse" will more than quell any thirst you might have for evidence supporting this observation.

If a murder was not taught neither by the authorities of the state neither by it parents, who taught them?

Do you think this murder was motivated by his parents or by the state? If neither, who or what motivated the 15 years old boy to murder?

Thanks, you're right and I appreciate your tolerance and understanding.  I'm also free to agree with Myrkul's correct assessment of his observations.  Thus, I did :-)

Somehow I don't think copypasting a whole book along with all its citations would constitute acceptable behavior here.  I pointed you to the book in question so you could afford yourself the information you're requesting right now.  It's, of course, up to you to learn more by cracking it open.  Your choice.

I can also recommend to you the Bomb in the Brain series http://fdrurl.com/bib highly, highly recommended, especially if you are more audiovisual than lettery lettery (I'm pretty sure that the book I recommended was made into an audiobook by the same author of the Bomb in the Brain series, if you're into audiobooks -- that's how I got that book into my brain).  I hope you enjoy this as well.

Have a great day!  :-)

Either path arrives at the same end.  The goal of parenthood is to raise adults, but how civilized they are is secondary to the simple fact that they are adults.

Therefore, the root goal of parenthood is to increase the odds of the child's survival to adulthood, by any and all methods possible.

It cannot be reasonablely argued that spanking a child does not work as a behavior modificaition method;

thus if the goal is to keep the kid away from the traffic in the street, even at the potential cost of the relationship between parent and child, the end of survival literally justifies the means in some cases. 

The key here is that I don't have to argue the relative effectiveness of corporal punishment as behavior modification compared to other options, I'm simply arguing that a parent has the right to choose that option if all others known have been exausted, and that you don't have the right to interfere with that decision.

I have absolutely no doubt that every child in that prison was taught violence by authorities (probably their parents) on a first-hand basis, if you know what I mean.  Go into a prison and interview violent offenders for their childhood, then tell us what the common thread in their lives is (spoiler: child abuse).

The lesser of 15 years was apprehended by Police Civil Rosario South yesterday. He is accused of killing Alessandro Silva Moreira with an ax ritual with quite aggressive. In addition to the blows of the ax, the lowest Alessandro also assaulted with a filtered straw in the mouth with a serrated knife, which eventually reaching the throat.

In recognition of the scene, the lowest would have lifted the cloth covering the body and spat at the victim's face. By the time the Delegate Thiago Firppo worked with the hypothesis larceny. The smallest act of spitting on the victim caused the Delegate also works with the hypothesis Crime Passional. According to information gathered by the newspaper Gazeta de Rosario, the victim's girlfriend would be harassed less and this may have prompted the disagreement.

The crime, which happened on Sunday night at Rua Thedy Guimarães, Ana Luiza in the neighborhood, when the minor, the victim and others consumed alcohol and crack. Ezequiel de Souza Rodrigues 21, was arrested as a co-author, for he was at the crime scene with those involved and did nothing to prevent crime. The delegate Thiago Firppo heard those involved in crime and two other witnesses.

The smaller the victim, the co-author and another girl who was with them moments before they would have sold to television with the victim's consent Noreira to consume more drugs. The cash machine was not found by police.

You are free to agree with whatever misinterpretation you accept as factual.

Please, present this "incredible amounts of evidence" which you claim to substantiate Myrkul statements.

I beg to differ, respectfully.  I consider Myrkul's analysis and participation here to be a resounding success.  I agree with Myrkul that statism, like any other religion or other authoritarian cult, can be understood as a disease characterized by humans abusing each other, mainly propagated from parent (or other authority figure) to child, when the authority figure beats or yells at the child "because I say so / for your own good".  Regardless of the dictionary definition of statism.

There's incredible amounts of evidence supporting this view, too.  If you're interested, Lloyd deMause's work "The origins of war in child abuse" will more than quell any thirst you might have for evidence supporting this observation.

Political issues are really just the evolved manifestation of dysfunctional family issues, of course, in disguise.

Are you implying that for every underage murder inside that prison, the respective parents taught them to kill?

If not, who taught them to resort to violence?

What you see in the prison is the inevitable result of having taught these adolescents that violence was how you get your way -- they become violent individuals and use violence themselves.

You contention do not change the meaning of established words or concepts:

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

The goal of your thread completely failed. Statism is not a disease or a affection which requires a cure or a healing.

Statism is just and solely a political perspective.

You are, of course, free to disagree with any political perspective.

It is my contention that Statism is a form of Stockholm Syndrome,

...and that statists, to the extent that they defend the violent actions of the State, are engaging in behavior consistent with Stockholm Syndrome likewise people who defend their parent's violent actions.

I reluctantly bow to your force majeur.

It is my contention that Statism is a form of Stockholm Syndrome, and that statists, to the extent that they defend the violent actions of the State, are engaging in behavior consistent with Stockholm Syndrome, likewise people who defend their parent's violent actions. But, since you're the moderator, and have the "big guns," I reluctantly bow to your force majeur.

Consider that line of argument closed.

Would you please address this post? I wish to know what are your arguments regarding violence against children and teenagers.

I do not see where you're trying to lead me, so you'll have to make the claim yourself.