Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 2. (Read 24721 times)

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

I told you I can do this all day.

Well, until you come along, at least.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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


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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.