Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 20. (Read 24721 times)

You completely misinterpreted what is Stockholm syndrome. What you wrote have not relation with Stockholm syndrome. Because your arguments have been torn apart, you are adapting what you pretend to be Stockholm syndrome to justify your failed assumptions:


No:


This is another assumption with no evidence to support it. Therefore is false.


My father allowed me to run away as much I could. He was aware that I was going nowhere and I would be back in few minutes. He even allowed me to climb high trees with him when I was strong enough to hold myself in the branches. I had a precious childhood with many freedoms and my father never try to suppress my natural behavior.


Yes, I was. My mother was who prepared my meals and who looked after my health.


I am becoming suspicious that you are acting intentionally stupid. You were not there and you do not know my parents. How can you conclude that I was terrorized and I could not escape if you were not even there?

Moreover, you do not know what terror means:


False.

I was raised in a very diverse parental environmental. My parents come from families with many relatives and always was grands, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews and cousins around.


I wonder how I was able to eat with my spoon if I was not allowed to move...


It is becoming obvious that your insistence to qualify that I suffer from a syndrome have the purpose to discredit my arguments.


The state is not a parental figure:

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


Ad hominem: "Your argument is wrong because you have demonstrated to suffer from a psychological issue".

Please, present evidence to support your claims. You did not present any reference to help your argumentation.

Well, the simple answer is that you can't. Of course, there's a much more complex answer, and that involves the fact that without claiming responsibility for the child, you can't claim parental privileges to it, either. If you wish to take any part in the rearing of the child, you must take responsibility to do so. In other words, if it's your child, you are responsible for it. If you wish to not be responsible for it, it's not your child.

As I said above, only his desire to take a hand in raising the child. It's a privilege/responsibility "package deal." It can be argued that since a child is a financial liability (a fact which I quite well understand), a father has financially burdened the mother, and should pay recompense.

Of course, in modern society, the mother is not required to keep the child, or even bring it to term. She can abort the pregnancy prior to 25 weeks, or place the child up for adoption after birth. So a single mother really, only has herself to "blame" for the financial burden, and she can always seek another person to help provide for the child. Again, in today's society many men, or even women, are willing to accept responsibility and care for another's biological child. (The father, should he find himself single, of course has this option as well.)

I don't think it's hard to define, or determine where the responsibility comes from. Your responsibility is to raise the child so that it will not cause harm to itself or others, and the source of that responsibility is that it is your child. You made it, you have to see that it is raised properly, for it's own sake. (Ultimately, the source of the responsibility is the child itself.)

Now, as I said earlier, responsibilities can be delegated, in this case either by hiring a nanny/baby sitter/etc, and making sure that they are teaching your child correctly, or you can give up the responsibilities and privileges by handing the child off to an adoption agency or other form of child care.

The father can delegate this responsibility entirely to the mother (as you did in your example) but unless the father is unaware (or, as in the case of your example, has already relinquished any privileges/responsibilities as part of the original hire contract), this is seen as socially unacceptable. A "dick move," if you will. If he sticks around, however, he has accepted that responsibility, and if he wishes to delegate it later, it must be done somewhat more formally.

The mother, if she chooses to carry the child to term, has accepted that responsibility, and must then carry it out, either by raising the child herself, or delegating the responsibility in one of the above fashions. (Perhaps, even, completely to the father, if he stuck around, and she does not wish to - I'm sad to say my sister took this option not once, but twice. It's no less of a "dick move" when the mother does it.)


Which part do you dispute, that the mother has incurred responsibility, or that the father has not?

This is not an argument, Myrkul; this is trolling.  While I don't mind a humorous jab every now and again, this doesn't qualify.  You have literally just attempted to undermine your opposition by accusing him of a psychological condition that would presume to affect his objectivity.  It's an ad hominem.

Do not do this again.

Progress, indeed.  So assuming that I have not harmed my child by fathering it, nor do I owe the mother any further compensation assuming that the contract was paid as negotiated, how would a father become 'responsible' for a child without declaring that responsibility for himself (in an ancap society, for consistancy)?  If he has caused no harm, nor accepts the responsibility upon himself, who/what can impose that responsibility upon him?  Here's a hint, there is no root difference between the terms "responsibility", "obligation", "duty" and "debt" except in how they are commonly used; their core meanings are interchangable.  If you doubt that, simply try to describe one of these in your own words, and then swap out any of the others in every place you use that term, and you will see that they are, in their meaning, interchangable.

Now, to be clear, I do agree that any parent has a difficult to define responsibility to his/her children; regardless of the conditions that resulted in that child.  I'm just trying to guide you to the source of that responsibility.


Actually, I do.  This is a contradictory position, but we will get into that later.

My argument remains the same if the bird is replaced by the human being:


No, I did not and you did not reformulated your incomprehensible argument. Answering a question with another questions does not count as argument.


If the best you can do to refute my argument is to use an offensive slang, you have already lost the moral ground to discuss what should or not should be acceptable for the education of a child.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Herp-a-derp


You qualified the condition of a new born as defective. That are your own words:


I realized that you modified your original statement but you did not recognized the flaw of your argument. That shows how dishonest you are to hold an failed argument.


No, it is not. You do not even understand what Stockholm syndrome means:

http://web2.iadfw.net/ktrig246/out_of_cave/sss.html


You are implying in the above premises that children should not be raised to rely on the authorities, but at the same time you imply that well adjusted adults are the base of a functional polite society.

Please, present me a example of any society which does not rely over any kind of authority to exist:

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


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

Not once have I claimed you have harmed the child by fathering it. You can incur responsibility without doing damage.

Assuming the prostitute keeps the child, which is decidedly not a given, you have incurred no responsibility, since when you left to go home, you left the decision entirely in her hands. She, however, has incurred a responsibility to raise the child. Do you dispute that?

Myrkul, I agree that he understands your argument as well as I do.  You don't seem to have one, because if fails a simple logical proof. 

You claim to no understand where I'm trying to lead you, so the cognative dissonance is significant.

Answer this simple question.

If I were to hire a hooker while on vacation, knock her up, and go home. 

What harm have I caused that child?

Herp-a-derp. I used "that life." Specifically, "that life which is the result of human procreation" - ie: a human life. If you'll re-read my summation, you'll see that. Unless, of course, you think sex between two humans can result in the birth of a bird?

Did you forget your own argument already?

I never said they weren't. You keep misinterpreting (intentionally, I must assume) my words.


Yes, this is perfectly consistent with Stockholm syndrome. I'm sorry to hear about your abuse.

Counter-productive to creating an authority-dependent, damaged slave? No, you're right there, it's perfect for that.
Counter-productive to creating a healthy, well-adjusted adult capable of functioning in polite society? Yes, yes it is.

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

No, my whole argument is based on the exactly meaning of your words.


Whatever you try to explain, you referred to life. I used a bird as example because a bird is also part of life.


Virtual identical to what? The above quote is completely inconsistent. Please, reformulate the argument.


There is not any misinterpretation. You argument was very easy to understand.

The state of life does not result from the progenitor actions, but from countless factors which are outside the control of the progenitor. The only result of the progenitor actions is the gestation (or pregnancy) and the birth. After such events, the state of life of the offspring becomes completely independent of the progenitor. That does not mean the progenitor is not responsible for its offspring. It means that all actions of the progenitor towards its offspring are voluntary.


Hitting a child is not abusive if is done with appropriate manner. It helps to teach the child to not repeat an action which could provoke a great harm to him.

Moreover, hitting could serve to different purposes. For example, when I was under 7 years old, my father used to hit my upper palm hand if I left any food on the plate after the meal. His goal was to teach me to not waste food. He completely succeed and I do not have any uncomfortable memory of his actions. By the other way around, I am very grateful for his actions, because since my childhood I always finish my meals without leave any leftovers.

So my empirical argument completely dismiss your argument that hitting a child is counter-productive.

Correct.  According to established "case law" (opinions and orders written in magical papers), six million Jews committed suicide.

Let's not bring established case law into this, when established case law shows justices bending over backward to support the violation of the widest spectrum of enumerated constitutional/civil/human rights.

...or have the victim develop a certain form of Livestockholm Syndrome where he grows up to love his abusers.

This is an interesting line of inquiry. I'm not sure where you're trying to lead me. (That's the main reason it's interesting.) The reason I consider it to be the goal of parenthood is that it is the best way to have a properly functioning society. Simple logic states that if you have a group of self-sufficient, healthy individuals, the society thus formed will be likewise self-sufficient and healthy. A society formed of authority dependent, damaged individuals will likewise be authority dependent and damaged.


You'll notice I amended my statement, above. It now reads " Hitting (or otherwise abusing) that child (regardless of intent) is not conducive to that goal." Now, by "memorable pain," what exactly are you referring to? I've read stories of children being burnt with irons, curlers, hot pans, even stovetops (somewhat ironically) by their parents as a means of correction. Is that what you mean? Or perhaps you mean more psychological pain? Being publicly called "poopie pants" or other names so as to shame them for having an accident? Or perhaps you are referring to being stuck in a corner and ignored (or even forgotten), like you yourself were? The psychological torture so effective that your sister begged for a beating?

No, I can imagine many things, but nothing in which punishment is the optimal way to instil a lesson - unless that lesson is to fear the parent.

Ah, but why is a functional, self-sufficient human being the goal of parenthood?  Who gets to decide this?  You?  Society?  The State?  To whose ends does this goal contribute?  I know you have it in you, Myrkul; all you have to do is admit it.  You know you will not be satisfied with any other supporting logic without going there first.


First of all, not all forms of corporal punishment involve striking a child.  Occasionally, there is a need to resort to a memorable level of pain in order to condition a child to act in a safe manner.  Is this statement in dispute, Myrkul?  Can you not imagine any child, or any situation, that the judicious use of low levels of pain can be justified by the reduction in risk?  If not, your imagination function is broken.  I can, in fact, think of dozens.  So can the established case law, BTW.

Beyond that, whether or not you consider, or can reasonablely argue that corporal punishment is often or usually counter-productive is irrelevant.  The root question is, who gets to determine that?

Is it you, Myrkul?

90% of your objections come your misinterpretation of my use of vague terms so as to not be overly specific. The last one (entitle over empower) is a valid one, though, and I've altered the text to show that.

I did not say "life." I said "that life." It's a minor distinction, to be sure, but an important one, since it specifies the life that was created by the act of human procreation, and not say, a bird.

Ahh, but some animals are ready to go, right out of the womb. The shark, for instance, actually fights and consumes it's siblings in the womb, until there are only one or two left. It is the nature of human young to be almost completely helpless, and knowing that, it is the responsibility of the parents that created that human child that it is in that state. The conditions which lead to the state (a human incapable of caring for itself) are irrelevant, since the state is virtually identical.

Following your misinterpretation of my logic, perhaps. The goal of parenthood is a functional, self-sufficient human being. Since the beginning state is a completely dependent human being, and that state is the result of the parent's actions, it is the responsibility of the parent to develop the child into that self-sufficient human being. (This part of the argument, by the way, I do not feel is in dispute... parents are responsible for their children) Hitting (or otherwise abusing) that child (regardless of intent) is not conducive to that goal - in fact, it is our argument that it is counter-productive.

So if you are not willing to formulate an argument, I do not have any interest to debate with you. I will just ignore what you have already posted as I ignore the daily noise from a busy street.

Have a good time with Mr. Krugman.

Ownership does not stem from the mere existence of life. Ownership is the result of rational perception:

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


This is a blatant flawed argument.

The incapacity of a living entity to act alone to survive is not derived from its progenitor, but from the natural forces which drives nature. When a bird generates another bird, is not the mistake of the progenitor which hinders the offspring to fly. It is the law of physics (gravity) and the biological structure (short wings) which prevent it to fly.

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


Following your logic, every new born entity is the result of a mistake and his conditions are defective. This is very untrue. Childhood is not a defective state of life which needs to be remedied. By the other way around. Childhood is a state of life with strong potential for perfectness. That is why human beings like to admire children, because their innocence and they appearance represent pureness, even if the children have some kind of disability.


Every kind of life is empowered to act violently. This is nature design. All animals have a method to cause physical damage. But this does not entitle a human being to harm children without a reasonable intent.