Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 23. (Read 24726 times)

You should require them to steal all the food they eat and then brutally beat them if they get caught (Spartan Style). Otherwise you will raise a dependent statist.

[Did I get this right or should I go back to the reeducation thread?]

Or sell them to someone who wants children?
Or use them for slave labor?
Or havest them for compatible organ replacements?

The idea than any human being owns any other human being at any point for any reason is an utter abomination.   I would have imagined that we would (collectively) evolved beyond such thinking by now.  

I would point out that even the state disagrees with the assertion that parents "own" their children.   Until the age of majority parents acts as guardians, acting (hopefully) in the best interest of children but they never own them.

You'd have, at most 3 BTC.

Another person who can't form an argument.



There, I fixed that for you.


Did you really just reference a George Carlin comedy routine?  Do you think that helps the case you haven't presented yet?


You guys are continuing to prove my point.

Why would I lock it?  I really don't mind them trolling me.  It's why I split the thread.

Sure there is.  You could attempt to summerize the arguements you would like to make, instead of attempting to send your opposition off to read some tome you believe supports your case.  You have to present a case before you can reference outside sources.  Thus far, you have failed to actually present a case at all.  All that the lot of you have been doing is declare myself (and by extension, anyone who might even consider corporal punsishment a valid parental tool) to be violent abusers

I only took one glance at this and immediately knew what it was about though I read through just to be sure, the problem with these 'corporal punishment' advocates is they assume they are correct in what they are teaching their children, they aren't, in a lot of cases I've seen parents use violence against their children they are nothing more than power tripping cuntbags. You should check out one of George Carlins video where he rants entirely correctly about how children should be taught to question what they read and how parents won't teach them to question anything because they're afraid their own bullshit will be questioned as well.

This is all it is, it's power tripping, in most cases the parents are wrong and children are far more intelligent than adults are ever willing to admit, haven't you ever wondered why in a lot of criminal cases etc. involving children or in documentaries about children there often isn't a child to be found? Or for that matter if they are talked to it's usually with a bloody parent hovering over them making sure they don't say anything they don't like. It's a bit like with how stupid parents blame video games for their children's violence yet what they do is leave their child alone for ages, never talking to them and so the child only really has a video game to go on when it comes to what the real world is like.

If you need violence to communicate words then you're a fucking moron who shouldn't have had kids in the first place, ever tried speaking to your child? Or are you so thick you can't form a coherent sentence?

No.  The dichotomy "either children are chattel or parents are slaves" is false.


Ah, so now you have a problem with "my emotions".  Derailing for Dummies tactic engaged!  http://www.derailingfordummies.com/emotion.html


If I had a Bitcoin for every time someone in favor of beating children up has told me "If I accept that using violence against children is very wrong, then the world will turn into Lord of the Flies", I'd own the entire Bitcoin economy.

This is a variation on the theme "If we're not allowed to beat Negroes up, we'd have insanity, cats marrying dogs, white people miscegenation, and degeneration on an epic scale".  Yeah, great "argument".

Hahaha! /thread!

You are, once again, correct.  MoonShadow does not want to have any kind of honest discussion -- he just wants to keep his beliefs so that he can feel good about beating children up.

At what point does this get fairly locked, since the mod always has the last word before the lock?

guys guys I just lamped my 2 year old so he wouldn't break my stuff and now he hates me what's the best way to hit him to make him like me again? URGENT THX

What you've done is extremely intellectually dishonest but I can help but aesthetically admiring such an exquisite example of sophistry.

Since you're going to play word games with the book title instead of actually examining the arguments there is no possibility for further discussion.

Nor are you willing to engage in an adult conversation, instead you desire to spew unsubstantiated claims about myself based upon little evidence.  I expect that you are attempting to provoke an over-reaction, but you overestimate my consideration of your opinion.

Indeed, ethics are the opposite of subjective personal preferences.  So back up your statement and attempt to establish that my "actions violate an ethical standard which is provably universal".  That's going to be a trick, since it's pretty easy for me to show that your position is far from a universal standard, but I'd love to see you try.


Perhaps, but I certainly don't have to prove that to you.

Ethics, defined as defined as universally preferable behavior, is a valid concept.
[/quote]

I don't even have to look at that one before I can undermine your use of it.  It's called universally preferable behavior.  No matter how well argued it might be, it's ultimately and expression of the author's preferances.  Mine, or your's, could be different without violating any ethical principles.

And be able to look straight at the angry adults he raised, who will hate him.

Nah, you're not willing to engage with anyone.  You're only attempting to excuse your parental abuse (or wishes thereof).  That's why you say (appalling) nonsense and contradict yourself at every turn.

I hope someday you look back and are able to laugh at the angry man you left behind

Well, you're a tyrant with defenseless creatures, so of course you would be terrified at the idea that a bigger tyrant could put you in your place in regards to your abhorrent behavior with children.  The "seed of the tyrannical state" is obviously a threat to the "seed of the tyrannical MoonShadow".

That's not the case at all.

If I witnessed you attempting to murder someone and I acted to stop you my intervention would not be justified on opinion, but on the fact that your actions violate an ethical standard which is provably universal. Ethics are the opposite of subjective personal preferences.

This is not at all about anyone imposing their opinions on you, but the legitimacy of you imposing your opinions on children which are completely unable to defend themselves. It is you who bears the burden of proof that your actions are not abusive.

Ethics, defined as defined as universally preferable behavior, is a valid concept.