Pages:
Author

Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 3. (Read 24721 times)

legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003
On the whole "disciples" thing (which is a common accusation on the part of people who hate Stefan Molyneux but can't actually refute his arguments), Stef says something that I think applies perfectly to the situation:

http://youtu.be/KLODu02R_gA?t=16m15s

Though the irony of referring to Stef's video in this context is not lost on me...  Cheesy
Speaking of irony. What about the irony of labeling libertarian disciples 'philosopher kings?' Plato is about as Statist as one could possibly be. Seems like shit-piece is having a joke at his donors' expense.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture.

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.
( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.


Not to the same extreme.  At what point does a time out become torture?
At what point does sleep deprivation become torture? Waterboarding?

It's the technique, not the duration that determines torture or not.

I've been avoiding this thread, because I believe we may have come to an impasse. but I would like to shift the focus a bit, just to see.

Consider this Myrkul...


In a theoretical future ancap society, people would be able to choose to adhere to a religious set of mores, or not, by their own choosing, correct?

Would they also be able to raise their children within that same religious culture, or is that kind of cultural indoctriination coercion?

Would a rabbi be permitted to circumcise an infant born to Jewish parents?  Would this be torture?  It would certainly fit your model, being very painful, having zero proven medical benefits, and without the concent of the child.  However, the infant never remembers this, due to his age.  While waiting till the child is an adult (traditionally 13) so that he can decide for himself is actually permissable under most interpretations, the downside is that he will most cerainly remember the suffering involved, and choosing not to do so at this point is to reject the commandments of his chosen God.

Are the parents of the infant child, when they decide to circumsize their son very young, trying to look out for (what they may consider) in their child's own best interests, violating his rights, or actually doing both at the same time?

In your view, would traditional forms of circumcision be worthy of an intervention?  Or simply none of your business unless you were a parent?
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.
( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.


There you go, "mystery" explained, now you know why MoonChildAbuser is a child abuser -- he told you himself why.  That kind of shit?  Contagious -- from parent to child.

To me, this was no mystery at all.  He was abused, he hasn't processed that abuse, he abuses his children, and he rationalizes that abuse using wololololo dogma.  Thus, he's "happy" (of course, his children will likely grow up to either hate him or abuse their own children, but what does the abuser care, he just cares that he feels great after brutalizing his kid).  There's literally no mystery here -- this shit goes on everywhere, abusers are a dime a dozen, and they're all cut from the same abuse cloth.

The unexamined life isn't just not worth living -- it's also actively destructive to your children.

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture.

Note how ManlyAbuser refers to this conclusion as an "assumption" when it's really not -- it's a simple deduction.  What is torture if not pain inflicted to elicit certain behaviors?  Obviously corporeal punishment is torture -- if anyone does the exact same thing to an adult, the aggressor is guilty of battery.  How battery and torture somehow magically becomes not-battery and not-torture can only be explained through a particularly malevolent form of doublethink.

We get it, MoonBeater needs to feel like he is not a monster.  He'll never accept that he is indeed a monster for brutalizing his children.  Accepting that one has done wrong can be very, very difficult -- especially when it's one's children that one has wronged -- and that would be far too much effort for such a fundamentally cowardly person who beats defenseless creatures up, to "deal" with his own abuse issues.

Far too much effort.  For such a grown-ass coward.

Scum.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
Enabling the maximal migration
Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his.



Typically, a quote is followed by a response. This is what the "Preview" button is for. It helps make sure you don't look like an idiot.

"Cant tell if trolling or serious"

is what the image I posted says
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture. 

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.
( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.


Not to the same extreme.  At what point does a time out become torture?
At what point does sleep deprivation become torture? Waterboarding?

It's the technique, not the duration that determines torture or not.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture. 

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.
( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.


Not to the same extreme.  At what point does a time out become torture?
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture. 

BTW, it's an irony that I, personally, grew up in a non-corporal-punishment home; but the harshness of "non-violent" forms of punishment are just as bad and more insidious.  I can, quite vividly, remember being put into the corner; and left there for hours.  Once they forgot that I was there, and I feel asleep in the corner.  I awoke in the early morning hours, and then went to bed.  My mother drug me out of my bed at 6:30 am and stood me back in the corner for the audacity of choosing to go to bed without permission.  My parents were also anti-gun and anti-military, but when I joined the USMC those drill instructors had nothing on my own parents concerning psychological methods of abuse.  I can, again vividly, remember my older sister begging to be spanked for some infraction, like her friends might have endured, because the suffering would end quicker.
( (most) emphasis mine)

A method you continue to use, I might add.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010


NoNo
Is it OK to torture an adult?Is it OK to torture a child?
NoNo
Internally consistent.

Once again, your framing of the disagreement presumes the outcome, by assuming that corporeal punishment is necessarily torture. 

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Was the judge's choice morally right?

I'm not sure how to prove that the moral righteousness of your opinion of the judge's moral righteousness cannot be proven, but whatever. Cheesy
Proving a negative is historically very difficult, yes. Wink

However: Logically, the decisions in this case are not (necessarily) up to the judge. They're up to the parties concerned; namely, the parents/guardians of the little girl, and the executor of the ex-criminal's estate, or whoever he has appointed to make his decisions in his stead, or who has gained that ability by default, such as a spouse or next-of kin. For the purposes of this discussion, we'll assume that those interested parties sought out the judge to make the decision for them. Perhaps their emotional attachment prevented them from reaching an equitable agreement.

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his. As to the actual decision, I can logically predict that it would most likely be to pull the plug on the ex-criminal and save the little girl...

a) Not exactly. You've re-framed the setting to suit your ethical preferences, which is fine. But the point was that one of the 2 options was morally better (according to the judge) than the other one.

And indeed, I logically determined which option was superior. But because the decision is properly the next-of-kin's, when they both agreed to pass the decision on to the judge, they agreed to abide by his decision, regardless of the outcome. That makes whatever decision he makes morally acceptable, because nobody has been coerced into the situation. But back on topic...

who's to say that yours trumps Moonshadow's?

It's simple logic:
MoonShadow's moral code:
Is it OK to force sex upon an adult?Is it OK to force sex upon a child?
NoNo
Is it OK to kill an adult?Is it OK to kill a child?
NoNo
Is it OK to torture an adult?Is it OK to torture a child?
NoYes (Wait, what?)
Not internally consistent.

Mine:
Is it OK to force sex upon an adult?Is it OK to force sex upon a child?
NoNo
Is it OK to kill an adult?Is it OK to kill a child?
NoNo
Is it OK to torture an adult?Is it OK to torture a child?
NoNo
Internally consistent.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
On the whole "disciples" thing (which is a common accusation on the part of people who hate Stefan Molyneux but can't actually refute his arguments), Stef says something that I think applies perfectly to the situation:

http://youtu.be/KLODu02R_gA?t=16m15s

Though the irony of referring to Stef's video in this context is not lost on me...  Cheesy
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
On the whole "disciples" thing (which is a common accusation on the part of people who hate Stefan Molyneux but can't actually refute his arguments), Stef says something that I think applies perfectly to the situation:

http://youtu.be/KLODu02R_gA?t=16m15s
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his.



Typically, a quote is followed by a response. This is what the "Preview" button is for. It helps make sure you don't look like an idiot.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
Enabling the maximal migration
Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his.

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Was the judge's choice morally right?

I'm not sure how to prove that the moral righteousness of your opinion of the judge's moral righteousness cannot be proven, but whatever. Cheesy
Proving a negative is historically very difficult, yes. Wink

However: Logically, the decisions in this case are not (necessarily) up to the judge. They're up to the parties concerned; namely, the parents/guardians of the little girl, and the executor of the ex-criminal's estate, or whoever he has appointed to make his decisions in his stead, or who has gained that ability by default, such as a spouse or next-of kin. For the purposes of this discussion, we'll assume that those interested parties sought out the judge to make the decision for them. Perhaps their emotional attachment prevented them from reaching an equitable agreement.

Now, given that, the judge's decision - no matter what it is - is morally right, because the interested parties have all agreed that the decision is his. As to the actual decision, I can logically predict that it would most likely be to pull the plug on the ex-criminal and save the little girl. Firstly, the ex-criminal, is, as you say, an ex-criminal. That, combined with his recent good deeds, indicates a desire to atone for his past misdeeds. That is evidence to support the supposition that what he would himself choose, if offered the choice, would be to give his life for the girl's. Secondly, he has lived his life, had his chance, as it were. The girl has not. Third and finally, if we were to choose not to save the girl, she would die, and the ex-criminal would still be on life-support. It is, logically, the least bad option to save the girl at the expense of the ex-criminal's life.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Hmm. Never heard of him, so I googled.
I must have you confused with a different statist asshole that called him a "piece of shit" then.

You all start sounding alike after a while.
That was just based on a video you linked to. I didn't realize you were a 'disciple.'
I agree with his philosophy. I do not follow it blindly.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003
Hmm. Never heard of him, so I googled.
I must have you confused with a different statist asshole that called him a "piece of shit" then.

You all start sounding alike after a while.
That was just based on a video you linked to. I didn't realize you were a 'disciple.'
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Hmm. Never heard of him, so I googled.
I must have you confused with a different statist asshole that called him a "piece of shit" then.

You all start sounding alike after a while.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003
Hmm. Never heard of him, so I googled. This is what I came up with from the wikipedia talk page. Sounds like a libertarian version of Scientology. Pathetic to say the least.
Quote
My experience of 'Free'domain was a huge disappointment. It looked interesting at first since there was a lot of talk about philosophy. I had only posted about 30 times when I was sent an email from Stefan Molyneux telling me not to post on the website anymore. He cited the fact that he did not like some of the sceptical problems I raised [about knowing about one's own existence and the nature of 'proof' - hardly controversial issues to those who've done any epistemology] and the fact that my theistic perspectives were not welcome. I think the site needs to make it much clearer to everyone that they only allow atheists on their site since there's nothing very 'free' about that practice. You can only call most of the account holders on his site 'disciples' since they behave this way. Instead of engaging me in discussion they chose instead to cite books that Stefan has written [implying that once I've read them I'll see the error of my ways]. Most of them had nothing serious to say on almost any of the topics on there. I teach secondary school and by comparison I would say that most posts are akin to where my 13 year olds are in their academic careers. Then there's all the posts from Stefan Molyneux asking for more money. I was quite impressed at first to see that some people were 'Philosopher Kings' on the website and thought this may be due to some academic achievement. How silly! One gets to be a 'Philosopher King' [whether you're male or female btw] by donating more than $500 per month! I think that pretty much says it all. After all that should you want an account on the site make sure you don't say anything remotely in support of theism, do not question political anarchy and NEVER, I repeat, NEVER say anything which questions Stefan Molyneux in the slightest. That way you may last a few days longer than me! The site needs a renaming - I suggest: 'StefanitesDomain' or 'FacistDomain' or 'DictatorshipDomain' or 'Totalitarian'Domain but certainly nothing with the word free in it.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
This discusion about the logic of morality is off topic.  I either of you really wish to have such a debate, start another thread.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Define fail. I think we must have very different definitions.
Feel free to share yours.
Mine is completely subjective. I know it when I see it. I've seen a whole lot of it in your posts.
Perhaps, at this juncture, we should define what we're talking about. I was under the impression we were speaking of "logic," but this post leads me to believe you were talking about morality, which, given your opinion of Stefan Molyneux, I can assure you we do not share in the least.
Pages:
Jump to: