Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 8. (Read 24721 times)

tl;dr

MoonShadow will never admit that it's wrong to hit children, because that would require confessing to unjustified aggression against children. Instead of coming clean he's chosen the route of doubling down on wrong.

I don't think there's much that can be done at this point other than to spread the knowledge that relationships are voluntary, so that the children he's raising will encounter it when they are no longer under his control and realize they aren't bound or obligated in any way to maintain a relationship with someone who hit them.

Perhaps.  I'm pretty sure that he wanted to continue to beat on his little brother unhindered as well, before your strawman character walked around the corner.

And don't had me some bullshit about how peaceful and loving my children would have been to each other had I only tried to reason with them as toddlers.  If you actually believe that boys aren't naturally inclined to dominate each other (particularly their slightly younger peers) then you have no experience with children at all.  Girls will do the same thing, BTW; although they may not do so quite as readily.  One of the only things that will get my wife to go directly to corporal punishment with our children has always been one hitting the other.  My oldest child is female, and her little brother two years younger.  When he was still an infant, she treated him like a precious doll.  But once he was old enough to move around and play with "her" toys, she would regularly strike him (quite hard, mind you) in order to take the toy away, while screaming "MINE!"

How old are your daughters, BTW?  Now I'm curious.

And yet, you cannot see the error in your logic, even now.  

And you would not apologize and leave.  You would, at a minimum, have to face restitution for whatever harm you caused; even in your ideal ancap world.  And that's the best case scenario.  If your intentions were misinterpreted by the lovers, you'd as likely be shot; and under such case their interpretations of your intent would be the material one.

You insist on using a biased strawman argument, but whatever.  Again, defense is use of force.  Whether or not it is defensive in nature, in third party defensive situtations, is not dependent upon your interpretaion of the situation, but your presumed victim's.  Again, if you are wrong, you are the aggressor.  Everyting flows from the interpretaion after the fact, but in the heat of the moment there can be many interpretions.


Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.   Granted, that guy went to prison for pulling a weapon on police, not for missinterpreting an encounter or harming anyone, and he shouldn't be there; but there he is.  I would ceratinly take much more care to understand such a situation, if for no other reason than the protection of people that I don't know is less of an obligation upon myself than protecting myself from the aggressions of any party to a conflict.  I am not obligated, by the NAP or otherwise, to intervene at all.

Yes, because real life is a MMORPG, where you have a tag hovering over your head constantly that says Parent and all children have a Child tag hovering over their heads that indicates they are within striking distance of their Parent.

Even in your world where child abuse isn't violence, that's fucking irrational as fuck.

If you are beating a child in public then you will be treated exactly the same as a violent criminal, because THAT is what you appear to be. Your logic dictates that we should assume all rapists should be viewed as consensual lovers of their bruised, bloodied, torn clothes, screaming "no" victims in dark alleys by default. BULLSHIT.

Pretty damned sure they'd want you to stop hitting them.

Furthermore, your interpretation of this strawman situation is critical.  If I were, as a matter of fact, some nutcase ruthlessly beating a child (mine or someone else's), then your interference; whether of the passive aggressive type you claim, or of the more normally aggressive variety, is entirely justifiable.

However, if instead, you were to see me simply spanking my miss-behaving child (already a very unlikey event, in my case) in a public place, and you chose to intervene (by whatever method) you would still be an aggressor.  You would have to be able to justify your actions (assuming you survived the encounter), and you cannot do that without my child agreeing with your perspectives.  In most places in these United States, corporel punishment is legal (whether you like that or not) and the law treats the parents as 'guardian ad litem', or guardians under the law, and thus the child's rights are exercised by the parents until of legal age. (18 unless the parents chose to 'emancipate' as noted earlier)  So, unless you can convince a judge to appoint another 'guardian ad litem', you would have to ask the parents to agree with your perspectives.  Do you not see your problem?  There is nothing in ancap theories, nor in the non-agression principle, that solves the root disagreement here.  We disagree on this very core issue, and your problem is that you can't seem to fall back upon your own ancap principles and accept that, as the parent, I have the greater claim to my own children and their interests.

No, it is a defensive act, specifically, third-party defense. Aggression is initiating the use of force. If I stop a rape, I am not initiating the use of force, I'm stopping it.

If I interrupt a screamer and her boyfriend, then I am initiating the use of force, because there was no force being used in the first place. In that situation, I am the aggressor, and would apologize and leave, very embarrassed.

Beating a kid is decidedly the use of force, and intervening is not aggression, it's defense - stopping the use of force, by force if necessary.

Tell me, if you saw someone kicking a defenseless man in the street, would you do anything about it, or let it be? If you would do something, what?

Wow, you are thick.

I did not say that stopping a rapist wasn't an aggressive act, I said that no one does it like you are trying to imply.  Stopping a rape certainly is an aggressive act, which is one reason that you had best be certain that you have interpreted the situation correctly.  If you happen upon a screamer and her boyfriend having wild, consentual, sex in some seedy area's backally; and you interfere, you are the aggressor no matter how it is you believed the situation.  If it's a true rape, use of force to protect the victim is justifiable (if you are correct) but it is still force.  This is a case in point about outcomes, it's not your perceptions that matter, but the woman's.  If you are wrong, and her boyfriend is harmed, you are liable for that harm.

Yet, that is still beside the point, because this is not the situation that your original strawman implied, and by now you know it.  I interpreted your statement "I will intervene just as if I see a mugging on the street" cannot be interpreted in the way (passive aggressive) that you claim that you intended it.  It can only, rationally, be interpreted that you inplied tht you would intervene with deliberate and immediate force.  That is why I responded in the way that I did, and you continue to claim that I am wrong.  I, quite literally, can't be wrong in this situation; because I'm the character in this strawman play that is interpreting your intent.  What you may have wanted to imply, or say, or convey; is entirely irrelevant.

You're the one who has questionable rationality, here. If stopping a rapist is not aggressing, why is it when I try to stop someone beating their kid?

Of course not.  no one does this to stop a rapist...


Although I do have to admire your persistance, even if your rationality is is question.

Well, for starters, simply making the deliberate act of seperating a child from their parent in a public space is an act of aggression.  But as I have already noted, that's not the same strawman that Myrkul started with, although that's the one that he would have prefered once I hit him with reality.  Even still, his odds of making through such a confrontation without harm are higher in my presence than most, and still not very high even if he didn't intend to cause harm.  His actions would not have been interpreted that way, even by someone who was rational.  Anyone less than rational is unlikely to have interpreted his actions in any way more favorable than I anyway.

Note: What follows is an exact quote, but with only a few words changed. See if you can guess which!


Still make sense?

Not sure how acting as human shields and using our backs with arms up in the air to block adult violence against children counts as aggression, but I guess that's the absolutely fucked up world that we live in and take offense to.

This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.


FTFY


Potentially shoots Myrkul.  Wheterh or not I actually did, and whether or not I was prosecuted in my own state, depends entirely upon the details.

And yet, this strawman is entirely beside the point.  As noted, Myrkul orriginally stated that he would treat me as if I were a (presumedly violent) street mugger.  To later state that he intended that we would  simply step between us(even if theat were possible) is irrational.  One does not deal with a mugger by stepping between a violent person and his current target, and then try to talk to them.  Therefore, it would have been irrational for me to have assumed that he intended anything other than the deliberate use of force against myself, or my child, inorder to affect change.  That makes him the aggressor, from my perspective, and the results predictable.  To argue that my perspectives are not correct is irrelevant, for those would be the first impressions of anyone who were in such a situation that Myrkul describes.  I simply turned his strawman situtation around upon him, and told him how the real end result of such an unlikely encounter.  To later backpedal and state that he didn't intend it the way I interpreted it is, again, beside the point.  To interprete his original statements how he, later, professes them would have been irrational.

All false. Not once have I heard mention the severity of the kid beating. It makes all the difference in the world, as the world is not black and white. All we have here is talk.

Everything seems to be outlined already, except for that unfortunate escalation earlier in the thread where you said you would use deadly force as soon as Myrkul started yelling at you in public.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit beating that kid!"
Aggressor: /keeps beating kid
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor
Aggressor: /pushes past Myrkul, keeps beating kid
Myrkul: "I said stop, god damnit!" /lays hands on the aggressor, likely a grab from behind to stop the kid's beating
Aggressor: /whirls around, backs up to draw gun, shoots Myrkul, goes to prison for claiming "self-defense" is justified against people who try to stop child abuse

And what do you think might happen next?

Yes, bodily interpose myself between you and your victim. That is not to say I would snatch up your kid and try to take them away. I might lay hands on you, the aggressor, to stop you from hitting the kid, but I would not yank the kid up and run off. I would, of course, start off with "Hey! Quit beating that kid!" which would only escalate to interposing myself if you did not desist.

This is your exact quote...


Again, emphasis is mine.  Again, you you state that you are "damn sure" going to step in and stop me from "beating" my child in front of me.  Again, you had better be certain of your interpretation of the situtation.  But how would be certain to do such a thing?  You follow up with the bullshit that we would have such a discussion on the street.  No we would not, because in order for you to stop me, you would have had to come between us.  Do you really imagine that you would be negotiating with anyone at this point.  I pride myself on my level-headed-ness, but I know that I'd be in condition 2 before you had the chance to speak.  Anyone more jumpy and armed and you'd be a gurgling mass.


EDIT:  More precisely, I'd be in Condition Orange.  I'm generally in Condition 2 when I carry, so the immediate shift would be mental, from Yellow to Orange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Combat_Mindset.E2.80.94The_Cooper_Color_Code

You'll get neither from me, as I still contend that I interpreted the situation correctly.  You may, once again, try backpedaling from your original statements, and pretend that you didn't ever intend it the way you said it; or you could man up and admit that you were implying that you would really have 'intervened' exactly as I interpreted it.