Pages:
Author

Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 9. (Read 24725 times)

newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0


That picture...

...too true.  I wish I had thought of that picture *I have it saved somewhere in my JPGs folder* and posted it earlier.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...


Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?
Be my guest...If you can.

Here, let me help: This is the post in which I first stated that I would intervene if I saw you beating your child, just as I would intervene if I saw a mugging or assault...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1333595

And here is the reply in which you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I would be snatching your child from you...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1333687

The response to that one, in which I explicitly deny that claim...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1333819

And your response to my response, in which you stated you would reply with deadly force...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1333845
(Note, the quotes are messed up, so that your response comes under the heading "Quote" and my statement to which you are responding comes under the heading "Quote from MoonShadow," because you cut out a reply of your own - specifically, the one from the second link, above - and incorrectly judged the number of tags to remove.)

I'll accept apology in the form of a public statement, and/or monetary compensation.  Grin

I'll review this at a later date.

You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...


Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?
Be my guest...If you can.

Here, let me help: This is the post in which I first stated that I would intervene if I saw you beating your child, just as I would intervene if I saw a mugging or assault...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1333595

And here is the reply in which you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I would be snatching your child from you...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1333687

The response to that one, in which I explicitly deny that claim...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1333819

And your response to my response, in which you stated you would reply with deadly force...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1333845
(Note, the quotes are messed up, so that your response comes under the heading "Quote" and my statement to which you are responding comes under the heading "Quote from MoonShadow," because you cut out a reply of your own - specifically, the one from the second link, above - and incorrectly judged the number of tags to remove.)

I'll accept apology in the form of a public statement, and/or monetary compensation.  Grin

I'll review this at a later date.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.


I have to agree with MoonShadow here. One funny thing about libertarians is that they often start from the proposition that everyone is free to do as they like and then end with the conclusion that everyone must behave in exactly the same way.

Though I think MoonShadow is an idiot and making bad decisions about how to raise his children, I don't think the children should take them away from him or that any other kind of intervention should take place. Children should only be removed if the corporal punishment MoonShadow's children suffer is sufficiently bad that they would be better off in foster homes. Evidence suggests that abuse has to be very severe before children are better off being separated from their parents.

MoonShadow is nowhere near as stupid as Myrkul.



My home is a foster home.  I agreed, by contract and in advance, to monthly visits by social workers.  My methods are not considered abuse by the state social structure.  Even so, I additionally agreed to not use corporal punishment of any form on the two foster boys, because they were removed from a physically abusive home.  The father avoided prison by surrendering his parental rights.  I abide by my agreements.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
MoonBeaterOfChildren doesn't accept "your definitions" (translation: the normal meanings of the words you're using) because your definitions trivially prove him malevolent.  Sorta like the famous sociopath who said "well, no, I've never done anything violent, I killed a guy once, but nothing violent".

You, myrkul, clearly are an evil dictionarynoid oppressing Mr. Beating Children Is Not Violent Because I SAY SO, what with you bringing up your Fallacious Fascist Dictionary Authorities:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLODu02R_gA&feature=youtu.be&t=17m13s

Sociopathy at play, my man, sociopathy at play.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...


Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?
Be my guest...If you can.

Here, let me help: This is the post in which I first stated that I would intervene if I saw you beating your child, just as I would intervene if I saw a mugging or assault...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1333595

And here is the reply in which you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I would be snatching your child from you...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1333687

The response to that one, in which I explicitly deny that claim...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1333819

And your response to my response, in which you stated you would reply with deadly force...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1333845
(Note, the quotes are messed up, so that your response comes under the heading "Quote" and my statement to which you are responding comes under the heading "Quote from MoonShadow," because you cut out a reply of your own - specifically, the one from the second link, above - and incorrectly judged the number of tags to remove.)

I'll accept apology in the form of a public statement, and/or monetary compensation.  Grin
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1003

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.


I have to agree with MoonShadow here. One funny thing about libertarians is that they often start from the proposition that everyone is free to do as they like and then end with the conclusion that everyone must behave in exactly the same way.

Though I think MoonShadow is an idiot and making bad decisions about how to raise his children, I don't think the children should take them away from him or that any other kind of intervention should take place. Children should only be removed if the corporal punishment MoonShadow's children suffer is sufficiently bad that they would be better off in foster homes. Evidence suggests that abuse has to be very severe before children are better off being separated from their parents.

MoonShadow is nowhere near as stupid as Myrkul.

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Ha!  That one almost works, except I wasn't using that anecdote as an argument, I was using as an example. 

Your readiness to jump to that site to discredit your detractors is arguablely...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
Tsk... I only call them as I see them. I'm not saying your argument is wrong because you use fallacies, I'm saying you use fallacies because your argument is wrong. (and you're one to talk about throwing links to that site around...)

Quote

I'm quite aware that I might fuck up in raising my kids...I worry about it every day. But I fail to see how treating them with the respect due a fellow human being could be the cause of that fuck up.


You fail to see many things, young man, than you are likely to revisit many times.  One likely failure is your assumption that your daughters are likely to respect you back, or even agree with your political & moral  perspectives.  Then again, they might, and you are just as likely to forever view your parentals styles as the root cause, and it's just as likely as not to be so.  You aslo presume that conditioning a toddler to associate dangerous activities with pain is necessarily "disrespect".
Treating a toddler like a dog that must be conditioned rather than reasoned with is not disrespect?

Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways.  However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually.  You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.
And you, by leaving those options on the table, have undermined the rest of your parenting strategy:


Perhaps, perhaps not.  You rally don't know the details of my parenting strategy, beyond the fact that I'm unwilling to exclude corporeal punishment from consideration.  You have no idea how rear or common my use of same may be.  You also don't care; again, the black and white fallacy.
Listen to what Stefan has to say on the matter. The mere fact that it's not excluded is enough to undermine the rest of the strategy.


and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
No... Are you saying that there is some third option besides "corporal punishment is abuse" and "corporal punishment is not abuse"? Because it is my position that it is, and if you are in opposition to my position, then your position must be that it is not, or this mysterious third position.

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.
No, My argument has always been that corporal punishment is child abuse, and that such (and much worse) abuse has been the cause of violence, particularly institutionalized violence, later in the children's lives.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.
If parents get to decide what is and what is not abuse, would it be OK if I decided that forcibly having sex with my children were not abuse? Would that make it so?

I think not.

if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.
Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...


Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?
Be my guest...If you can.

Quote
I never said I would take your kid. I never even said I would lay a hand on them. I said I would tell you to stop. To which, I might add, you stated that you would reply with deadly force...

Okay, we're going to have to dive back into the thread history.  But not today.  Time for bed.
Oh goody. Tomorrow I get to watch you eat your words. I can't wait.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010

Quote
Quote
as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
Where we differ, I think, is in the portion I have underlined. You claim that your intentional use of force, or the threat of same, will not cause psychological harm or maldevelopment. I contend that it does, and that the evidence of that fact is all around you.


No, our disagreement is more basic than that.  I do contest the validity of your perceptions, but that is actually beside the point.  My poin is 'who gets to decide'?  The answer is, I do and you do not.  I do, singularly; and you do not, even collectively.  Could I be wrong and end up screwing up my kids' lives?  That remains a possibility for which I am ever aware.  The same rings true for you, however; which does ot seem to be something for which you are aware.  You will be.  I have met many young parents (and childless couples) who advocate for such a "zero corporeal punishment" style of parenting.  However, I have met very few older parents who stuck to that method.  Among those who did; one has two boys in prison, one has one child who is a drug addict, one has a daughter who was pregnent at 15, and one has an adult son that never moved out.  Obviously, these same parents also had many other children who were not so screwed up, but I'd wager that some non-neglible percentagle of their grandchildren will either 1) end up screwed up or 2) be raised without such a zero-corporel punishment theories.
Your logical fallacy is...


Ha!  That one almost works, except I wasn't using that anecdote as an argument, I was using as an example. 

Your readiness to jump to that site to discredit your detractors is arguablely...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways.  However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually.  You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.
And you, by leaving those options on the table, have undermined the rest of your parenting strategy:


Perhaps, perhaps not.  You rally don't know the details of my parenting strategy, beyond the fact that I'm unwilling to exclude corporeal punishment from consideration.  You have no idea how rear or common my use of same may be.  You also don't care; again, the black and white fallacy.


and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
No... Are you saying that there is some third option besides "corporal punishment is abuse" and "corporal punishment is not abuse"? Because it is my position that it is, and if you are in opposition to my position, then your position must be that it is not, or this mysterious third position.

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.

if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.
Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...


Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

Quote
I never said I would take your kid. I never even said I would lay a hand on them. I said I would tell you to stop. To which, I might add, you stated that you would reply with deadly force...

Okay, we're going to have to dive back into the thread history.  But not today.  Time for bed.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature;
Quote
Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable.
Sure seems violent to me. Unless "deliberate infliction of pain" isn't violence under your definition?

First off, I have already stated that I don't accept your definitions, because they also presume the conclusions that you seek.  Shall I get out your "yourfallacyis" links out next?

Second, there are many forms of pain that do not require violence; so no, those are not equatible statements.

Furthermore, not all forms of corporal punishment actually involve pain.
Wikipedia is biased, eh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment

Quote
Here, let me help you:


Quote
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization



Your argument is invalid.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Using a definition is hardly an appeal to authority, especially since I did not use it "in the place of an argument," I used it as the backing for my argument, which is: Corporal punishment is violence, which, enacted upon defenseless children, is the cause of many societal ills, not least of which is the deadly idea that government force is justified, that if someone in "authority" commits, or tells you to commit, an act of violence, That's OK, because they have "authority."

Quote
Quote
as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
Where we differ, I think, is in the portion I have underlined. You claim that your intentional use of force, or the threat of same, will not cause psychological harm or maldevelopment. I contend that it does, and that the evidence of that fact is all around you.


No, our disagreement is more basic than that.  I do contest the validity of your perceptions, but that is actually beside the point.  My poin is 'who gets to decide'?  The answer is, I do and you do not.  I do, singularly; and you do not, even collectively.  Could I be wrong and end up screwing up my kids' lives?  That remains a possibility for which I am ever aware.  The same rings true for you, however; which does ot seem to be something for which you are aware.  You will be.  I have met many young parents (and childless couples) who advocate for such a "zero corporeal punishment" style of parenting.  However, I have met very few older parents who stuck to that method.  Among those who did; one has two boys in prison, one has one child who is a drug addict, one has a daughter who was pregnent at 15, and one has an adult son that never moved out.  Obviously, these same parents also had many other children who were not so screwed up, but I'd wager that some non-neglible percentagle of their grandchildren will either 1) end up screwed up or 2) be raised without such a zero-corporel punishment theories.
Your logical fallacy is...

I'm quite aware that I might fuck up in raising my kids...I worry about it every day. But I fail to see how treating them with the respect due a fellow human being could be the cause of that fuck up.

Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways.  However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually.  You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.
And you, by leaving those options on the table, have undermined the rest of your parenting strategy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vehigjflGHA

and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
No... Are you saying that there is some third option besides "corporal punishment is abuse" and "corporal punishment is not abuse"? Because it is my position that it is, and if you are in opposition to my position, then your position must be that it is not, or this mysterious third position.

if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.
Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...

I never said I would take your kid. I never even said I would lay a hand on them. I said I would tell you to stop. To which, I might add, you stated that you would reply with deadly force...
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature;
Quote
Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable.
Sure seems violent to me. Unless "deliberate infliction of pain" isn't violence under your definition?

First off, I have already stated that I don't accept your definitions, because they also presume the conclusions that you seek.  Shall I get out your "yourfallacyis" links out next?

Second, there are many forms of pain that do not require violence; so no, those are not equatible statements.

Furthermore, not all forms of corporal punishment actually involve pain.

and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

..because I can actually justify my own actions, therefore I'm not the hypocrite here.  You are trying to apply your own interpretations of the NAP, and your own (cherrypicked) definitions of certain magic words in a futile attempt to convince myself that your interpretation is the correct one.  I have my own interpretations, and there is nothing that you can do about that without using force against me.  Something that you have already stated you would be willing to do.  All that arguing with statists that ancap societies would be tolerant of subcultures that disagree with the NAP, such as hippie communes, and may or may not use force internally; and you rush right to the use of force (individually or collectively) when confronted with a contrived situation for which you find beyond your own capacity to tolerate.  No matter how you spin it, or how it would work out in the real world; if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.  Your interpretations in this context become irrelevent.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature;
and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
Spanking as a pre-emptive conditioning measure:




Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature; and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.  I contest both those unstated premises, and you willfully avoid the topic because we cannot agree upon first principles.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
Spanking as a pre-emptive conditioning measure:



That's all that governments ever do when they punish nonviolent people.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
Spanking as a pre-emptive conditioning measure:

newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
This is a clarification of an earlier post I made:

Children fully own themselves, yet by nature are not competent to manage their own affairs. Thus they require resources from someone else in order to survive. Some people interpret this situation to mean parents own their children and the care they provide incurs an debt which the children are obligated to repay but logically the opposite is true.

Children exist in a state of infirmary, not due their own actions and choices, but due to the actions and choices of their parents. The consequences of their state of dependency, then are the responsibility of their parents. The care and nurturing that a child needs in order to reach a state of being a competent adult is not a gift from the parents, but rather a debt the parents owe their children as compensation for bringing them into existence in a helpless state. Once this debt is satisfied the children owe their parents nothing.

If parents want to earn some kind of consideration from their children they have to go above and beyond merely supporting their children while they grow up. They need to earn consideration with virtuous behavior.

Brilliantly put.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
This is a clarification of an earlier post I made:

Children fully own themselves, yet by nature are not competent to manage their own affairs. Thus they require resources from someone else in order to survive. Some people interpret this situation to mean parents own their children and the care they provide incurs an debt which the children are obligated to repay but logically the opposite is true.

Children exist in a state of infirmary, not due their own actions and choices, but due to the actions and choices of their parents. The consequences of their state of dependency, then are the responsibility of their parents. The care and nurturing that a child needs in order to reach a state of being a competent adult is not a gift from the parents, but rather a debt the parents owe their children as compensation for bringing them into existence in a helpless state. Once this debt is satisfied the children owe their parents nothing.

If parents want to earn some kind of consideration from their children they have to go above and beyond merely supporting their children while they grow up. They need to earn consideration with virtuous behavior.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
To All Parents:

Your teenagers hate you no matter what you do.
Pages:
Jump to: