Liberty Bill

No, some children are aggressive by nature. I know that people like to think it's all about nurture around here, but in fact nature has a lot to do with it (e.g. how identical twins exhibit about 50% similar characteristics even when raised in different families). Out of my 3 children, only my daughter is aggressive by nature. I understand Stefan's raison d'etre kind of requires nurture to be the vast majority of the influence, but even he admits that certain things are largely inherited, e.g. intelligence. His "water takes the shape of its container" analogy is misleading in this regard, as it is both nurture and nature that shape a personality (this is the standard view amongst professionals, no one believes it is nurture entirely, not even Stefan would say that if pressed on the topic).

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. My kid has learned to share instead of initiate aggression, so there you go. If you want to pretend that, say, burning yourself doesn't teach you not to grab a flame, that's your prerogative.

I stated that both nature and nurture are important. I do not believe people are entirely nature and that genetic predispositions are the entirety of a personality. One might be genetically aggressive but through nurture taught to be more empathetic. Part of that teaching of empathy includes letting them know how others feel due to their actions, which is why I prefer punishment in kind. Perhaps you are not reading the quotes you provide, which clearly state that decentering begins at ages 2 to 7 and becomes better at ages 7 to 12. So they begin to develop moral agency at age 2 and this continues to develop as they age. Presumably it is up to the parent to assist and teach them in this development, and that is exactly what I am doing. Your argument implies that an 11 y.o. cannot initiate aggression because they do not understand the NAP and do not have moral agency, which is ridiculous and counter to the quotes that you yourself have provided. In regards to your example, it does not prove your point. One may not execute a retard who has committed a gross NAP violation, but they can certainly be punished... I'm not executing my daughter for her NAP violations, merely punishing her. It's clear that she understands because she says she does and has altered her behavior in conformance with it.

Yes, I agree that the child needs to comprehend the situation and I do not advocate spanking too young precisely for that reason. However, at her age she does understand that she's not supposed to hit and she knows what will happen if she does (and why). Generally because she was upset that her brother was playing with a toy she wanted and he wouldn't give it to her. For one she was angry, and for two hitting allowed her to acquire the toy. No, I mean genetics, not epigenetics which is a malleable subset of the former. I did not know she was a sociopath, I wondered because she was so self-centered compared to her brothers. I think it less likely now because her behavior has improved, but I am still observing. I do not "need" to hit a child, I choose to do so because the NAP is my guide and a proportional punishment is acceptable by that standard when she initiates aggression. I believe punishments should be in kind because this is both the most proportional option and the most easily comprehensible to the child. Not punishing NAP violations simply teaches a child that they can get away with such behavior... not on my watch.

Yes, of course I talk to her, I explain everything. It's clear to me that the community here tends to make unwarranted assumptions about my parenting due to my logical defense of spanking being in accordance with the NAP (which no one here has been able to logically attack, I should add, only voicing disapproval or throwing negative reputation my way), so I should emphasize that my parenting is otherwise pretty much identical to Stefan's. I stay at home, I home school, I play with them, I reason with them, I teach them to think logically, I explain why I do things and what is expected of them, etc. I am absolutely rigorous and consistent in my devotion to the NAP and POP, even more so than Stefan as a matter of fact because his aversion to spanking is not actually rooted in the NAP but in the related-but-not-the-same philosophy of pacifism (an inconsistency in his views, I believe). And it works, my kids are wonderful, full of light and life and highly developed intellects, easily observable by everyone (as evidenced by the constant stream of slightly amazed compliments). My daughter's aggressiveness has largely been replaced by pride in sharing and taking turns (though not always, due to her nature, but we're getting there). Frankly, your assertions regarding my observations as "absolutely unfounded" are quite astounding. Are you truly trying to say that there is no argument for nature having any impact compared to nurture? That is what I'm hearing, and if so, there is little more I can say other than "read more". The nature-nurture argument is extensive and Stef's analogies notwithstanding there is a lot of evidence that nature has a huge impact. Most believe it to be a combination of the two (including myself). I do have to qualify this by saying I'm not hugely exposed to Stefan's work so I may not have a full understanding of his view, I am only making assumptions based on what I've heard so far.

I agree, and that is why I believe it is important to teach her that hitting has consequences. She has never hit me personally (our bond is incredibly tight as I have raised her personally as a stay-at-home-dad), but she does sometimes hit her 3 y.o. brother when she gets angry. It's been a while because she understands that I will punish her in kind for the offense (proportionately, of course). I disagree with Stef's assertion that children are tabula rasa who merely reflect their parent's behavior (the whole "water takes the shape of its container" analogy seems to discount nature and put the entire onus on nurture). If that were the case, her brothers would also be hitters (same family, same environment, same rules) and they are not. She was born with a frown on her face and has always been incredibly self-centered and selfish, unlike her brothers (in her first year I was seriously wondering if she was a sociopath). I have taught her to be more generous and kind, and it seems to be working, but it is definitely something I have had to focus on.

I have already dispensed with the argument that self-defense is a necessary component to administering punishment of an NAP violation. Because exercising that reason reveals that a proportionate punishment in kind is a permissible response to NAP violations, and I personally think punishment in kind is the most appropriate approach. It is not wrong to hit, it is only wrong to hit first... if it's in response to an initiation of force, it is justice. After all, punishment is permissible up to double the initial aggession, according to the NAP and POP. As I've said, this "it's wrong to hit [at all times]" thing is a pacifist view. From a strictly logical perspective, ascribing this view to being rooted in the NAP is simply wrong and thus an argument built on this premise is incorrect.

Because it is inconsistent to not punish the initiation of aggression with children when you do punish it with everyone else... it is important for children to learn that they cannot get away with it (but I am big on warnings and explanations and all that, of course). I agree that the child must be old enough to understand your reasoning, but it happens to be the case that at 4 years old one can understand that they shouldn't hit others. No, I usually say "it's wrong to hit first" or words to that effect. I don't want to hit them, and never would if they failed to ever initiate violence, but in those case in which they do I feel obligated to teach them that the initiation of force is impermissible and will/should/must be punished by the authorities (be it police or PDAs/DROs), the heroes, or the victim.

The quote does not apply to my argument. This is an argument for possible scenarios in which one might initate force. I am talking about a situation in which the child has initiated force. According to the NAP and the POP, if the child initiates force then a proportional punishment is legitimate. Aggregate data that includes scenarios in which the child is spanked in violation of the NAP and/or POP are not valid in regards to an individual who spanks in strict accordance with them. I believe it important for a child to understand that if they initiate force they will be stopped and punished, whereas my understanding of pacifist peaceful parenting is that a child who initiates force will not be punished for this. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Self defense is an application of the NAP and has nothing to do with the core principle, which deals only with the initiation of violence. You can punish for such initiations even if they do not involve self-defense, such as in cases of theft. If a child initiates aggression, for example a 4-year old hitting a 3-year old, then strictly speaking, the NAP would not disallow a spanking in response*. IMO, avoiding spanking entirely isn't observing the NAP but is actually more of a pacifist view. * as ever, the response must be in accordance with the Principle of Proportionality to be just

Can a child initate aggression?

I see a False Dilemma here, or Excluded Middle. Namely, it doesn't have to be either-or. As I see it, it's immoral to take a human shield. It is also immoral to kill them. Sometimes there are no easy answers and no white hats. One thing that I think is important to remember is that, morally, the Principle of Proportionality is just as important as the Non-Aggression Principle. If you walk around wearing a force field, against which bounce off rocks with fire-crackers attached, you are not justified in slaughtering the aggressors. Or, to be more precise, if Israel is protected by an Iron Dome missile defense system, against which bounce off 2-foot long home-made Qussam rockets (to the tune of 0 deaths as a result), Israel is not justified in launching missiles in return (to the tune of dozens of innocents killed). The body count makes clear that Israel is violating the POP while hiding behind the argument that Hamas violated the NAP. Even accepting this as true (and I do not, I would argue that Israel has been the aggressor in every conflict/battle since the 6 day war, and perhaps even since it was founded, though I haven't the time to flesh out that argument here), their response is immoral.

I found this to be a fascinating account... this is part 1 of 3, go to the link to access the other 2 parts: http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm Eskimos Prove An All Meat Diet Provides Excellent Health News You Can Use Adventures in Diet Part 1 By Vilhjalmur Stefansson Harper's Monthly Magazine, November 1935. In 1906 I went to the Arctic with the food tastes and beliefs of the average American. By 1918, after eleven years as an Eskimo among Eskimos, I had learned things which caused me to shed most of those beliefs. Ten years later I began to realize that what I had learned was going to influence materially the sciences of medicine and dietetics. However, what finally impressed the scientists and converted many during the last two or three years, was a series of confirmatory experiments upon myself and a colleague performed at Bellevue Hospital, New York City, under the supervision of a committee representing several universities and other organizations. Not so long ago the following dietetic beliefs were common: To be healthy you need a varied diet, composed of elements from both the animal and vegetable kingdoms. You got tired of and eventually felt a revulsion against things if you had to eat them often. This latter belief was supported by stories of people who through force of circumstances had been compelled, for instance, to live for two weeks on sardines and crackers and who, according to the stories, had sworn that so long as they lived they never would touch sardines again. The Southerners had it that nobody can eat a quail a day for thirty days. There were subsidiary dietetic views. It was desirable to eat fruits and vegetables, including nuts and coarse grains. The less meat you ate the better for you. If you ate a good deal of it, you would develop rheumatism, hardening of the arteries, and high blood pressure, with a tendency to breakdown of the kidneys - in short, premature old age. An extreme variant had it that you would live more healthy, happily, and longer if you became a vegetarian. Specifically it was believed, when our field studies began, that without vegetables in your diet you would develop scurvy. It was a "known fact" that sailors, miners, and explorers frequently died of scurvy "because they did not have vegetables and fruits." This was long before Vitamin C was publicized. The addition of salt to food was considered either to promote health or to be necessary for health. This is proved by various yarns, such as that African tribes make war on one another to get salt; that minor campaigns of the American Civil War were focused on salt mines; and that all herbivorous animals are ravenous for salt. I do not remember seeing a critical appendix to any of these views, suggesting for instance, that Negro tribes also make war about things which no one ever said were biological essentials of life; that tobacco was a factor in Civil War campaigns without being a dietetic essential; and that members of the deer family in Maine which never have salt or show desire for it, are as healthy as those in Montana which devour quantities of it and are forever seeking more. A belief I was destined to find crucial in my Arctic work, making the difference between success and failure, life and death, was the view that man cannot live on meat alone. The few doctors and dietitians who thought you could were considered unorthodox if not charlatans. The arguments ranged from metaphysics to chemistry: Man was not intended to be carnivorous - you knew that from examining his teeth, his stomach, and the account of him in the Bible. As mentioned, he would get scurvy if he had no vegetables in meat. The kidneys would be ruined by overwork. There would be protein poisoning and, in general hell to pay. With these views in my head and, deplorably, a number of others like them, I resigned my position as assistant instructor in anthropology at Harvard to become anthropologist of a polar expedition. Through circumstances and accidents which are not a part of the story, I found myself that autumn the guest of the Mackenzie River Eskimos. The Hudson's Bay Company, whose most northerly post was at Fort McPherson two hundred miles to the south had had little influence on the Eskimos during more than half a century; for it was only some of them who made annual visits to the trading post; and then they purchased no food but only tea, tobacco, ammunition and things of that sort. But in 1889 the whaling fleet had begun to cultivate these waters and for fifteen years there had been close association with sometimes as many as a dozen ships and four to five hundred men wintering at Herschel Island, just to the west of the delta. During this time a few of the Eskimos had learned some English and perhaps one in ten of them had grown to a certain extent fond of white man's foods. But now the whaling fleet was gone because the bottom had dropped out of the whalebone market, and the district faced an old-time winter of fish and water. The game, which might have supplemented the fish some years earlier, had been exterminated or driven away by the intensive hunting that supplied meat to the whaling fleet. There was a little tea, but not nearly enough to see the Eskimos through the winter - this was the only element of the white man's dietary of which they were really fond and the lack of which would worry them. So I was facing a winter of fish without tea. For the least I could do, an uninvited guest, was to pretend a dislike for it. The issue of fish and water against fish and tea was, in any case, to me six against a half dozen. For I had had a prejudice against fish all my life. I had nibbled at it perhaps once or twice a year at course dinners, always deciding that it was as bad as I thought. This was pure psychology of course, but I did not realize it. I was in a measure adopted into an Eskimo family the head of which knew English. He had grown up as a cabin boy on a whaling ship and was called Roxy, though his name was Memoranna. It was early September, we were living in tents, the days were hot but it had begun to freeze during the nights, which were now dark for six to eight hours. The community of three or four families, fifteen or twenty individuals, was engaged in fishing. With long poles, three or four nets were shoved out from the beach about one hundred yards apart. When the last net was out the first would be pulled in, with anything from dozens to hundreds of fish, mostly ranging in weight from one to three pounds, and including some beautiful salmon trout. From knowledge of other white men the Eskimos consider these to be most suitable for me and would cook them specially, roasting them against the fire. They themselves ate boiled fish. Trying to develop an appetite, my habit was to get up soon after daylight, say four o'clock, shoulder my rifle, and go off after breakfasts on a hunt south across the rolling prairie, though I scarcely expected to find any game. About the middle of the afternoon I would return to camp. Children at play usually saw me coming and reported to Roxy's wife, who would then put a fresh salmon trout to roast. When I got home I would nibble at it and write in my diary what a terrible time I was having. Against my expectation, and almost against my will, I was beginning to like the baked salmon trout when one day of perhaps the second week I arrived home without the children having seen me coming. There was no baked fish ready but the camp was sitting round troughs of boiled fish. I joined them and, to my surprise, liked it better than the baked. There after the special cooking ceased, and I ate boiled fish with the Eskimos. II By midwinter I had left my cabin-boy host and, for the purposes of anthropological study, was living with a less sophisticated family at the eastern edge of the Mackenzie delta. Our dwelling was a house of wood and earth, heated and lighted with Eskimo-style lamps. They burned seal or whale oil, mostly white whale from a hunt of the previous spring when the fat had been stored in bags and preserved, although the lean meat had been eaten. Our winter cooking however, was not done over the lamps but on a sheet-iron stove which had been obtained from whalers. There were twenty-three of us living in one room, and there were sometimes as many as ten visitors. The floor was then so completely covered with sleepers that the stove had to be suspended from the ceiling. The temperature at night was round 60*F. The ventilation was excellent through cold air coming up slowly from below by way of a trap door that was never closed and the heated air going out by a ventilator in the roof. Everyone slept completely naked - no pajama or night shirts. We used cotton or woolen blankets which had been obtained from the whalers and from the Hudson's Bay Company. In the morning, about seven o'clock, winter-caught fish, frozen so hard that they would break like glass, were brought in to lie on the floor till they began to soften a little. One of the women would pinch them every now and then until, when she found her finger indented them slightly, she would begin preparations for breakfast. First she cut off the head and put them aside to be boiled for the children in the afternoon (Eskimos are fond of children, and heads are considered the best part of the fish). Next best are the tails, which are cut off and saved for the children also. The woman would then slit the skin along the back and also along the belly and getting hold with her teeth, would strip the fish somewhat as we peel a banana, only sideways where we peel bananas, endways. Thus prepared, the fish were put on dishes and passed around. Each of us took one and gnawed it about as an American does corn on the cob. An American leaves the cob; similarly we ate the flesh from the outside of the fish, not touching the entrails. When we had eaten as much as we chose, we put the rest on a tray for dog feed. After breakfast all the men and about half the women would go fishing, the rest of the women staying at home to keep house. About eleven o'clock we came back for a second meal of frozen fish just like the breakfast. At about four in the afternoon the working day was over and we came home to a meal of hot boiled fish. Also we came home to a dwelling so heated by the cooking that the temperature would range from 85* to 100*F. or perhaps even higher - more like our idea of a Turkish bath than a warm room. Streams of perspiration would run down our bodies, and the children were kept busy going back and forth with dippers of cold water of which we naturally drank great quantities. Just before going to sleep we would have a cold snack of fish that had been left over from dinner. Then we slept seven or eight hours and the routine of the day began once more. After some three months as a guest of the Eskimos I had acquired most of their food tastes. I had to agree that fish is better boiled than cooked any other way, and that the heads (which we occasionally shared with the children) were the best part of the fish. I no longer desired variety in the cooking, such as occasional baking - I preferred it always boils if it was cooked. I had become as fond of raw fish as if I had been a Japanese. I like fermented (therefore slightly acid) whale oil with my fish as well as ever I liked mixed vinegar and olive oil with a salad. But I still had two reservations against Eskimo practice; I did not eat rotten fish and I longed for salt with my meals. There were several grades of decayed fish. The August catch had been protected by longs from animals but not from heat and was outright rotten. The September catch was mildly decayed. The October and later catches had been frozen immediately and were fresh. There was less of the August fish than of any other and, for that reason among the rest, it was a delicacy - eaten sometimes as a snack between meals, sometimes as a kind of dessert and always frozen, raw. In midwinter it occurred to me to philosophize that in our own and foreign lands taste for a mild cheese is somewhat plebeian; it is at least a semi-truth that connoisseurs like their cheeses progressively stronger. The grading applies to meats, as in England where it is common among nobility and gentry to like game and pheasant so high that the average Midwestern American or even Englishman of a lower class, would call them rotten. I knew of course that, while it is good form to eat decayed milk products and decayed game, it is very bad form to eat decayed fish. I knew also that the view of our populace that there are likely to be "ptomaines" in decaying fish and in the plebeian meats; but it struck me as an improbable extension of the class-consciousness that ptomaines would avoid the gentleman's food and attack that of a commoner. These thoughts led to a summarizing query; If it is almost a mark of social distinction to be able to eat strong cheeses with a straight face and smelly birds with relish, why is it necessarily a low taste to be fond of decaying fish? On that basis of philosophy, though with several qualms, I tried the rotten fish one day, and if memory servers, like it better than my first taste of Camembert. During the next weeks I became fond of rotten fish. About the fourth month of my first Eskimo winter I was looking forward to every meal (rotten or fresh), enjoying them, and feeling comfortable when they were over. Still I kept thinking the boiled fish would taste better if only I had salt. From the beginning of my Eskimo residence I had suffered from this lack. On one of the first few days, with the resourcefulness of a Boy Scout, I had decided to make myself some salt, and had boiled sea water till there was left only a scum of brown powder. If I had remembered as vividly my freshman chemistry as I did the books about shipwrecked adventurers, I should have know in advance that the sea contains a great many chemicals besides sodium chloride, among them iodine. The brown scum tasted bitter rather than salty. A better chemist could no doubt have refined the product. I gave it up, partly through the persuasion of my host, the English-speaking Roxy. The Mackenzie Eskimos, Roxy told me, believe that what is good for grown people is good for children and enjoyed by them as soon as they get used to it. Accordingly they teach the use of tobacco when a child is very young. It then grows to maturity with the idea that you can't get along without tobacco. But, said Roxy, the whalers have told that many whites get along without it, and he had himself seen white men who never use it, while the few white women, wives of captains, none used tobacco. (This, remember, was in 1906.) Now Roxy had heard that white people believe that salt is good for, and even necessary for children, so they begin early to add salt to the child's food. That child then would grow up with the same attitude toward salt as an Eskimo has toward tobacco. However, said Roxy, since we Eskimos were mistaken in thinking tobacco so necessary, may it be that the white men are mistaken about salt? Pursuing the argument, he concluded that the reason why all Eskimos dislike salted food and all white men like it was not racial but due to custom. You could then, break the salt habit as easily as the tobacco habit and you would suffer no ill result beyond the mental discomfort of the first few days or weeks. Roxy did not know, but I did as an anthropologist, that in pre-Columbian times salt was unknown or the taste of it disliked and the use of it avoided through much of North and South America. It may possibly be true that the carnivorous Eskimos in whose language the word salty, mamaitok, is synonymous with with evil-tasting, disliked salt more intensely than those Indians who were partly herbivorous. Nevertheless, it is clear that the salt habit spread more slowly through the New World from the Europeans than the tobacco habit through Europe from the Indians. Even today there are considerable areas, for instance in the Amazon basin, where the natives still abhor salt. Not believing that the races differ in their basic natures, I felt inclined to agree with Roxy that the practice of slating food is with us a social inheritance and the belief in its merits a part of our folklore. Through this philosophizing I was somewhat reconciled to going without salt, but I was nevertheless, overjoyed when one day Ovayuak, my new host in the eastern delta, came indoors to say that a dog team was approaching which he believed to be that of Ilavinirk, a man who had worked with whalers and who possessed a can of salt. Sure enough, it was Ilavinirk, and he was delighted to give me the salt, a half-pound baking-powder can about half full, which he said he had been carrying around for two or three years, hoping sometime to meet someone who would like it for a present. He seemed almost as pleased to find that I wanted the salt as I was to get it. I sprinkled some on my boiled fish, enjoyed it tremendously, and wrote in my diary that it was the best meal I had had all winter. Then I put the can under my pillow, in the Eskimo way of keeping small and treasured things. But at the next meal I had almost finished eating before I remembered the salt. Apparently then my longing for it had been what you might call imaginary. I finished without salt, tried it at one or two meals during the next few days and thereafter left it untouched. When we moved camp the salt remained behind. After the return of the sun I made a journey of several hundred miles to the ship Narwhal which, contrary to our expectations of the late summer, had really come in and wintered at Herschel Island. The captain was George P. Leavitt, of Portland, Maine. For the few days of my visit I enjoyed the excellent New England cooking, but when I left Herschel Island I returned without reluctance to the Eskimo meals of fish and cold water. It seemed to me that, mentally and physically, I had never been in better health in my life. III During the first few months of my first year in the Arctic, I acquired, though I did not at the time fully realize it, the munitions of fact and experience which have within my own mind defeated those views of dietetics reviewed at the beginning of this article. I could be healthy on a diet of fish and water. The longer I followed it the better I liked it, which meant, at least inferentially and provisionally, that you never become tired of your food if you have only one thing to eat. I did not get scurvy on the fish diet nor learn that any of my fish-eating friends ever had it. Nor was the freedom from scurvy due to the fish being eaten raw - we proved that later. (What it was due to we shall deal with in the second article of this series.) There were certainly no signs of hardening of the arteries and high blood pressure, of breakdown of the kidneys or of rheumatism. These months on fish were the beginning of several years during which I lived on an exclusive meat diet. For I count in fish when I speak of living on meat, using "meat" and "meat diet" more as a professor of anthropology than as the editor of a housekeeping magazine. The term in this article and in like scientific discussions refers to a diet from which all things of the vegetable kingdom are absent. To the best of my estimate then, I have lived in the Arctic for more than five years exclusively on meat and water. (This was not, of course, one five-year stretch, but an aggregate of that much time during ten years.) One member of my expeditions, Storker Storkersen, lived on an exclusive meat diet for about the same length of time while there are several who have lived on it from one to three years. These have been of many nationalities and of three races - ordinary European whites; natives of the Cape Verde Islands, who had a large percentage of Negro blood; and natives of the South Sea Islands. Neither from experience with my own men nor from what I have heard of similar cases do I find any racial difference. There are marked individual differences. The typical method of breaking a party into a meat diet is that three of five of us leave in midwinter a base camp which has nearly or quite the best type of European mixed diet that money and forethought can provide. The novices have been told that it is possible to live on meat alone. We warn them that it is hard to get used to for the first few weeks, but assure them that eventually they will grow to like it and that any difficulties in changing diets will be due to their imagination. These assertions the men will believe to a varying degree. I have a feeling that in the course of breaking in something like twenty individuals; two or three young men believed me completely, and that this belief collaborated strongly with their youth and adaptability in making them take readily to the meat. Usually I think, the men believe that what I tell of myself is true for me personally, but that I am peculiar, a freak - that a normal person will not react similarly, and that they are going to be normal and have an awful time. Their past experience seems to tell them that if you eat one thing every day you are bound to tire of it. In the back of their minds there is also what they have read and heard about the necessity for a varied diet. They have specific fears of developing the ailments which they have heard of as caused by meat or prevented by vegetables. We secure our food in the Arctic by hunting and in midwinter there is not enough good hunting light. Accordingly we carry with us from the base camp provisions for several weeks, enough to take us into the long days. During this time, as we travel away from shore, we occasionally kill a seal or a polar bear and eat their meat along with our groceries. Our men like these as an element of a mixed diet as well as you do beef or mutton. We are not on rations. We eat all we want, and we feed the dogs what we think is good for them. When the traveling conditions are right we usually have two big meals a day, morning and evening, but when we are storm bound or delayed by open water we eat several meals to pass the time away. At the end of four, six or eight weeks at sea, we have used up all our food. We do not try to save a few delicacies to eat with the seal and bear, for experience has proved that such things are only tantalizing. Suddenly, then we are on nothing but seal. For while our food at sea averages ten percent polar bear there may be months in which we don't see a bear. The men go at the seal loyally; they are volunteers and whatever the suffering, they have bargained for it and intend to grin and bear it. For a day or two they eat square meals. Then the appetite begins to flag and they discover as they had more than half expected, that for them personally it is going to be a hard pull or a failure. Some own up that they can't eat, while others pretend to have good appetites, enlisting the surreptitious help of a dog to dispose of their share. In extreme cases, which are usually those of the middle-aged and conservative they go two or three days practically or entirely without eating. We had no weighing apparatus; but I take it that some have lost anything from ten to twenty pounds, what with the hard work on empty stomachs. They become gloomy and grouchy and, as I once wrote, "They begin to say to each other, and sometimes to me, things about their judgment in joining a polar expedition that I cannot quote." But after a few days even the conservatives begin to nibble at the seal meat, after a few more they are eating a good deal of it, rather under protest and at the end of three or four weeks they are eating square meals, though still talking about their willingness to give a soul or right arm for this or that. Amusingly, or perhaps instructively, they often long for ham and eggs or corned beef when, according to theory, they ought to be longing for vegetables and fruits. Some of them do hanker particularly for things like sauerkraut or orange juice; but more usually it is for hot cakes and syrup or bread and butter. There are two ways in which to look at an abrupt change of diet - how difficult it is to get used to what you have to eat and how hard it is to be deprived of things you are used to and like. From the second angle, I take it to be physiologically significant that we have found our people, when deprived, to long equally for things which have been considered necessities of health, such as salt; for things where a drug addiction is considered to be involved, such as tobacco; and for items of that class of so-called staple foods, such as bread. It has happened on several trips, and with an aggregate of perhaps twenty men, that they have had to break at one time their salt, tobacco, and bread habits. I have frequently tried the experiment of asking which they would prefer; salt for their meal, bread with it, or tobacco for an after-dinner smoke. In nearly every case the men have stopped to consider, nor do I recall that they were ever unanimous. When we are returning to the ship after several months on meat and water, I usually say that the steward will have orders to cook separately for each member of the party all he wants of whatever he wants. Especially during the last two or three days, there is a great deal of talk among the novices in the part about what the choices are to be. One man wants a big dish of mashed potatoes and gravy; another a gallon of coffee and bread and butter; a third perhaps wants a stack of hot cakes with syrup and butter. On reaching the ship each does get all he wants of what he wants. The food tastes good, although not quite so superlative as they had imagined. They have said they are going to eat a lot and they do. Then they get indigestion, headache, feel miserable, and within a week, in nine cases out of ten of those who have been on meat six months or over, they are willing to go back to meat again. If a man does not want to take part in a second sledge journey it is usually for a reason other than the dislike of meat. Still, as just implied, the verdict depends on how long you have been on the diet. If at the end of the first ten days our men could have been miraculously rescued from the seal and brought back to their varied foods, most of them would have sworn forever after that they were about to die when rescued, and they would have vowed never to taste seal again - vows which would have been easy to keep for no doubt in such cases the thought of seal, even years later, would have been accompanied by a feeling of revulsion. If a man has been on meat exclusively for only three or four months he may or may not be reluctant to go back to it again. But if the period has been six months or over, I remember no one who was unwilling to go back to meat. Moreover, those who have gone without vegetables for an aggregate of several years usually thereafter eat a larger percentage of meat than your average citizen, if they can afford it.

A free society would have PDAs/DROs that would anticipate this issue and child abuse clauses would be standardized in all contracts, as well as statutory rape clauses (with perhaps a little wiggle room for personal preference, just as different states have different ages of majority today).

This is a good point that also applies to the negative data for spanking. If spanking is done in accordance with the NAP (namely only in response to the child initating aggression) and the Principle of Proportionality, it cannot be considered of a kind with spanking that is too frequent, too hard, too early, too late, too unrelated to the initiation of aggression, etc. Basically the difference between use and abuse.