DFPercush Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 From "Feminist Straw Woman Attacks!" Published on YouTube on May 18, 2014 I thought this might be a better place to have a productive discussion, so I thought I would get the other members' input. 49:00 "You don't think he'd call the cops?" Mind... blown. Stefan presents the argument that all threats of violence are death threats, and proposes that if the caller had used self defense, possibly armed with an implement much like the wooden spoon used against him, that the family would have called in the "authorities". Hope I got that right. And we all know what that means.Just thinking it over. Speaking in general terms now, not only about this caller. When parents use corporal punishment they do not intend to kill the child, only inflict pain. In order for this threat to become a death threat, the parents must be willing to escalate to that point. If they plan ahead what they will do when they meet resistance, who knows? Is that relevant to the conversation do you think - premeditation and moral responsibility? The behavior of the child is also still relevant here. Certain laws also reflect this principle, which is that self defense is fine, but excessive retaliation is not. The link you're making between the threat of corporal punishment and the force of the state, hinges upon a probability which is highly affected by the level of retaliation used. I suppose some parents wouldn't stop until you knocked them unconscious, but I think most would get that the technique does not work any more. Would they call the cops then? Maybe I guess, but they would look like imbeciles who can't handle a bratty teenager, rather than possible victims of a violent delinquent. So, I'm not sure where I want to see the discussion go here exactly, but maybe it's something to keep on the radar that "Hey parents, yeah you know that little person is gonna grow into a big person, what happens then?" And also to emphasize the importance of avoiding excessive retaliation to any young listeners out there. That's something that one can learn from martial arts, at least more traditional ones. I don't know about all this MMA stuff. But they teach you discipline and self control. They're not just for the placation of grown abuse victims who want to remain in their comfort zones, it's useful stuff. There is an entire realm of ethics involving the use of force which is kind of treated like black hole physics around here (my perception), no one really knows what goes on in there. If you're in an environment where force is applied often, it makes sense to know these things.
DFPercush Posted May 20, 2014 Author Posted May 20, 2014 The child has no way of knowing will these people, ... use their force to kill him. Fair point, but that necessitates a certain perspective, that is the child's point of view and personal impressions. Most parents would not kill their children, therefore for a child to make that extrapolation would not be accurate to the objective truth. Maybe it was at some point in history in certain cultures, but not now. I understand the child has no way of knowing all this, and it's all wrong, but the original claim that "all threats of violence are death threats" does not make room for variances based on perspective. Now if you say that "All threats of violence are intended as death threats, that qualifies the perspective of the aggressor, which is what I'm saying is not necessarily true. If, on the other hand, you say "All threats of violence can be as harmful to a child's psyche as a death threat." that qualifies the perspective of the victim. I just think a little more precision is necessary to close the case. I like this idea, I really do, and I hope that I can help to forge and strengthen this argument so that we have an airtight case to present to the masses.
DFPercush Posted May 20, 2014 Author Posted May 20, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting The parents have always the option not to use aggression. The answer why all threats of violence are death threats lies in the act of choosing use of force instead of negotiating. Use of force means the one who has less strength, submits into stronger one's will. The focus of the OP was the scenario where force is attempted and fails, due to self defense on part of the child. Therefore submission does not take place. The scope was limited to the time of conflict, not later when the parents try to justify themselves or dismiss the child. It's a very nuanced point I'm making. Of course when you pull out force in place of negotiation in general, the ultimate extreme of that is death. But if the one using force (parent) isn't strong enough to pull that off, the question becomes what is the link between the family and the state? Because the state most assuredly can pull it off. There is a probability X that the parents will call the police. X is raised significantly by excessive retaliation on part of the child. And I would like to examine the other factors in calculating X. That's the gist of it. Edit: Moreover, the police aren't the parent's personal lackeys who will enforce arbitrary decrees on pain of death - there must be legal grounds for them to use force against the child. Therefore not every call to the police has the potential to result in death. It's terrifying for the child, no doubt, and I get why you're referencing gaslighting when I used the word perspective, but I'm analyzing causality here. Does every situation in which parents initiate force have the potential to result in death? Not whether someone thinks they're going to die, but actual death occurring. Maybe that's not the way Molyneux meant it though. Still, it's an interesting exercise.
Recommended Posts