Re: virus: "We will fight to defend the honor of our rocks!"

Eric Boyd (
Fri, 26 Mar 1999 14:34:03 -0500


Sodom <> writes:
Many children of non-violent people also grow up to be violent. How to act violent may be learned, but the violence is already there genetically.

I am having trouble understanding what this means. Sure, the capacity for violence is there already (genetically, *physically*), but are you also arguing that there is a genetic predisposition to solving problems with violence? How in world would one test for that?

My argument here is that not all problems of this nature have a "solution". That in many cases violent people can only be handled (read "contained") with violence.

With coercion, I would accept... violence (as in physically hurting them) should never be required -- mere constraint is enough.

As for sometimes causing damage, certainly it can and does. There also comes a time when the damage being caused by the abherent individual is less preferable to the damage caused to the perpretator by forceful action. An example would be a 2 or 3 year old who climbs up to a 2nd story roof and is playing there. A painful smack on the ass will prevent in many cases a reoccurance (as it did with me) - and the result is certainly better than the damage that would be done had such a child fallen.

Yes, but the same effect can be had by simply being more careful -- putting the child in a play pen, or fencing off the roof; and then later rationally discussing the dangers of unguarded changes of elevation (cliffs, etc.). I fail to see how (as the hope must be) if the pain of a sore bottom can be linked to playing in a high place, one could not more simply demonstrate the danger of high places to the child. i.e. if the child has sufficient cognative abilities to understand that the sore bottom was for playing in a high place, they also have sufficient abilities to understand much less drastic and coercive communications.

Then you have the opposite extreme. In Iraq for example, we had no real choice but to respond violently. Our diplomatic positions were simply so opposed as to make violent response, even knowing that it would not be final at the time, preferable to continuation of dialog. Coerision and violence were the only "reasonable" options. It could be argued but not proven that a more violent more aggressive stance in this type of situation could have prevented our current tit - for - tat exchange.

On the other hand, I think a much more open stance could have solved the entire problem -- what would have happened if the US had become very open; wanted to help Iraq acheive it's goals, whatever they might be? Instead of an inqusition and bombing, we potentially could have had an alliance. It's hard to stay enemies with someone who wants to help you acheive your goals...

(if the US moves out of viewing the situations as "Us vs Them", then Them would have a hard time maintaining the conflict)


> "Coercion often will produce very compliant obedient children in
> situations where they know they will be coerced if they defy their
> parents in some way. Such compliant obedient children are not
> wonderful children -- they are damaged children. This is not a great
> goal to have for our children."
>   -- Janet Reiland <MomReil@AOL.COM>, on the TCS mailing list

I agree to a point, coersion used as the primary tool is horrid. But experience tells me that there is a proper place and time for coersion and punishment that can achieve goals in a more timely and effective manner. I am fortunate enough to see a real life comparison of a TCS raised child next to a child being raised as I was (my niece). There is no comparison - the TCS child is a whining, crying, spoiled child, unpleasant for everyone to be around and generally falling behind the other child. Now certainly some of this has to do with general disposition, but not all of it. I was spanked as a child. I was spanked ONLY when I was very young and took risks with my life without comprehension. My life has been a veritable "heaven" on earth as far as I am concerned. Most of my pain comes from dealing with people who are depressed or have problems themselves. I've always been happy, creative and loved exploring the universe around me.

Are you sure the child was TCS? TCS is not the same as laisse-faire, or non-coercive parenting, or attachment parenting, all of which have very large pitfalls. Anyway, TCS children should never cry -- crying is an indication of coercion (i.e. the child is in a coercive state of mind, enacting one theory while another, conflicting theory, is active). As to "being unpleasant to be around", that is again anti-TCS -- they are probably coercing those around them, rather than seeking mutual preference solutions to their problems.

One small question, too -- if you were in fact "taking risks without comprehension", then on what grounds can your parents punish you? Is it not much more rational for them to explain to you the dangers so that next time you'll know?