Oh god. Poor argumentation somehow led to Spidey being okay with inserting a penis into a three year old, and he being called a rapist, however, Spidey denies that it is rape.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Spideynw:What is your point? Do you think "molestation" and "child abuse" are not completely arbitrary
Definitely not, otherwise how would you have the concept of molestation to talk about?
Spidey is taking his position to a shocking and uncomfortable extreme. I don't know that I should or shouldn't approve of it, but no one has answered his position sufficiently. The whole natural rights thing breaks down when it comes to children and folks prefer to whistle past the graveyard, so Spidey keeps cranking the argument up.
Spidey, maybe you could be the bigger man and just ease back a little. There is a point where people's puke factor kicks in, and nothing productive is going to come from pushing the extreme further.
Meanwhile, does anyone have a logical, consistent, natural rights refutation for his claims?
Daniel Muffinburg: Oh god. Poor argumentation somehow led to Spidey being okay with inserting a penis into a three year old, and he being called a rapist, however, Spidey denies that it is rape.
Please don't misrepresent me. I never said that it is OK. I claim that it is not illegal.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg: Oh god. Poor argumentation somehow led to Spidey being okay with inserting a penis into a three year old, and he being called a rapist, however, Spidey denies that it is rape. Please don't misrepresent me. I never said that it is OK. I claim that it is not illegal.
So you claim that it would not be illegal if you inserted your penis into your 3-year-old daughter. What if she didn't consent to it?
Spideynw:Please don't misrepresent me. I never said that it is OK. I claim that it is not illegal.
Well I'm willing to interpret you charitably and ignore the last slip up. I'm not going to what the law says, the law says suits those in power. So what is the natural reason that you should not, aka the reason it is immoral to, rape a child. Psychological problems and genetic problems. It messes up the human race to do it. So what is your contention.
twistedbydsign99:Psychological problems and genetic problems.
Same rationale to not use drugs. Or drink. Or smoke. Or eat certain foods.
or even pick a certain reproductive partner.
Daniel Muffinburg:What if she didn't consent to it?
To grant or withhold consent implies she has the ability to think critically. Do you think a three year old has the ability to think critically?
Joe: or even pick a certain reproductive partner.
Great point.
twistedbydsign99:So what is the natural reason that you should not, aka the reason it is immoral to, rape a child.
All morality is subjective. Libertarians even justify murder. I would guess even you would justify murder. I know of lots of "libertarians" that think it is moral to kill someone who is being aggressive.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:What if she didn't consent to it? To grant or withhold consent implies she has the ability to think critically. Do you think a three year old has the ability to think critically?
No. So how could you possible have mutually-consensual inserting of your penis into a 3-year-old? And, if it is not possible to mutually-consensually insert our penis into a 3-year-old, is that not rape?
Spideynw: twistedbydsign99:So what is the natural reason that you should not, aka the reason it is immoral to, rape a child. All morality is subjective. Libertarians even justify murder. I would guess even you would justify murder. I know of lots of "libertarians" that think it is moral to kill someone who is being aggressive.
Murder is the illegal killing of another person. How could be a libertarian and say that murder is not illegal at the same time? Btw, killing an aggressor is not the same as murder.
Daniel Muffinburg:No. So how you possible have mutually-consensual inserting of your penis into a 3-year-old? And, if it is not possible to mutually-consensually insert our penis into a 3-year-old, is that not rape?
An infant can't give consent either, so how do you put clothes on it? Move it around? Take it for medical examinations?
Or do parents simply toss some food in a bowl near the baby and hope the kid can drag themselves to it and faceplant in some mush?
Daniel Muffinburg:Murder is the illegal killing of another person.
Some might say murder is killing someone else without getting his express consent first.
Daniel Muffinburg:How could be a libertarian and say that murder is not illegal at the same time?
I never said that he was saying murder is not illegal.
Daniel Muffinburg:Btw, killing an aggressor is not the same as murder.
Really? A pacifist would disagree.
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:No. So how you possible have mutually-consensual inserting of your penis into a 3-year-old? And, if it is not possible to mutually-consensually insert our penis into a 3-year-old, is that not rape? An infant can't give consent either, so how do you put clothes on it? Move it around? Take it for medical examinations? Or do parents simply toss some food in a bowl near the baby and hope the kid can drag themselves to it and faceplant in some mush?
I'd say the parents have the responsibility to maintain the child. I fail to see how inserting Spidey's penis into a 3-year-old fits (no pun intended) in that role of responsibility.
Daniel Muffinburg:I'd say the parents have the responsibility to maintain the child.
Really? So, if I think my neighbor is not raising his child like I think he should, I can steal his child from him?
Positive obligation? Are you ok with abortion?
Daniel Muffinburg:I fail to see how inserting Spidey's penis into a 3-year-old fits (no pun intended) in that role of responsibility.
Is this a role based on your preference, or something grounded in objective reasoning?
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:Murder is the illegal killing of another person. Some might say murder is killing someone else without getting his express consent first.
Some might say that murder is eating chocolate late at night while watching scary movies. However, that is an irrelevant definition. See this for the relevant definition: http://m-w.com/dictionary/murder.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:How could be a libertarian and say that murder is not illegal at the same time? I never said that he was saying murder is not illegal.
That's is what you implied when you said this, "All morality is subjective. Libertarians even justify murder. I would guess even you would justify murder. I know of lots of "libertarians" that think it is moral to kill someone who is being aggressive."
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:Btw, killing an aggressor is not the same as murder. Really? A pacifist would disagree.
Perhaps. So?
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:I'd say the parents have the responsibility to maintain the child. Really? So, if I think my neighbor is not raising his child like I think he should, I can steal his child from him?
Come on, Spidey. What is the definition for "steal"?
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:I'd say the parents have the responsibility to maintain the child. Positive obligation? Are you ok with abortion?
I'm with Block on this. But I fail to see how this is related to Spidey inserting his penis into a 3-year-old.
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:I fail to see how inserting Spidey's penis into a 3-year-old fits (no pun intended) in that role of responsibility. Is this a role based on your preference, or something grounded in objective reasoning?
Does the 3-year old not have negative right to not have Spidey insert his penis into the 3-year-old?
Daniel Muffinburg:That's is what you implied when you said this, "All morality is subjective. Libertarians even justify murder. I would guess even you would justify murder. I know of lots of "libertarians" that think it is moral to kill someone who is being aggressive."
No, I implied all killing is illegal. Not that all killing is not illegal.
Daniel Muffinburg:However, that is an irrelevant definition. See this for the relevant definition: http://m-w.com/dictionary/murder.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal - Steal " to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment." Do you now think stealing is the same as copying just because the dictionary says so?
Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:Btw, killing an aggressor is not the same as murder. Really? A pacifist would disagree. Perhaps. So?
A pacifist would be more consistent than you or I.
Spideynw:All morality is subjective. Libertarians even justify murder. I would guess even you would justify murder. I know of lots of "libertarians" that think it is moral to kill someone who is being aggressive.
I won't agree that "all" morality is subjective. But I do know that if we decided genetic defects were a good thing to have around, we wouldn't survive for long.
Really? So, if I think my neighbor is not raising his child like I think he should, I can take his child from him?
twistedbydsign99: Spideynw:All morality is subjective. Libertarians even justify murder. I would guess even you would justify murder. I know of lots of "libertarians" that think it is moral to kill someone who is being aggressive. I won't agree that "all" morality is subjective
I won't agree that "all" morality is subjective
Feel free to find me some objective morality. Otherwise, it is all subjective. The burden of proof is on you, since it should be easy to find one simple little example, whereas impossible for me to address every moral decision.
twistedbydsign99:But I do know that if we decided genetic defects were a good thing to have around, we wouldn't survive for long.
And genetic defects have what to do with how one treats his child?
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:I'd say the parents have the responsibility to maintain the child. Really? So, if I think my neighbor is not raising his child like I think he should, I can take his child from him?
I fail see how you would have a better claim to child than the parents.
Daniel Muffinburg:I'm with Block on this.
Sorry, I don't know Blocks position, could you explain?
Daniel Muffinburg:But I fail to see how this is related to Spidey inserting his penis into a 3-year-old.
You said the parents had a responsibility to maintain the child and insertion of a penis wouldn't fall under that. I asked you, where this responsibility came from, and whether you believe the child has placed a positive obligation on the parents. Then I asked about abortion, expecting you to make the connection that if you support evictionism, then you have a hard time reconciling that with a positive obligation by the child.
Is that an accurate summation?
Daniel Muffinburg:Does the 3-year old not have negative right to not have Spidey insert his penis into the 3-year-old?
I don't understand this. I asked you if your assertion of a role was based on your preference or on an objective ethic. I'm not the one making any claims about the child one way or another. You are. I think the burden of proof is on you to support your position.
I know better than to make any claims on this, because I will admit I don't have answers.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:That's is what you implied when you said this, "All morality is subjective. Libertarians even justify murder. I would guess even you would justify murder. I know of lots of "libertarians" that think it is moral to kill someone who is being aggressive." No, I implied all killing is illegal. Not that all killing is not illegal.
No. You claimed that some libertarians say that murder is consistent with libertarianism. I then went on to disprove that.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:However, that is an irrelevant definition. See this for the relevant definition: http://m-w.com/dictionary/murder. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal - Steal " to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment." Do you now think stealing is the same as copying just because the dictionary says so?
Why would think that appropriation is the same as copying?
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:Btw, killing an aggressor is not the same as murder. Really? A pacifist would disagree. Perhaps. So? A pacifist would be more consistent than you or I.
I fail to understand your point.
Spideynw: JackCuyler:So on one hand, you have to wait for one to wake up. On the other, you have to wait for one to grow up. Please define the amount of time spent waiting before you determine the person has no rights. Then explain why this isn't arbitrary. What is your point? Do you think "molestation" and "child abuse" are not completely arbitrary?
JackCuyler:So on one hand, you have to wait for one to wake up. On the other, you have to wait for one to grow up. Please define the amount of time spent waiting before you determine the person has no rights. Then explain why this isn't arbitrary.
What is your point? Do you think "molestation" and "child abuse" are not completely arbitrary?
I'm sorry, I wasn't referring to molestation or child abuse, merely your claim that children have no rights.
Why do humans have rights?
Spideynw:I have rights because I have the ability to think critically and to communicate with other humans.
E. R. Olovetto:The man who is asleep doesn't meet your criteria for someone having rights!
Spideynw:Because if someone is asleep, one can wake him up and ask him if it is OK to harm him. One cannot just "wake up" a child and ask him if it is OK to kill him. Seems pretty simple to me.
You are just choosing an arbitrary amount of time to wait for someone to gain "the ability to think critically and to communicate with other humans." Waking up takes seconds to days, depending on the type of sleep. Growing up takes years. Why does the longer time frame negate the child's rights?
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:I'd say the parents have the responsibility to maintain the child. Really? So, if I think my neighbor is not raising his child like I think he should, I can take his child from him? I fail see how you would have a better claim to child than the parents.
I don't. That is the point. How you think I should treat my child is completely irrelevant, because it is my child, which includes whatever your definition of "child abuse" is.
You claim that parents have a responsibility to maintain their children. Really? Then how are you going to enforce your standards? Who gets to decide? Who decides how much they eat? How much they sleep? When to start teaching them how to read? Whether or not to spank them? Whether or not to lock them in their rooms at night? How much television they can watch? Etc., etc.
I could easily claim that my neighbor is "abusing" his child by not feeding his child enough. Then what? I get to take the child, just because I don't like how he is caring for his child? Or do you claim some super powerful PDA will be able to take away the child, because "no one would pay for a PDA that would protect those evil "child abusers""?
I just had a thought on this dispute, forgive me if such a solution has already been tauted. With regard to the issue of the rights of a 3 year old could the issue be settled in the following way:
A human being that has the potentiality to use their reason and judgement, despite not being conscious and fully "human" at that present moment we may reason to still have his property rights not to be encroached on, e.g. you're not allowed to kill me while I'm asleep or in a coma, because the potentiality exists that I may awake and resume my human faculties. Similiarly, a child has the potential to display fully rational faculties, though they may not be realised in the moment, and based on this still has the right not to be violated. This would render rape of such a child illegal.
The only area where this could become a problem however is that this principle may be considered too wide ranging, e.g. is dressing the child and making it go through potty training while it cries and resists violating its property rights etc...
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:But I fail to see how this is related to Spidey inserting his penis into a 3-year-old. You said the parents had a responsibility to maintain the child and insertion of a penis wouldn't fall under that. I asked you, where this responsibility came from, and whether you believe the child has placed a positive obligation on the parents. Then I asked about abortion, expecting you to make the connection that if you support evictionism, then you have a hard time reconciling that with a positive obligation by the child.
I fail to see why it is necessarily a positive obligation. Since you made the claim that it is, please explain.
LS, make the case that Spidey inserting his penis into a non-consenting 3-year-old is not rape. My claim is that it was rape by mere definition. Your argument with me and my argument with Spidey since then derives from that claim.
No, on the one hand, you don't have to wait for one to wake up. You just wake the person up. On the other hand, you do have to wait for the person to develop. By that time, the time is past. So on the one hand, the time has not passed, and on the other it has.
JackCuyler:Why does the longer time frame negate the child's rights?
Why does the fact that an animal does not have the potential for critical thought negate the animal's rights?
Spideynw:To grant or withhold consent implies she has the ability to think critically. Do you think a three year old has the ability to think critically?
Only half true. To grant consent implies she has the ability to think critically. To withhold consent, all she has to do is stand mute. You do not have the right to put your penis in her orifice without her consent under any circumstances. Since you agree she does not have the ability to think critically, and therefore cannot offer meaningful consent, you must wait until she has that ability. Just as you must wait for the sleeping woman to awake before you put your penis in her orifice, you must wait for the child to grow up.
The inability to consent does not imply consent.
Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg: Spideynw: Daniel Muffinburg:I'd say the parents have the responsibility to maintain the child. Really? So, if I think my neighbor is not raising his child like I think he should, I can take his child from him? I fail see how you would have a better claim to child than the parents. I don't. That is the point. How you think I should treat my child is completely irrelevant, because it is my child, which includes whatever your definition of "child abuse" is.
Straw man. You made the claim that inserting your penis into a non-consenting 3-year-old is not rape. I made the claim that it was rape by definition.
Spideynw:You claim that parents have a responsibility to maintain their children. Really? Then how are you going to enforce your standards? Who gets to decide? Who decides how much they eat? How much they sleep? When to start teaching them how to read? Whether or not to spank them? Whether or not to lock them in their rooms at night? How much television they can watch? Etc., etc.
Who ever has the better claim to them.
Spideynw:I could easily claim that my neighbor is "abusing" his child by not feeding his child enough. Then what? I get to take the child, just because I don't like how he is caring for his child? Or do you claim some super powerful PDA will be able to take away the child, because "no one would pay for a PDA that would protect those evil "child abusers""?
Straw man.
Daniel Muffinburg:I fail to see why it is necessarily a positive obligation. Since you made the claim that it is, please explain.
Then where does this role/responsibility originate?
To recap;
Daniel Muffinburg:LS, make the case that Spidey inserting his penis into a non-consenting 3-year-old is not rape.
Why? I never asserted that. You make the case that Santa Claus is a 30 foot giant with 4 heads. Do it. Now. Right now. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 DO IT.
Daniel Muffinburg:My claim is that it was rape by mere definition. Your argument with me and my argument with Spidey since then derives from that claim.
Right, because the parents don't have consent because they have a responsibility that transcends the lack of consent for or against from the child. Is that correct? We're still back to where this responsibility comes from.
JackCuyler:The inability to consent does not imply consent.
How do you delineate between animal, mineral and human?
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but that inability to consent does not imply consent as you used it, presumes consent only from humans. We still haven't figured out how consent from a baby (or lack of capacity thereof) differs from consent from a cow or spider monkey.
Spideynw: I don't. That is the point. How you think I should treat my child is completely irrelevant, because it is my child, which includes whatever your definition of "child abuse" is. You claim that parents have a responsibility to maintain their children. Really? Then how are you going to enforce your standards? Who gets to decide? Who decides how much they eat? How much they sleep? When to start teaching them how to read? Whether or not to spank them? Whether or not to lock them in their rooms at night? How much television they can watch? Etc., etc. I could easily claim that my neighbor is "abusing" his child by not feeding his child enough. Then what? I get to take the child, just because I don't like how he is caring for his child? Or do you claim some super powerful PDA will be able to take away the child, because "no one would pay for a PDA that would protect those evil "child abusers""?
It will either be the courts of the society you have voluntarily chose to partake in. Or it will be someone who is stronger than you in a state of nature. Pick whichever one you prefer.
Since we've gone off track (and LS helped in doing so, and in the process made it easy for Spidey to avoid my question ) I will go back to my question which Spidey never answered.
Spidey, is it possible to have mutually-consensual inserting of your penis into a 3-year-old? If it is not possible to mutually-consensually insert our penis into a 3-year-old, is that not rape?
Daniel Muffinburg:Since we've gone off track (and LS helped in doing so, and in the process made it easy for Spidey to avoid my question ) I will go back to my question which Spidey never answered.
I'll withdraw if you think my involvement is the problem.