Stranger:You did not answer the question. Anyone willing to fight the family will be able to take them away, but would you fight to the death to take children away from their family?
If you are talking about corrupt families, I would not want to fight to the death, but perhaps a more elaborate solution. Bribe them or maybe use some subterfuge. After all a violent taking of the children will cause damage to the actual child that has to be considered. Its not as clear cut as your false analogies.
Stranger: E. R. Olovetto:We are talking about actions which are clearly evil like rape, murder, and leaving permanent damage to children. Well if it's clearly evil, I guess there's no need for a court to settle the matter?
E. R. Olovetto:We are talking about actions which are clearly evil like rape, murder, and leaving permanent damage to children.
Well if it's clearly evil, I guess there's no need for a court to settle the matter?
Why are you continually obtuse ITT? Not everyone cares that 2+2=4. The simple fact is that you've an error in your calculus. You claim to be libertarian (I think), and I've found myself agreeing with you on other things in the past. Children and invalids not having basic negative rights isn't compatible with the rest of your supposed beliefs. In other words, to you 2+2=4 and 5+5=10 but maybe 1+3=82.
Stranger: scineram: The fact is brutalizing small children is seen as barbaric by almost anyone. I see no substantial change happening in the opposite direction anytime soon. Hence such practices will be punished, totalitarian or limited government or none at all in existence, conservative whining to the contrary about about parental authority and the sanctity of the family unit notwithstanding. Who will pay for this punishment? Remember that in a state-less justice system, people have to provide for their own justice. They can't externalize it on the taxpayers. How much will you pay to fight families and take their children away?
scineram: The fact is brutalizing small children is seen as barbaric by almost anyone. I see no substantial change happening in the opposite direction anytime soon. Hence such practices will be punished, totalitarian or limited government or none at all in existence, conservative whining to the contrary about about parental authority and the sanctity of the family unit notwithstanding.
The fact is brutalizing small children is seen as barbaric by almost anyone. I see no substantial change happening in the opposite direction anytime soon. Hence such practices will be punished, totalitarian or limited government or none at all in existence, conservative whining to the contrary about about parental authority and the sanctity of the family unit notwithstanding.
Who will pay for this punishment? Remember that in a state-less justice system, people have to provide for their own justice. They can't externalize it on the taxpayers.
How much will you pay to fight families and take their children away?
Taking child rapists as slaves, albeit temporarily, would be profitable in many cases I believe. Prisoners/parolees are revenue generators for PDAs. Again, people will be happy to pay a little less because their security firm gets money for capturing rapists. That subscribers have to agree to not rape their own children isn't a big deal to most people.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
scineram: You don't have to fight them unless they come after you and start to fight you.
You don't have to fight them unless they come after you and start to fight you.
You have provided possibly the dumbest comment of your career.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
twistedbydsign99: Stranger:You did not answer the question. Anyone willing to fight the family will be able to take them away, but would you fight to the death to take children away from their family? If you are talking about corrupt families, I would not want to fight to the death, but perhaps a more elaborate solution. Bribe them or maybe use some subterfuge. After all a violent taking of the children will cause damage to the actual child that has to be considered. Its not as clear cut as your false analogies.
So what you are saying is that you would pay bad families in exchange for their children. How is this not a validation of the ownership of children?
Stranger: twistedbydsign99: Stranger:You did not answer the question. Anyone willing to fight the family will be able to take them away, but would you fight to the death to take children away from their family? If you are talking about corrupt families, I would not want to fight to the death, but perhaps a more elaborate solution. Bribe them or maybe use some subterfuge. After all a violent taking of the children will cause damage to the actual child that has to be considered. Its not as clear cut as your false analogies. So what you are saying is that you would pay bad families in exchange for their children. How is this not a validation of the ownership of children?
His approach is wrong, or he is talking about "ethically bad" but not "illegal bad". For instance, I could ask to buy your children to save them from having to go to church.
E. R. Olovetto: Stranger: So what you are saying is that you would pay bad families in exchange for their children. How is this not a validation of the ownership of children? His approach is wrong, or he is talking about "ethically bad" but not "illegal bad". For instance, I could ask to buy your children to save them from having to go to church.
Stranger: So what you are saying is that you would pay bad families in exchange for their children. How is this not a validation of the ownership of children?
And you would thus validate my ownership of the children.
Stranger: E. R. Olovetto: Stranger: So what you are saying is that you would pay bad families in exchange for their children. How is this not a validation of the ownership of children? His approach is wrong, or he is talking about "ethically bad" but not "illegal bad". For instance, I could ask to buy your children to save them from having to go to church. And you would thus validate my ownership of the children.
Taking a kid to church is different than raping it.
Stranger:And you would thus validate my ownership of the children.
Ownership in what sense though? I think Rothbard makes a nice distinction in Ethics of Liberty in demarcating between actual ownership and trustee ownership.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Stranger:So what you are saying is that you would pay bad families in exchange for their children. How is this not a validation of the ownership of children?
No the payment is to avoid the pain of the child seeing his parents killed which I have sympathy for and to account for my want of not engaging in physical taking of a thing.
twistedbydsign99: Stranger:So what you are saying is that you would pay bad families in exchange for their children. How is this not a validation of the ownership of children? No the payment is to avoid the pain of the child seeing his parents killed which I have sympathy for and to account for my want of not engaging in physical taking of a thing.
Semantics.
This argument is settled.
Stranger: Semantics. This argument is settled.
Yes you were arguing from something like semantics. Conflating my actions about how I would change possession of children with the actual owning of them.
E. R. Olovetto:If most people are able to determine that senseless murder is wrong and choose to uphold that value, will you call that "majority rule"?
Murder is universally wrong. As such, it is not just the majority that think it is wrong, it is everyone.
It is wrong because no one wants to be murdered, because murder implies lack of consent. If I ask you to kill me, and you do, since I gave consent, it is not considered murder. And consent implies having the ability to reason.
Killing an animal is not murder, because it cannot reason, and therefore cannot grant nor withhold consent. Killing a baby is not murder, because a baby cannot reason, and therefore is incapable of granting or withholding consent. As such, by definition, it is not murder.
Same with theft and rape. Both words imply lack of consent. And talking about consent without agreeing that a being must be able to reason, is pointless, because otherwise animals have rights too.
E. R. Olovetto:Your economic reasoning is horrid if you can't see why FoB would come about.
Raising a child without teaching the child about Christianity is IMMORAL. Most people know this. As such, in anarchy, there will be an organization that people will create called Helping Children Understand Christianity. When someone finds out his neighbor is not teaching his children about Christianity, he will call this organization. They will come and take the child from the family until the family proves they were teaching their child about Christianity. And if you are not a Christian, good luck finding someone to defend you! (I used Christianity because it is the majority religion in the U.S. In no way am I claiming that Christians would actually ever do such a thing or that they are not peaceful, loving people).
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
yes and cattle, horses, and human slaves are bought and paid for. such is the mentality.
I see the exchange of money for the children as a non-violent way to appease violent parents. maybe the only way for such parents to relate with the world without rising to conflict whether its with a son/daughter or neighbors is to pay them off. it would be a better option than battle.
wilderness:yes and cattle, horses, and human slaves are bought and paid for. such is the mentality.
Guess what, if you pay someone for their slaves, you are validating slavery.
Stranger:Guess what, if you pay someone for their slaves, you are validating slavery.
No you are buying the slaves freedom if you don't subsequently enslave the person. This would have been a more correct outcome to the civil war.
Spideynw:Raising a child without teaching the child about Christianity is IMMORAL. Most people know this. As such, in anarchy, there will be an organization that people will create called Helping Children Understand Christianity. When someone finds out his neighbor is not teaching his children about Christianity, he will call this organization. They will come and take the child from the family until the family proves they were teaching their child about Christianity. And if you are not a Christian, good luck finding someone to defend you! (I used Christianity because it is the majority religion in the U.S. In no way am I claiming that Christians would actually ever do such a thing or that they are not peaceful, loving people).
The HCUC has an invalid moral theory therefore its actions are incorrect. Their belief in god is based on faith, but they don't allow others to not believe in god based on faith. Fails non universality therefore invalid moral theory.
twistedbydsign99:This would have been a more correct outcome to the civil war.
while i was writing my post that came to mind
twistedbydsign99:The HCUC has an invalid moral theory therefore its actions are incorrect. Their belief in god is based on faith, but they don't allow others to not believe in god based on faith. Fails non universality therefore invalid moral theory.
And killing small children and having sex with small children fails universality as well. That is the point.
Spideynw: twistedbydsign99:The HCUC has an invalid moral theory therefore its actions are incorrect. Their belief in god is based on faith, but they don't allow others to not believe in god based on faith. Fails non universality therefore invalid moral theory. And killing small children and having sex with small children fails universality as well. That is the point.
Huh?
E. R. Olovetto: Spideynw: twistedbydsign99:The HCUC has an invalid moral theory therefore its actions are incorrect. Their belief in god is based on faith, but they don't allow others to not believe in god based on faith. Fails non universality therefore invalid moral theory. And killing small children and having sex with small children fails universality as well. That is the point. Huh?
Not everyone thinks it is wrong.
In that case, those folks also can't coherently or meaningfully argue against being punished for those actions.
Here is a comparison of the two philosophies:
Children have rights: All children have rights. It is debatable when they begin to have rights. Some think it starts at birth. Others at some time during pregnancy. It is completely arbitrary as to when these rights begin. As to when a parent is violating a children's rights, it is dependent upon what is "good" for the child, "good" being completely arbitrary as well. One has even admitted that anything a parent does to a child is violating her rights. The parent can only hope for the child's forgiveness once the child reaches the age of reasoning. If the parent kills the child, then (as far as I can tell) anyone can come along and has standing to bring charges against the parent and get money out of the parent. I would assume it would just be a mad rush to see who the first person is to bring charges against the parent and take all his property. Either that, or there will apparently be some organization in the market that has so much power that it can just do whatever it wants to people it knows killed their children.
Children do not have any rights: No child has any rights until the age of reasoning. Up until that point, the parent can do whatever he wants to his children. This is no different than the argument put forth by those that believe all children have rights, because even they believe before some point in time, the child does not have any rights. As stated, some believe a child has no rights before birth. Others believe it is some time during pregnancy that a child acquires rights. But even they believe that before this point, the child has no rights. But unlike the children have rights crowd, the children do not have rights crowd does not make it a criminal act for parents to raise their children or arbitrary as to when a parent is violating a child's rights. However, both groups agree that at some point in time, children reach an age of reasoning.
E. R. Olovetto: In that case, those folks also can't coherently or meaningfully argue against being punished for those actions.
I don't get how that follows. But whatever.
Spideynw: Here is a comparison of the two philosophies: Children have rights: All children have rights. It is debatable when they begin to have rights. Some think it starts at birth. Others at some time during pregnancy. It is completely arbitrary as to when these rights begin. As to when a parent is violating a children's rights, it is dependent upon what is "good" for the child, "good" being completely arbitrary as well. One has even admitted that anything a parent does to a child is violating her rights. The parent can only hope for the child's forgiveness once the child reaches the age of reasoning. If the parent kills the child, then (as far as I can tell) anyone can come along and has standing to bring charges against the parent and get money out of the parent. I would assume it would just be a mad rush to see who the first person is to bring charges against the parent and take all his property. Either that, or there will apparently be some organization in the market that has so much power that it can just do whatever it wants to people it knows killed their children. Children do not have any rights: No child has any rights until the age of reasoning. Up until that point, the parent can do whatever he wants to his children. This is no different than the argument put forth by those that believe all children have rights, because even they believe before some point in time, the child does not have any rights. As stated, some believe a child has no rights before birth. Others believe it is some time during pregnancy that a child acquires rights. But even they believe that before this point, the child has no rights. But unlike the children have rights crowd, the children do not have rights crowd does not make it a criminal act for parents to raise their children or arbitrary as to when a parent is violating a child's rights. However, both groups agree that at some point in time, children reach an age of reasoning.
Except for the obvious editorial, that's a fair summary. I'd make it even simpler: Some believe children do no have rights until they reach an "age of reasoning," while others believe children already have rights because they will reach an "age of reasoning."
faber est suae quisque fortunae
JackCuyler: Except for the obvious editorial, that's a fair summary. I'd make it even simpler: Some believe children do no have rights until they reach an "age of reasoning," while others believe children already have rights because they will reach an "age of reasoning."
Has has been pointed out, all of those also claim that at some arbitrary point in their growth children do not have rights.
Stranger: JackCuyler: Except for the obvious editorial, that's a fair summary. I'd make it even simpler: Some believe children do no have rights until they reach an "age of reasoning," while others believe children already have rights because they will reach an "age of reasoning." Has has been pointed out, all of those also claim that at some arbitrary point in their growth children do not have rights.
There you go again with your sweeping generalization fallacies. Replace all with a small minority and you'd be more accurate. Reread the thread. In a debate, it's important that you understand what your opponent is saying, and not simply assign the most easily refutable positions to him.
JackCuyler: Stranger: JackCuyler: Except for the obvious editorial, that's a fair summary. I'd make it even simpler: Some believe children do no have rights until they reach an "age of reasoning," while others believe children already have rights because they will reach an "age of reasoning." Has has been pointed out, all of those also claim that at some arbitrary point in their growth children do not have rights. There you go again with your sweeping generalization fallacies. Replace all with a small minority and you'd be more accurate. Reread the thread. In a debate, it's important that you understand what your opponent is saying, and not simply assign the most easily refutable positions to him.
Do sperm have rights mr. JackCuyler?
Stranger:Do sperm have rights mr. JackCuyler?
Didn't we go over this like 8 pages ago? DOes he really need to repeat himself or is Argumentum Ad Nauseum your only method of debating?
filc: Stranger:Do sperm have rights mr. JackCuyler? Didn't we go over this like 8 pages ago? DOes he really need to repeat himself or is Argumentum Ad Nauseum your only method of debating?
Yes he does, if he claims to be excluded from the generalization.
Stranger: filc: Stranger:Do sperm have rights mr. JackCuyler? Didn't we go over this like 8 pages ago? DOes he really need to repeat himself or is Argumentum Ad Nauseum your only method of debating? Yes he does, if he claims to be excluded from the generalization.
I think your confusing yourself Stranger. Who here has claimed that sperm were children? Is a sperm a child?
filc:I think your confusing yourself Stranger. Who here has claimed that sperm were children? Is a sperm a child?
It has the potential to become one, and so it has the potential to reason and it has potential rights.
Stranger: filc:I think your confusing yourself Stranger. Who here has claimed that sperm were children? Is a sperm a child? It has the potential to become one
It has the potential to become one
No it doesn't.
JackCuyler: Stranger: filc:I think your confusing yourself Stranger. Who here has claimed that sperm were children? Is a sperm a child? It has the potential to become one No it doesn't.
Exactly. Stranger if your going to act in desperation just spare yourself for a better argument.
Well that's an utterly arbitrary opinion.
Stranger: JackCuyler: Stranger: filc:I think your confusing yourself Stranger. Who here has claimed that sperm were children? Is a sperm a child? It has the potential to become one No it doesn't. Well that's an utterly arbitrary opinion.
No its not. It's like saying a tire lying on the street has the potential of becoming a car. That you refuse to accept reality is your problem. Ejaculating in your shower doesn't grant the potential of making babies pop out of your plumbing. There is nothing arbitrary about it. Think.
Stranger:It has the potential to become one, and so it has the potential to reason and it has potential rights.
filc: Stranger: JackCuyler: Stranger: filc:I think your confusing yourself Stranger. Who here has claimed that sperm were children? Is a sperm a child? It has the potential to become one No it doesn't. Well that's an utterly arbitrary opinion. No its not. It's like saying a tire lying on the street has the potential of becoming a car. That you refuse to accept reality is your problem. Ejaculating in your shower doesn't grant the potential of making babies pop out of your plumbing. There is nothing arbitrary about it. Think.
A car doesn't have rights, so who cares? Ejaculating in the shower means that you are destroying the sperm's potential to become a rational human being, hence you are guilty of murder.
Stranger:A car doesn't have rights, so who cares? Ejaculating in the shower means that you are destroying the sperm's potential to become a rational human being, hence you are guilty of murder.
Which begs the question, does a sperm have the potential of becoming a human? Try your best to keep these conversations from going in circles please. I hate retyping the same crap for 3+ pages as we seem to do with you.
filc: Stranger:A car doesn't have rights, so who cares? Ejaculating in the shower means that you are destroying the sperm's potential to become a rational human being, hence you are guilty of murder. Which begs the question, does a sperm have the potential of becoming a human? Try your best to keep these conversations from going in circles please. I hate retyping the same crap for 3+ pages as we seem to do with you.
It does as much as any other type of cell. You can take a blood sample and use it to clone me, and thus my blood has the potential to become a rational human being and has potential rights.
Only problem is that it doesn't, Stranger. Not unless you wish to equivocate/strawman on the way potential is being used. Do you wish to keep using your fallacious garbage, or do you want to be honest? Your choice. I suggest you make it now.