Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
. The morals align with the common knowledge of humanity for the most part, such as altruism and genuinity in actions, etc.That would mean in the heavens:
- People are obedient
- People can live with other people in peace and harmony without discrimination for the most part
- People are all similar and share similar beliefs
- People are not greedy and only take what they need
- People actually think(which ironically is something a great deal of theists lack today --- They wouldn't qualify for their own heavens!)
- People can love and enjoy life
What makes you think that these are the ingredients to Socialism/Communism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I realize I should have worded the thread differently; instead of "fuels" I should have said "adds fuel to".
That wouldn't have helped.
I'm not offering what I believe to the the explanation for gun advocacy, I'm just pointing something out which I thought contributes to it.
A contribution you have yet to substantiate. It's an offer that relies on syllogistic reasoning from premises that can only conclude a "racist" inference.
How much is anyone's guess but I thought it worth exploring.
I suspect the goal of this exploration was to make pro-gun supporters out to be "racists."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Racist judgement can be avoided by challenging the premise
No it cannot. Because if the premise of the argument is a focus on parsing statistics along the lines of so-called "race," then all pertinent judgement will be "racially discriminatory." You are the one who bears responsibility for your introduction of so-called race, and the conclusions rendered from your introduction of so-called race. Again, I suspect that this is all an attempt to disqualify the pro-gun movement by claiming the supporters are "racist." You have yet to substantiate the reason one should even consider so-called race except to pathologize a position with which you obviously disagree.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I know your position, and I'm good.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nice read. If you're interested I'd highly recommend Thomas DiLorenzo's book on the subject, "The Real Lincoln."
I'll also leave this here:
One thing about Lincoln that is widely misunderstood is that he saw abolition as a tactical means to preserve the union as the war dragged on, and he did not justify strategically conducting the civil war as a means to end slavery at ALL, under any metric, at any time.
Exactly. And in your reference it even points out how the emancipation proclamation did more to bolster Union forces and diminish confederate forces. It's grating and vexing when I hear or see people state that Lincoln instigated a war to "free the slaves" when the information on that matter is inconsistent with the narrative.
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery,”“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
Yeah, I read that part, too. His statements in the Lincoln-Douglas debates are even more damning.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I could go into great detail the amount of corruption and bribery that went on to make the 13th amendment happen, but suspect it would offend most indoctrinated people.
Please do, if you're willing.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
while not direct insults,
Those are not insults--not even a little. Even if you hearken back to my presuming your feeling threatened, I admitted to you that I was presuming this based on my assessment of your behavior. I'm having trouble understanding you can deem my responses as insults but not find any insult in calling someone lazy or spineless.
it is very obvious the tone you're talking to me with.
Isn't your measurement of my "tone" just an impression? I have a strict form of speech. Some may glean arrogance or pedantry from it, but nothing could be further from the truth. I can respond a bit sarcastically sometimes, but that's as far as it goes.
You are allowed to talk down to me though
I know, but it doesn't mean that I would.
It seems you don't want 3RU7AL to receive the tone and grilling you're giving me,
What tone and grilling am I giving you? My intention is to have you compete on the merits of your respective positions and not ad hominem arguments, which you--yes you--have instigated. Of course, and this is quite obvious, you don't have to listen to me.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No you’re not. You said Congress passed the 13th amendment 9 months after Lincoln was assassinated. You said that because you don’t understand the process for amending the Constitution - even if you went and looked it up in the last hour.
It had already been relayed to you that the 13th amendment was passed through the senate before the end of the Civil War, and Greyparrot cited the date on which the amendment was ratified--which required the approval of the senate. No looking up necessary. The "nine months" on my part was a mistake since it's not accurate. The ratification occurred about eight months after the death of Lincoln.
Do you have anything you would like to state, or would you have us continue this contest over "passing through congress" and "ratification"? Because either way, Lincoln was dead when the United States abolished legalized slavery.
Gee, why don’t you just say “it was all done by the Jews”
Why don't you look up my name?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Well genius, is ratification accomplished by Congress or the state ratification committees? You are such a dummyYou obviously don’t understand the process for amending the constitution.
I'm well aware of the process of amending the constitution. And ratification is completed when the Senate approves the resolutions of state ratification committees.
Your wrongThere are various theories about Booth's motivations. In a letter to his mother, he wrote of his desire to avenge the South.[14] Doris Kearns Goodwin has endorsed the idea that another factor was Booth's rivalry with his well-known older brother, actor Edwin Booth, who was a loyal Unionist.[15] David S. Reynolds believes that, despite disagreeing with his cause, Booth greatly admired the abolitionist John Brown;[16] Booth's sister Asia Booth Clarke quoted him as saying: "John Brown was a man inspired, the grandest character of the century!"[16][17] On April 11, Booth attended Lincoln's last speech, in which Lincoln promoted voting rights for emancipated slaves;[18] Booth said, "That means nigger citizenship. ... That is the last speech he will ever give."[19]
How are you going to claim that I'm wrong, while referencing "various theories." I'm not interested in the academic version of events. Booth was an actor, a.k.a. professional liar. What concerns me most is motive, and if you look at the history of presidential assassinations and attempted presidential assassinations, they coincide well with the involvement of International Banks.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
During our exchange you have done nothing but insult and talk to me in a degrading way.
Where have I insulted you? (Quote me verbatim.) And I can't control your impressions of my speech. I'm not talking to you in a degrading way, or attempting to talk down to you. In fact, my post just above was my best attempt at conversing with you, "eye to eye," so to speak.
If you can't handle me in any shape or form critiquing 3RU7AL failing to show up yet
My objection is not to your critiquing 3RU7AL; my objection is to your attempts at insulting him. "Lazy and/or spineless" have no place in campaign rhetoric no matter how hard you try to explain away your lexical choices.
I answer you whether you vote me or not, that is called honest exchange. At this point, I feel I have answered everything you could answer.
I haven't had much questions because as I've already stated, little to nothing has changed since last year. I responded in an attempt to defend 3RU7AL, and maintain at least some decorum during this campaign process.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Well, you idiot, the person most responsible for getting the 13th amendment through Congress was Lincoln.
No he wasn't. And you're going to contradict your argument later.
Ratification is a state by state process
No explanations necessary.
and Lincoln was dead
Exactly. So how was he the person most responsible for getting the 13th amendment through Congress when it was passed by Congress nine months after he died?
assassinated in part for his leading role in the passage of the 13th amendment.
No. He was assassinated for opposing the third, correct me if I'm wrong, central bank charter.
I already did, dummy
No, you didn't. You only expressed what you "seem" to think I think.
Let's not waste each other's time. Do you have anything else to say as far as our exchange on Lincoln, the Civil War, and/or the myth of Lincoln's presidency?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Why are you responding like you're some politician and I'm some doe-eyed prospect? Let's put our cards on the table shall we? You're attempting to insult 3RU7AL by grasping at whatever defect you can manufacture because 3RU7AL has the best chance to win should he decide to run. He has the best chance to win not only because of the buyer's remorse of those who had voted for Airmax, but also 3RU7AL has cultivated a respectful rapport with many of the members of this DART community--I would presume more so than you. You know this; I know this. And I can only presume that this recent display is an expression of your feeling threatened because as those who've interacted with you can clearly tell, you really covet this office. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. Much less, anything wrong with your running. With that said, those of us who've interacted with you know how you behave when you're not campaigning; and this influences the confidence I, and I presume some others, have in your capacity to carry out the function of this office. You can have all the confidence in the world, but it doesn't mean much without the confidence of those over whom you presume to preside. Nothing has changed since last year: my reasons for supporting 3RU7AL hasn't changed much less your reasons for running.
Only you can dictate how you conduct your campaign. And thus far, all I've seen are attempts to insult potential opponents and your bloviating and overestimating your relationship with the moderators.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Well you seem to think Generals win wars, not Presidents, so who won WWII?
Explain the relevance to our exchange, and I will respond in kind.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
After signing the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, Lincoln championed a Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery permanently in the United States. The Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves in states still at war.
He only "championed" the 13th amendment near the end of the Civil War, as he was ardent in not showing it any support beforehand, and the amendment was ratified eight months after his death under president Johnson. The emancipation proclamation only applied to confederate states--i.e. the "states still at war"--but did not apply to the border states that were still practicing slavery under Lincoln's sanction. Please, do go on.
Please, we don’t need idiots giving their uninformed opinions on US History
I agree. So why are you still offering your uninformed opinions?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Grant won the war? Oh really?
Yes.
Is that how it works.
Yes.
I guess you think the President of the United States is a figurehead.
Yes.
Which General won WWII?
What does that matter to the exchange we were having about Lincoln and the Civil War?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Recognizing the black community as the victim of gun violence more so than the purveyor.
Who here has argued or insinuated that the so-called "black community" is the purveyor of gun violence other than you? (TWS1405_2 doesn't count.)
Is it really?Let’s break this down more simply;P1: Gun violence is primarily the product of bad peopleP2: The black community has the most gun violenceC: ???Please explain how you conclude anything other than “the black community has the most bad people”.And if you can’t, please explain how that is not a racist viewpoint.
It is a racist view point not because of the contention in and of itself, but because the argument's author decides to create a premise where he parses the demographic of alleged bad people by a government's designation of so-called "race." In other words, why is the second premise even being argued? One cannot avoid racist judgement when the premise of one's analysis is so-called "race." YOU ARE THE ONE bringing up, as you have admitted, a negligible factor in what may or may not influence support of gun rights.
Case in point:
I: Only bad people rape.
You: Well, statistically speaking, so-called black people have the highest incidence of rape among their demographic.
I: Why are you bringing up so-called race?
You: Because when you say "only bad people rape," you're concluding something racist.
I: How so?
You: Because so-called black people have the highest statistical incidence of rape among their demographic.
I: But you're the one who decided to analyze my statement in the context of your arbitrary division of so-called race.
You: Yeah, that may be, but because of the statistical difference, aren't you saying that the so-called black demographic has the most bad people, thereby making you racist?
I: But I'm not even thinking that way; my assessment wasn't premised at all on so-called race, but those who commit the act of rape and those who don't. Statistical disparities borne from arbitrary divisions among these demographics have nothing to do with anything.
You: You're still racist.
I: ...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Oh no, last I checked there are something like 62 genders, do I have to learn all the different racists now? How many are there?
There are 482 types of racists by my calculations.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Lincoln freed the slaves by winning the Civil War genius
Ulysses S. Grant won the war, and the 13th amendment--which Lincoln did not publicly support--was drafted and passed through the senate before the Civil War ended. Go ahead, make this a contest over knowledge of historical events.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Aha! welcome back HB
And here I thought I was being clever and surreptitious. It's only a suspicion based on how they respond in certain subjects.
Amazing how Juneteenth is still celebrated instead of December 6, 1865....
Exactly. Lincoln was dead before the slaves were legally free. Not to mention, the Union during the Civil War protected states, which practiced slavery, for strategic purposes. It's a shame that with all the information available, the narrative surrounding Lincoln's presidency is one of a liberator when that's far from the case. The only thing worthwhile, at least in my opinion, that Lincoln did was opposing the charter of a central bank; it cost him his life, but he joined Jackson, Carnegie, and Kennedy's gambit against the international banking elite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I don’t know nor do I care if you are a racist. You already acknowledged that this is a broad conversation, so why turn it back as if this has anything to do with any individual?
Broad conversations often involve the various dynamics of this society. The fundamental component of any society is the condition of the individuals who comprise it. You shouldn't care whether or not I'm racist, because it doesn't matter as far as it concerns rights. So what is your goal in your attempt to create, though I presume you would prefer the term, "identify" this division among those who support and those who are against "gun rights," if one's being racist doesn't matter?
No. This is about diagnosing a broad political movement in broad terms in an attempt to better understand why certain positions are as prevalent as they are within our society.
Diagnosis would naturally implicate a remedy, would it not? In your submitting your allegations to this conversation's purview, what remedy, if any, do you expect to come from them?
Recognizing a prevalence for a particular position does not negate any argument which aligns with the same cause.
Did you recognize it, or are you alleging it? You're taking a legitimate contention, i.e. guns don't kill people, bad people who use guns violently do, and arguing that maintaining said contention is racist and primarily benefits racists (a tall order.) And since you admitted that racism, individually, is of no concern, then why does "racism" have any relevance in national conversation concerning gun rights? Is racism enough of a reason to create a referendum on gun rights? No?
Then it is as I suspect, and you're just attempting to disqualify the position by invoking an irrelevant platitude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You probably internally discriminate as much as everyone else does.
I'm assuming that mere discrimination isn't the premise of Double_R's allegations but "racist chauvinism" which colloquially has been conflated with racism and its adjectival qualifiers (i.e. "racist.")
Though you may not be outwardly intolerant.
No, I'm outwardly intolerant.
Racism is a misused epithet.
It really is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I did. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that there was more to your argument than what essentially is a negligible factor that may or may not "fuel"--your word, not mine--the pro-gun movement. If we're talking about a "national conversation" that excludes what you admit are plenty of reasons one can support the pro-gun movement, then ask, as a participant in this national conversation, as minimal as it may be, am I racist according to your judgement?
Or, and this is what I suspect, are you seeking an angle in which you can attempt to disqualify support for, lack of better terms, "gun rights"--i.e. alleging racism--by invoking supposed character defects that have absolutely no relevance in one's proprietary claim over guns?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Or freeing the slaves
Lincoln did not free the slaves. The emancipation proclamation was a tactic used by Lincoln to diminish the confederate army given that it only applied to the slaves in the confederacy over which, at the time, he had no authority. The border states were offered a compromise in that in exchange for their not declaring sides, they would be allowed to practice slavery under the authority of the Union. Try again, sir.
or preserving the Union?
Yes, the Civil War was a preservation of the Union.
Or delivering one of the greatest speeches of all time?
You mean like during the Lincoln-Douglas debates where he declares that mulattos and all those of African descent should be deported back to Africa?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
So presiding over a civil war makes you a bad president?
Yes, I suppose it does, especially when said president plays a part in its being ensued.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Well, he is smart.
The smart move would have been to not have voted at all.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
If someone's too lazy or spineless to show up on time,
On time? Did he miss a dinner date? The campaigning process as I understand it "began" just three days ago. If and when 3RU7AL decides to throw his hat in the race, you will eventually know. (You don't get brownie points for announcing your campaign first.)
they cannot say mud was slung at them for noticing it.
What did you in fact notice? Your own projections and perhaps insecurities--I presume--which you have trouble keeping under a lid? I mean "lazy and spineless" is a bit much, don't you think?
When 3RU7AL shows up, I will critique and attack as much as is needed
Good. Though, I would refrain from "attacking."
more so to point out that this user in the past few months has proven time and time again tobe ignorant of moderation whether it's vote moderation nuances or forum moderation nuances
Please outline the capacity of DART's president. Because it's been a year, and I believe you still don't understand what it is.
let along multi-accounting or bot-usage rules that I (yes really me) corrected.
Yes, you did Shila a service. I'm sure you'll appreciate her vote.
If that user wants to run, let them run.
Kind of obvious.
If they can't take the heat, tell them don't run.
Do you intend to turn this into a contest over ad hominems? Isn't that what alienated you last time?
I couldn't care less why you are preemptively leaping to the defense
I'm not "preemptively" leaping to his defense. I'm just leaping to his defense because you insinuated that 3RU7AL's qualifications were qualified by his recent inactivity and his alleged "failure" to meet some imaginary deadline in announcing his campaign.
If anything this is you slinging mud at me on that user's behalf.
If you say so.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
We know Trump is a moron, his own cabinet said so, but If you think this guy was a better President than Washington or Lincoln you are a moron.
All presidents have been shit, including George Washington and especially Abraham Lincoln, who I might remind presided over a Civil War. I expected more from a History Buff.
The same way. And if Obama, Clinton or Carter did that - same. There’s a reason these guys are on our money.
You mean false idolatry?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't care if 3Ru7AL runs against me or not. I was going to campaign harder against that user but I will let the posts, activity level and whatever else speak for themselves.
And what would such things say?
Notice that whomever is running against me has not even been active enough to know they had to campaign yet.
Anyone in particular? What has changed since last year? Are the platforms different? Has the office for which you seek to run changed at all?
P.S. If you're wondering where 3RU7AL has been, then message him. In all honesty, there hasn't been much going on with the site lately as far as meep discussions or our usual, run-of-the-mill contests over political, religious subjects, and the like. It's easy to stay away for some time. I myself, until today, haven't been active for about three weeks. Your slinging mud at 3RU7AL for the most minuscule of reasons had little to no effect last time; I doubt they'll have much effect this time.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If a mom takes a child's phone away, even though the child did pay for that phone then yes, the child can make an argument and take it to court.But what jury is going to take the child's side.
Unfortunately, it is commonplace for the opinions of a majority to infract upon one's proprietary right.
Well, even though someone could take their life and have no consequences (besides the fact that they are dead) it is still illegal, so no they do not have that right.
LEGAL PRIVILEGE =/= RIGHT.
I agree with you on this 100%.But, those things exist, and people who make bad desertions also exist. So, what do we do about that?
It isn't up to us to "do anything about it" unless the concerned party REQUESTS our input.
We make it legal, but only for people who have reached a certain maturity level, and age to make the decision on whether to make that decision or not.
How "mature" does one have to be make a decision on behalf of one's own self? Doesn't the fact that this division changes among not just countries but also states reflect how arbitrary these attempts to quantify maturity are? And even in the absurdity that one could quantify maturity, how are qualifications and disqualifications decided?
No. This would be a different case. In cases like this it would be acceptable, given it would save the child's life.
And what qualifies you to determine that which is acceptable for the child as it concerns that child's own body, and disqualifies the child concerned? Aren't you just making my point that you're prioritizing your own interests over said child's/person's body, making them subjects to your whim?
Well, the parent did decide to have the child in the first place
Which determines what? How does deciding to have a child create a debt to said child? If anything, wouldn't it be the other way around?
so it seems more than fair for the law to hold them up to those standards.
Please elaborate.
Because science has shown that children are immature, therefore children shouldn't make a life altering decision, given that they don't even understand their own bodies yet.
Explain how IMMATURITY = DISQUALIFICATION TO BEHAVE MY BODY AS I SEE FIT. Are there no "immature" adults?
Yes, because if the child's interest is something like killing people, then that would be illegal.
Except the focus of our discussion is the child's interest over his/her own body, not whether a child's killing people is legal or illegal. Please stay on topic.
You bring up a good point, but then there needs to be a line. At what point, does child's decision on her/his own body become morally unacceptable.
Never. The child's body belongs to the child.
Again, good point, and to answer this question, I would just tell them all the things they wouldn't be able to do with their arm. But if your child just ignores all of your points, then should the child be able to still make that decision. No because no matter how much a child argues about something, it always comes back down to the parents' choice.
So how would you attempt to prevent your child for cutting his/her arm off in the event he/she ignores your attempt at suasion?
I am very aware of who Aron Ralston is.
Then explain this:
YouFound_Lxam Post #72:
--> @AthiasAron Ralston is completely justified in amputating his own arm, but if a nine year-old were facing the same circumstances, it would be against humanity, life, nature, and all moral codes for said nine year-old to cut off his or her own arm?Yes, THAT IS MY EXACT POINT.
YouFound_Lxam Post #92:
Just to make sure I understand you correctly--your position is that a nine year-old experiencing the same unfortunate circumstances as Aron Ralston would be unjustified in amputating his/her own arm by mere virtue of his/her being nine years-old? What would the nine year-old be justified in doing under those circumstances?No. This would be a different case. In cases like this it would be acceptable, given it would save the child's life.
Why'd you change your position so suddenly?
Yes, because he was going to die.
Does that matter? What if he wasn't going to die?
All of them.
Cite or reference the text within the sources you referenced which explains/justifies the disqualification minors face when making decisions about themselves.
You would know if you listened to my argument.
I can't listen to your argument; I have read it though.
This is not a matter of what we think should happen, it's a matter of what morally right.
What is morally right about prioritizing your interests over the body of someone else?
Created:
Posted in:
--> @Novice_II:
Yeah, I am curious as well because I don't know what ComputerNerd means by "scummy tactics," or "toxic tactics." If all he means by the former is something other than a violation of the site's rules or some sort of cheating, I may not even be interested. And if all he means by the latter is me being "mean" or along those lines, I could not care less.
He probably means, for example, employing tactics like condemning and consequently blocking a voter who had cast a legitimate vote against you even though you blatantly cheated per this website's rules. And even though you went as far as to report that vote, your complaint was, without fail, rejected. I don't know for sure, but I suspect you were at least "somewhat interested."
Note that this depends on what you take a "good debater/opponent," to mean. I don't think I have beaten any good opponents because I don't believe there are any on this website with a few exceptions.
All the more reason your position on the leaderboards is superficial. Your entire debating experience on this site consists mostly of your debating Mall over the most mundane and redundant topics. If you were doing this in some attempt to expose the sometimes trivial and superficial aspect of rising through these leaderboards, then I might've respected you for it. And then to say that you don't think that there are any good opponents on this site, with a few exceptions... well, let me ask you this: what does it indicate about a debater whose behavior is consistent with seeking to be the "top among debaters," the majority of whom he does not believe is any good?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Because ownership of land is a temporary assumption
The temporal aspect of ownership is contingent on alienation.
And if only anarchy could be so passive.
Again, what is passive anarchy?
So, Mr A chooses X for himself, and everyone else chooses X for themself.So, in the absence of a greater authority to decide who is entitled to X, then what?
Do you go to court for every dispute you have or have ever had?
Well, being the U.S. I suppose the guns come out of the cupboard.Well, I would imagine that the guns would already be out in an anarchistic utopia.
Who mentioned "utopia"? Because I most certainly did not.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Legal definition of theft: Theft is the taking of another person's personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property. Also referred to as larceny.Legal definition of property: property. n. anything that is owned by a person or entity. Property is divided into two types: "real property," which is any interest in land, real estate, growing plants or the improvements on it, and "personal property" (sometimes called "personality"), which is everything else.The child was gifted this item. It was bought and given by the parent. If you really think it is theft to punish your kids by taking away things you gave them, then I suggest you take it up with the law.Kids can't and don't legally own anything without legal documentation of the parents saying they do.
Malarkey. Minors have a legal right to personal possessions, such as that which they acquire through purchase, gift, or trade, so long as those items weren't acquired through contract, which minors can't enter without a parent's cosign. So for example, if a 12 year-old minor is gifted an PS5 by a friend, then legally the parents have no ownership over it; if said 12 year-old uses a five dollar reward after helping a neighbor straighten out his/her garage to purchase sweets, then legally, the parents have no ownership over it. If the parents gift their 12 year-old minor a flat-screen TV, a gift being a legal transfer of property, then the parents no longer have ownership over it. And this is just analyzing it from a legal standpoint.
Laws and regulations don't even let kids have their parents' inheritance until they are 18 years of age.
Three guesses as to where I stand on that?
Yes, the arm does belong to the kid,
Good, we've come to an understanding.
but you don't want to use that argument
I'm already using that argument.
because I could say the same about the kid's life.
You could.
So is it morally right, and does the kid have the right to take his own life.
Yes. Every individual, minor or adult has the right to take his or her own life.
Now I don't know about you, but I wouldn't argue that suicide is morally ok.
I would, but that subject can be discussed more in depth elsewhere.
What flawed reasoning?
Athias Post #66:
And if you're not conceding that the kid's arm belongs to said kid, then you're are tacitly suggesting that the kid's body belongs to his parents or the State. And if that's the case, you are applying the same flawed reasoning as YouFound_Lxam. Because if the parents' or State's interests over an individual's body matter more or take priority, then you have no choice but to accept the logical extension of your premise which would even be maintained under circumstances where the State coerces these children or parents coerce their children into physical transitions.
Yes, this is exactly what parents can do. This is why we need good parents to RAISE good kids.
No disagreement, here.
This is wrong. This exact thinking is why our society is declining. People are thinking too hard into argument about why it's right for a kid to do what they want with their body, BUT ITS NOT. There is a reason that kids aren't allowed to drink, get tattoos, own guns, own property or businesses, or make medically life changing decisions, because if that was all legal, then most of the kids in the world, who have parents that don't care for or love them will not make it.
It's difficult to instruct kids on certain directives if the adults around them don't set a proper example. Personally, I don't think kids should drink, do drugs, or get tattoos. But you know what? I don't think adults should either. (My opinion is not affected by some arbitrary division.) With that said, my interests don't at all qualify or modify their right to behave their bodies as they see fit. Individual autonomy is fundamental to bettering a society. We are either individuals or subjects to the few.
Yes, THAT IS MY EXACT POINT.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly--your position is that a nine year-old experiencing the same unfortunate circumstances as Aron Ralston would be unjustified in amputating his/her own arm by mere virtue of his/her being nine years-old? What would the nine year-old be justified in doing under those circumstances?
If parents weren't legally responsible for their children, there would be a lot more child abuse than if they weren't your contradicting yourself.
Where did I contradict myself? Point out or reference the argument I contradicted.
This is just what happens when one parent is gone from the household.
I am by no means endorsing that parent's shouldn't assume responsibility for their children. My position is that this responsibility shouldn't be the consequence of coercion. Parents' time, labor, and resources ARE GIFTS, NOT DEBTS.
Yes, they are different, because if you have a kid who wants to chop off their limb when they are a child, then they are too scientifically immature to see the consequences,
How does science qualify one's capacity to bear interest over one's own body? Isn't the science angle just a red herring? After all, we are discussing the abstract, right? You're essentially trying to add credibility to your stance by employing some pseudo-scientific platitude. How many years of experimentation and lab trials did it take for my desires over my body to become legitimate? What about countries and cultures all over the word who have either a lower or higher age of majority than the United States? Did they ignore "the science"?
By the time that comes around, they will have learned years more experience about the world. If they don't learn, that's on either you the parent, or their ignorance. But there is a huge chance they will just laugh off how stupid they were when they were a child.
You're projecting.
Of course, your child is allowed to have interests
So long as those interests are under the parents' or State's command, relegating said child as property of the parents and/or State.
but since you as the parent love your child
One can love one's child and respect the fact that one's child's body belongs to the child.
you don't want them to hurt themselves
Then persuade your child against it. Thought experiment: if your child wanted to cut their arm off, what would you do?
Aron Ralston had to cut off his arm, because he would have died if he hadn't.
I'm going to presume that you didn't know who Aron Ralston was when you first responded to my statement.
He didn't just feel like doing that,
Never said that he did.
he had to sacrifice his body part to save something more important, his life.
Which was first and foremost, HIS DECISION. If he decided to stay and die because he couldn't bear the thought of experiencing the pain of amputating his own arm with a dull knife, then that would have been up to him as well. It wouldn't have mattered whether you or I thought it was justified. It only mattered what he thought. It's his body; his choice.
If you're going to use Aron Ralston to argue this, then that's a bad example.
It's actually the perfect example. It demonstrates that your stances are mostly opinionated. They're inconsistent, lack principle, and change with the circumstances.
"During adolescence, brains undergo continued growth, and different sections of the brain develop at different rates. The emotional centers of the brain, towards the middle and back, develop first. Maybe you’ve heard of the amygdala or hippocampus before — these are the areas of the brain that play a big part in how people feel and react. On the other hand, the front part of the brain, the prefrontal cortex, is involved in reasoning and weighing decisions. Adolescents’ emotional centers mature before their decision-making centers. In other words, teen brains are programmed to have strongly developed emotional responses even as the part of the brain that interprets and calms those emotions is still actively developing."
Which among these sources DISQUALIFIES a minor's capacity to not only bear interests over his or her body but also retain priority over how his or her body is behaved?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
So you are a pacifist?
In accordance to its strictest definition, no.
You’re clearly someone who does not believe in punishment
How do you figure?
Scientifically not really.
Please explain how Science qualifies spanking.
So if I buy a PS5 for my kid and then take it away, it’s theft?
Yes.
What if I threaten to kick my child out of the house?
No. Your house belongs to you or the bank from which you mortgage it.
So what punishment would be fine. None according to you. Essentially, you believe kids shouldn’t be disciplined
I believe children should be instructed, which can involve punishment as long as it does not involve coercion or violence.
It’s very clearly: children should not allowed to make life altering decisions like chopping off their genitalia or their arm
Why does anyone's interests over their arm or genitalia matter more than the children to whom they belong?
False. Making a life altering decision like chopping your arm off as a 9 year old is wrong and goes against the concept of not just humanity, but life and nature itself from a moral standpoint.
First, how is any of this "scientific"? What tenets or items in the concept of humanity, life, or nature expressly condemns one's chopping one's arm off if one chooses to do so? Case in point: Aron Ralston is completely justified in amputating his own arm, but if a nine year-old were facing the same circumstances, it would be against humanity, life, nature, and all moral codes for said nine year-old to cut off his or her own arm?
If a child is not susceptible to a parents punishment, the parent becomes the slave, no?
Yes. (And this is your better contention.) Because parents have plenary responsibility, it would only make sense that they have plenary authority. I'm not at all suggesting that parents should be legally responsible for their children. In fact, I've always argued against it.
That’s a red herring.
No, it's not.
Of course the kid operates his own arm.
This is the red herring. There's no dispute over a child operating his or her own arm. The dispute is over the person to whom that arm BELONGS, and the implications of possessing one's own body.
You wouldn’t have killed Osama bin Laden with your philosophy
Why would I kill Osama Bin Laden?
Hell your philosophy wouldn’t allow handcuffs because it causes “harm”
Okay. And?
Your perspective neglects every other, theory. Freedom theory does not overwhelm utilitarianism or virtue ethics in this scenario.
Please cite which tenet of Utilitarian theory, or Virtue Ethics is being neglected?
False. I am stating that it’s in the kids own self interest objectively not to chop off their harm.
Nonsense. First, objectivity is irrational. Second, self-interests can only be gauged by the self. What you have stated here is nothing more than a platitude you and others use to justify forcing your own "subjective" interests on someone else--in this case, kids.
The fact that you disagree with this objective premise...
Again, objectivity is irrational. There's no observation you can exhibit or represent that isn't subject to the bias of yourself.
Your freedom theory viewpoint holds no weight here in an objective realm
Of course it doesn't; because, unlike objectivity, Freedom theory is rational.
They’re not my interests.
Of course they are. If your child states to you his or her intentions to cut his or her arm off, and you don't want that child to cut his or her arm off, then whose interest are they?
As a parent I would never let my child chop off their genitalia or their arm period until they’re 18.
What's the difference? Aren't the consequences the same?
The fact that you would be fine with this scares me.
No offense, but I'm not particularly interested in how others "feel" when it concerns one's propriety discretion over one's body.
Have a nice day
Your call.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Private property isn't really a thing in America for most people due to regulations and taxes. If you cannot say no, you do not really own it.No is the measure of true power.
No argument here that the United States doesn't respect private property. Hence my objection.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Why should a parent stop at coercion or violence?
Because applying coercion or violence both violates and harms the child, the very prospect which their "parenting" alleges it's preventing.
Is spanking really that bad?
Yes.
Is taking away toys videogames not a use of coercion.
If it was gifted to the child, then its theft.
Your premise is inherently flawed.
No, it isn't. If you have a contention, state it clearly, and provide your reasoning.
It’s pretty clear. A 9-year old should not be able to make a life altering decision such as chopping their arm off or getting their genitalia cut off when they are scientifically unable to gauge the consequences of their decisions.
"Scientifically" gauging the consequences of one's decision is by no means a benchmark for one's capacity to act in accordance to one's own interests as it concerns one's own body--the only interests which matter when exercising discretion over one's possessions and belongings. I ask you again, "to whom does said kid's arm belong? Who has more priority over how its treated than the one to whom it belongs?" There's only one answer to these questions, ILikePie5. And if you're not conceding that the kid's arm belongs to said kid, then you're are tacitly suggesting that the kid's body belongs to his parents or the State. And if that's the case, you are applying the same flawed reasoning as YouFound_Lxam. Because if the parents' or State's interests over an individual's body matter more or take priority, then you have no choice but to accept the logical extension of your premise which would even be maintained under circumstances where the State coerces these children or parents coerce their children into physical transitions.
Your reasoning, ILikePie5, is not sound. Your reasoning is tantamount to, "coercion is fine, so long as it's being applied in service to my interests." What happens when it's not? Why do your interests matter at all as it concerns someone else's property--in this case, one's own body?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
For many people, fear.
Please elaborate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You do not own anything if you cannot say "no"
What prevents one from saying, "no"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Because the first day of the week is when Jesus rose from the dead.
Which would, by our calendar, have been on Saturday evening.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
So we should let kids cut off their arm if they want? Is this the hill you really want to die on?
To whom does said kid's arm belong? Who has more priority over how its treated than the one to whom it belongs? And you don't just have to "let" kids cut their arms off; as I stated, parents can exhaust every measure possible to persuade their kids as long as it does not involve coercion or violence.
The hill on which I'm willing to die, ILikePie5, is that no one dictates how I--or anyone else--behave my body other than I, whether I'm nine years-old, or ninety. If you have a contention, state it clearly, and provide your reasoning.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
No one ever claimed that there was no difference between parents and government, so you are refuting an argument no one ever made.The argument that was made is that the justification for taking away choices is the same, which you failed to refute since you didnt find a difference in justification of each case.What justification can you use to take away choices from young people, but that the government cant use to take away choices from you?
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
"Any parent can tell you that what a child wants at age nine isn't what they wanted at eight"You dont understand the basic principle of individual sovereignty.It is not about fullfilling every desire an individual has.If child wants money to buy an iphone, parents have no obligation to provide the money.If child has money to buy an iphone, parents have no right to force a child not to buy.They can only talk with a child, assuming child wants to talk, until child changes opinion without force or violation of sovereignty.Individual sovereignty is not about "you deciding who has sovereignty". It is about "you realizing that everyone has sovereignty".
So you disagree with government taking away your choice?But you agree that choices should be taken away from young people by using the same justification as the government does when taking choice away from you?
Government thinks that you are too immature and uses that thinking to take away your choices from you.So government uses your thinking.Also, some young people of today will be members of the government in the future when they are older.Since you taught them that its okay to take away choices from others if you find them immature, it is really just a wonderful cycle closing in on your people.
Can government use the same logic and think that you have no ability to comprehend important decisions and situations?You want to take away choice from young people because you think you know better, so do you agree that government should be able to take away your choice if government thinks that it knows better than you?
Is the comparison wrong, and why?Both government and parenting are based upon choices being taken away because someone thinks he knows better than others.
Great points.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
How about instead of choosing an age, we use a responsibility level instead. When you move out of your mommy and daddies house, pay all your own bills and rent you can choose your sexuality. That includes paying for everything related to your sexuality choice.
And this is the leverage parents can use to persuade their children. I personally take no issue with parents refusing to enable their child's sexual behavior under the auspices of the provisions and resources they provide.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
don't see how societies power is an illusion,Though I would agree it is made of smaller groups,Perhaps country the largest group, then smaller factions within, smaller faction withing those factions, and so on.
Because the allusion to "society" is no more than a placeholder for whomever believes they have priority in dictating how others should behave with one's self and resources.
I would agree there is some inconsistency in the terminology of consent, even for adults,But would argue this is why additional clarifiers are often made in arguments, such as informed consent, in medical for example.
Informed consent attempts to prevent undue influence a physician or medical professional may have as a result of asymmetric information (not to mention, preventing the prospect of lawsuits and issues with liability.) This does not translate well when it simply refers to consent, hard as one may try. Because one cannot justify how one is misinformed or under-informed when it comes to one's own intentions and desires as it concerns oneself.
I'd agree I see great value in one's right to themself,A society that uses people for the good of the many,Or some utilitarian goal,I find a bit dislikable,And admit such is even in American society, the military draft for example.
Measures to conscript others into one's own agenda under the pretext of the "common good."
For younger individuals,They've yet to acquire the ability to make living wills,As opposed to older individuals,If an older individual failed to make preparations, then lost their mind, it can be difficult to know what they would have wanted.
How old one must be to act best in service to oneself? Is this even possible if others are coercing one to follow their prescriptions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Anarchy being every person for themself.Which is OK until everyone decides upon anarchy.
Correction: Anarchy is every person choosing for themselves. One cooperates as it suits them; one dissociates as it suits them.
And possessions are temporary adornments, and all ownership of land is theft.
Because?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Voluntary Taxation = Donation.
The government wouldn't receive a dime from me. If I, however, were asked to contribute in order to maintain certain public goods and services, I would happily do so, as long as the arrangement is between those who donate and the private/independent contractors themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So, would you accept the label of anarchist.
Yes.
Albeit a passive anarchist (another assumption)
What's a passive anarchist?
Though it seems that you tolerate the current system as I do
I don't tolerate it. I just haven't abandoned my land and possessions.
sort of along for the ride as long as a reasonably stable status quo is maintained
If there's a ride, I'm not on it. I do my best to persuade those whom I know, and encounter--if the subject comes up, of course.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Athias, you've obviously never had a child
Naturally, you would know this.
any parent can tell you just how preposterous your position is.
I'm sure many would, given that my position would seek to undermine the authority they allege to have over their children.
Children simply aren't viable on thier own
This is true at certain ages, and not so true at others.
they need a parent or guardian to help them develop into an independent, responsible adult.
Not really. It certainly helps, though.
Any parent can tell you that what a child wants at age nine isn't what they wanted at eight, and won't be what they want at ten, a nine year old lacks the maturity and simply isn't responsible enough to make such life decisions, at nine they are probably just as likely to feel they are a Unicorn trapped in a human body.
I would imagine that this is true for everyone. Even at my advanced age of "mumble-mumble" years-old, I can tell you some of the things I want now isn't the same as what I wanted when I was 21, or even eighteen. What's your point? That people change their minds?
There is a reason that the parent or guardian is legally responsible for raising the child
Non sequitur. No one has argued that there isn't a reason that parents and/or guardians are responsible for raising a child. My contention is that the nature of this arrangement between parent and child should not involve the capacity to coerce.
children are necessarily dependent upon a parent or guardian because they simply aren't capable of surviving on thier own.
Again, true at certain ages, not so true at others.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Freedom, 'is important to people, often.Societies interest takes priority, because of power.Society, assumably has more power than the individual, or few,Though the individual or few may still wish to follow their own values.
Society's power is an illusion, as is the process with which this society--i.e. the United States--resolves its disputes, a.k.a. democracy. It's no more than a contest between eager posses and gangs.
I'd agree it's a fair bit cr*ppy, to be 'born into an expectation/contract.Children put their name on their homework, signifying ownership of the answers given to the questions,Though that's not quite a 'contract, I suppose.Going by this random bit of internet,"A child under the age of 18 is considered a minor and can only sign a contract if it is essential items. Essential goods include medicines, food and medical services. Otherwise, the minor child must have the consent of a parent or guardian to the contract for it to be legally binding.". . .It doesn't sound that minors can contract, generally speaking,Though it sounds more 'legal, than philosophical.
I'm not suggesting that children can't enter contracts philosophically; only that it would be inconsistent to argue those same children can't "consent" but not maintain the same reasoning/premise and suggest they can enter a contract.
Going off the grid is required, I'd argue,Due to interactions had with society,Laws are ever existing in humans,Even in gated communities, city limits, small laws exist.
And which law matters more than one that acknowledges and ensures one's right to oneself?
There exists adults of weak information and power,There exist minors of information and power,But minors perhaps are more often 'not informed or in power, also hormones, in care of guardians,Very old individuals, also at times not informed, not in power, dementia, aged weak muscle, in care of nursing home.
Exactly. So why is the priority of these the considerations given to outside parties, and not the involved parties to whom these considerations chiefly concern?
America is still big on individual power, but 'not 'completely.
That's mostly narrative.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
People aren't property though,Not objects, that is, (kind of)
What is a person without the most fundamental discretion he or she can possess: the discretion to behave him or herself?
Measure of extreme is decided by society mostly,Also individuals involved I suppose,Society makes laws,Some kids run away,Other people's measure matters because of power.Society doesn't like it when parent breaks their babies bones for crying, and society has the developed morals, laws, and power, to hold the guardian accountable.
But that's the thing: why oppose, for example, societies which decide that 10 year-old girls should be brides? Or that children should be conscripted into their militaries? Why does "society's" interest take priority over the individual in matters of his or her person?
I suppose the anecdotal accounts give example that we are 'not islands unto ourselves,Mob rule, well , yes, I suppose,Basic Social contract - Wikipedia theory, I'd say,
Can children sign contracts? (I'm being facetious in order to undermine the notion of a social contract that one has not seen and with which one has not agreed.)
It's mildly annoying to be influenced by society at times, I suppose, but unless I want to go off the grid into the wild. . . .
Why does it necessitate one's going off the grid? Why not just leave one to one's own devices?
How well informed, minimum parity of power,
It begs the question: how well informed must one be? How much power must meet parity? Sexual contact is not complicated. Despite my personal protests, it wouldn't be my decision. Or, it shouldn't be my decision to dictate how someone else behaves his or her body.
I suppose as you say, society can just say 'legally can't consent.
And this suggests that one's interests, even over one's body, don't matter.
Created: