You are correct, and had my keyboard rights, I would have violated them.
But you’re suggesting this involves thought. How rude of you.
Again, what is there for liberty student to tackle, since Daniel Muffinburg’s entire point rests on him begging the question as to whether parents have a responsibility to maintain their child?
Oh, Gawd. I was no where near 100% sure on my position. It was a hasty response to LS’s question, which, inadvertently derailed a thread that was already derailed.
No it doesn’t tacoface. Daniel makes a statement and LS asks a question that g-d knows what that question has to do with anything.
It’s obvious why LS asked the question.
but the very reason it lacks rights is that “consent” and “refusal” are teleological terms erroneously applicable to an object impervious to teleological analysis . in lay terms we dont explain the keyboards ‘behaviour’ by considering its ‘point of view’ and its ‘reasons’ and ‘motivations’. its is not a moral agent. it lacks reason and will.
the keyboard does not give consent or refuse it, it is not amongst the realm of things that could do so. the challenge is to demonstrate where the boundary is vis the development of a material-with-human-dna to human-being
No. It is not obvious.
Isn’t that what the AI people do?
they are certainly involved . An aside: I studied AI as a substantial portion of my undergraduate degree. interesting stuff
I am not “nitpicking”. If by, not be completely consistent and more consistent than the alternative, you mean completely inconsistent, I agree with you. Your position is that some beings who presumably will think rationally sometime in the future have rights, while other beings who presumably will think rationally sometime in the future do not. The only distinction between the two is an arbitrary amount of time. I honestly cannot think of a more inconsistent argument.
Sex with a being with rights, without consent, is a violation of those rights. Violations of rights should be illegal. Sex with a cow should not be illegal, regardless of consent, because a cow has no rights. Typing on my keyboard, without its consent, should not be illegal, because my keyboard has no rights. Sex with an unconscious woman should be illegal, because she is unable to consent, and it’s presumed that at some point in the future, she will be able to think critically, and therefore has rights. Sex with a baby/toddler should be illegal, because the baby/toddler is unable to consent, and it’s presumed that at some point in the future, the baby/toddler will be able to think critically, and therefore has rights. Do you see how this position, the alternative to yours, is completely consistent? No need for any exceptions or arbitrary boundaries between who has rights and who doesn’t.
This is of a question of enforceability, not legality. I grant that it may be difficult, or even impossible, to bring every case of rights violations to justice. That does not mean that these violations do not exist, nor does it somehow magically transform these acts of aggression into non-aggression. However, here again, you are ignoring time. There is no reason to think that in a stateless society, there would be the equivalents of the state’s statutes of limitations. That is, there’s nothing stopping an adult for taking a parent to court for crimes committed against him or her when he or she was a child. The diddled five year old will grow up to be an angry eighteen year old who will drag Dad to court. By the right of being the victim, to answer the second question.
There are other alternatives, of course. We really cannot predict how a stateless society would handle such things. Here are two possible scenarios.
As a parent is a custodian of the child’s rights, physical/sexual abuse could certainly be seen as an abandonment of that custodianship. This would allow that custodianship to be homesteaded. If it became public knowledge that you are raping your toddler, anyone could homestead the custodianship of your child’s right, removing him from your home, by force if necessary.
Even if not seen as legal, your neighbors could simply take the child, and shoot you if you try and interfere. While this would apparently violate your rights, who would prosecute? What jury would convict? Would the shooter be seen as a convict or a hero? Rights violation or not, who would do anything about it? Do you think those who engage in sex with small children would somehow become more popular in a stateless society?
I agree. My position, however, is that a fetus/infant/toddler/child has rights due to the fact that he or she will be a moral agent sometime in the future, in exactly the same way that an unconscious person has rights.
Lack of consent is not the same as refusal, and should not be confused. Saying, “Yes,” is consent. Saying nothing is neither consent nor refusal. When it comes to sex, there is either consent (a conscious choice) or there is rape. There does not need to be refusal for there to be rape, only the lack of consent.
this is only true when you view consent and refusal as explicit materialised movements. they do not conceive of consent and refusal as the teleological categories that they are. your perception is skewed entirely to outward appearances
unconscious people are merely people that do not engage in outward behaviours. their reasoning and their willing goes on unobserved by outsiders, and they may lack self awareness. the fact that people can forget that they had particular thoughts at particular times in their past does not mean that at those times they did not have thoughts.
consciousness has two meanings i am aware of, one is referrent to external appearances, the person is unconcious they don’t respond to external stimuli as you might expect a ‘concious’ person to. what does this tell us about their reason and their will?
another meaning i am aware of is particular kind of self-awareness. but in the absence of this reflective, inner-looking view, does this mean that nothing is being viewed, nothing thought, no use of reason or will? these are thorny questions…
Interesting, this thread has turned into an episode of Star Trek.
That and “The Drumhead” are two of my favorite episodes.
thank you, i enjoyed that very much. I almost laughed at the ‘Do you?!’ part, in a Chief Wiggum kind of way
I just finished watching part of the Drumhead in the related video section. Quite the coincidence I must say.
Specifically, what did you like about the two episodes?
Would those who are pro child ‘ownership’ please reconcile these two issues.
Issue A) If the child is owned how can she steal ownership of her body away from the original owner, the parent? In other words, if I own the child how is it that I arbitrarily stop owning her because she ages? If she is property how is your argument not arbitrary that your property rights to that child somehow are lost by the childs age or awareness. How can you treat the child on the one hand property just like a TV, Horse, or a bench, and than on the other hand grant an arbitrary exception of age? If I own her she is mine, she can’t just come to me and say that I no longer own her because shes 23. She’s mine. I own her.
Issue B) If you agree that this person inherently enters into a state of being owned how can you use the opposite premise to oppose social contract? In other words, if you believe it is legitimate that a child is born into slavery against her/his consent than arn’t they just as liable to being born into a contract, and/or social contract without their consent?
The concept that the unmatured can be considered property as a car is property seems to fumble on those points.
I’d like it if someone explained how those two items can be reconciled.
Because it then becomes an argument between parent and child instead of an argument between parent and random other adult.
The problem is ridiculous anyway. Family bonds and debts remain over the generations, and the parent continues to control the child through the process of inheritance (if the parent is wise enough to set aside an inheritance).
Not true. The argument I am hearing is that the child is owned. It matters not that she is my child or I gave birth to her. Those details just outlined how i came into ownership of her. If I understand spidey’s argument correctly than I own the child entirely. The Parent/child relationship is just another aspect of that ownership. But the child is property, according to spidey, my property.
I’m not saying I agree to it. I’m asking how the child arbitrarily stops becoming property simply out of self awareness or rational thought. If a child can think themselves out of ownership my argument is I never really owned the child in the first place and the child is not my property. Had the child been my property she could never leave, she’d be my slave until I gave her permission to go.
If we want to call children property we can’t make up arbitrary rules on the fly. Either they are property, and they are owned indefinitely until traded away or set free, or they are not property.