Which part is stupid? Seriously. Is it my claim that human children are human? The statement is self evident.
That being human is, in any way, significant to whether or not one has rights.
How is this question relevant to whether or not children have rights?
What are they? BTW, I only answer questions that are relevant. I will list why I think they are not relevant if I deem them as such.
And this is relevant to whether or not children have rights how?
Did I say one is not? Regardless, how is this question relevant?
How is this question relevant? I could ask the same of you.
How is this question relevant? I could ask almost the exact same question to you. Can children have sex and choose to die at age 5? How do you measure rational capacity?
How is this question relevant? Sperm is the father’s property. What is wrong with a father that wants to keep his sperm that becomes his child that becomes his adult child chained in the basement for 30 years?
Same back at you.
That is the question I asked you. How can sperm arbitrarily stop being property at X random age?
Same back at you. Question is really irrelevant, since it applies to both of us
If I own my sperm, the child that is created from the sperm has no rights to bring her case to arbitration, since the child has no rights to her body. The body is mine. How is your definition NOT arbitrary?
I already tried to explain to you the similarities between the two philosophies. Both philosophies assumes the child does not have rights before some point, and then has rights after some other point in time. The main difference comes down to the fact that your philosophy either makes everything a parent does to a child criminal or leaves it up to completely subjective criteria as to when it is right or wrong to do something to a child. My philosophy does not make parents criminals.
And when did I ever make such a claim?
Someone here thinks that is the case? Because I sure don’t.
When has it ever been disputed in this thread as to what is or is not human?
And it is up to YOU to prove I have ever claimed children are not human.
Evasion is never a good sign.
its clear that filc and spidey disagree. but evasion?
I havn’t even got to a point where I can disagree because I have yet to see a coherent explanation of his position. I’m not trying to attack Spidey. I’m trying to understand the principles hes advocating. I’m trying to understand why X is applied here but not there. All I want is a simple yes/no response from Spidey and an explanation of why. What I get instead is a hostile response, evasion, and no effort whatsoever to explain his argument.
Short witty responses do not explain one’s position.
Now if Spidey can coherently explain in full his position while addressing the items I pointed out then I can agree to disagree, but at this poitn I don’t even know if I can disagree because I have yet to understand fully his position.
Responding with “This has nothing to do with childrends rights” is clear evasion, because my direct line of questioning is asking WHY it has nothing to do with children’s rights. I am asking why is his position arbitrarily directed at children and not at other humans incapable of reason. I’m asking what makes his assignment not arbitrary. If he doesn’t want to answer fine than don’t answer, but the response he provided above is clear evasion.
Quiet frankly isn’t it pretty evident?
You guys still think political philosophy is about proof and disproof rather than reasonable argumentation?
Do you actually read posts before you hit reply, or just skim and assume the rest? If it was the former, than this shows a serious lack of reading comprehension skills. Here, I’ll spell it out for you:
Now notice the concept of rights was not mentioned. We can see, however, a claim that children (not sperm) will, under certain circumstances, die “before becoming humans”. This implies that children are not yet human. He did not say, “before gaining rights,” nor, “before gaining reason,” but rather, “before becoming humans.”
I then corrected him.
Again, notice I did not mention rights or reason, merely corrected his glaring error. You demonstrated your mastery of reading comprehension when you called my line of thought “stupid”. A short time later, however, you came up with this:
And while you did not make the claim outright, you called the line of reasoning that children are human, “stupid” – evidence, if not proof.
And rightly so.
I said:
How you get that this means I called the line of reasoning that children are human is stupid is beyond me.
You don’t from that. However, I said
and you replied
I don’t know how you infer a claim that being human is, in any way, significant to whether or not one has rights from “Children already are humans.”
Because the sperm in my testicles do not have the potential to become humans–by themselves. I’m hoping you won’t deny that, for that would mean you’d be disputing the laws of nature and scientific fact. Wouldn’t want that.
Except that it doesn’t. As with Stranger: do not use strawmen.
And children do not have the potential to become adults by themselves either. What is your point?
Yes, they do. They do not require an egg for fertilization. They will grow as part of a natural process. Now you’re guilty of being willfully dishonest. Please bow out of the thread.
No, I said:
However, I will concede that posting that in reply to your post really makes no sense, given that you said nothing in that particular post about humans having rights. So, my apologies.
Really? So if I leave my newborn baby on the floor, it will magically grow by itself? Could you please enlighten us on how this can occur?
Yes, really. You know what we’re talking about, and you’re deliberately creating strawmen. Please leave this thread, for you are not honest enough to be here.
This is for the folks too lazy to read one or two journal articles, or listen to an audio lecture.
= Win.