I’m with Block on this. But I fail to see how this is related to Spidey inserting his penis into a 3-year-old.
Does the 3-year old not have negative right to not have Spidey insert his penis into the 3-year-old?
No, I implied all killing is illegal. Not that all killing is not illegal.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal - Steal " to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment." Do you now think stealing is the same as copying just because the dictionary says so?
A pacifist would be more consistent than you or I.
I won’t agree that “all” morality is subjective. But I do know that if we decided genetic defects were a good thing to have around, we wouldn’t survive for long.
Really? So, if I think my neighbor is not raising his child like I think he should, I can take his child from him?
Feel free to find me some objective morality. Otherwise, it is all subjective. The burden of proof is on you, since it should be easy to find one simple little example, whereas impossible for me to address every moral decision.
And genetic defects have what to do with how one treats his child?
I fail see how you would have a better claim to child than the parents.
Sorry, I don’t know Blocks position, could you explain?
You said the parents had a responsibility to maintain the child and insertion of a penis wouldn’t fall under that. I asked you, where this responsibility came from, and whether you believe the child has placed a positive obligation on the parents. Then I asked about abortion, expecting you to make the connection that if you support evictionism, then you have a hard time reconciling that with a positive obligation by the child.
Is that an accurate summation?
I don’t understand this. I asked you if your assertion of a role was based on your preference or on an objective ethic. I’m not the one making any claims about the child one way or another. You are. I think the burden of proof is on you to support your position.
I know better than to make any claims on this, because I will admit I don’t have answers.
No. You claimed that some libertarians say that murder is consistent with libertarianism. I then went on to disprove that.
Why would think that appropriation is the same as copying?
I fail to understand your point.
I’m sorry, I wasn’t referring to molestation or child abuse, merely your claim that children have no rights.
Why do humans have rights?
You are just choosing an arbitrary amount of time to wait for someone to gain “the ability to think critically and to communicate with other humans.” Waking up takes seconds to days, depending on the type of sleep. Growing up takes years. Why does the longer time frame negate the child’s rights?
I don’t. That is the point. How you think I should treat my child is completely irrelevant, because it is my child, which includes whatever your definition of “child abuse” is.
You claim that parents have a responsibility to maintain their children. Really? Then how are you going to enforce your standards? Who gets to decide? Who decides how much they eat? How much they sleep? When to start teaching them how to read? Whether or not to spank them? Whether or not to lock them in their rooms at night? How much television they can watch? Etc., etc.
I could easily claim that my neighbor is “abusing” his child by not feeding his child enough. Then what? I get to take the child, just because I don’t like how he is caring for his child? Or do you claim some super powerful PDA will be able to take away the child, because “no one would pay for a PDA that would protect those evil “child abusers””?
I just had a thought on this dispute, forgive me if such a solution has already been tauted. With regard to the issue of the rights of a 3 year old could the issue be settled in the following way:
A human being that has the potentiality to use their reason and judgement, despite not being conscious and fully “human” at that present moment we may reason to still have his property rights not to be encroached on, e.g. you’re not allowed to kill me while I’m asleep or in a coma, because the potentiality exists that I may awake and resume my human faculties. Similiarly, a child has the potential to display fully rational faculties, though they may not be realised in the moment, and based on this still has the right not to be violated. This would render rape of such a child illegal.
The only area where this could become a problem however is that this principle may be considered too wide ranging, e.g. is dressing the child and making it go through potty training while it cries and resists violating its property rights etc…
I fail to see why it is necessarily a positive obligation. Since you made the claim that it is, please explain.
LS, make the case that Spidey inserting his penis into a non-consenting 3-year-old is not rape. My claim is that it was rape by mere definition. Your argument with me and my argument with Spidey since then derives from that claim.
No, on the one hand, you don’t have to wait for one to wake up. You just wake the person up. On the other hand, you do have to wait for the person to develop. By that time, the time is past. So on the one hand, the time has not passed, and on the other it has.
Why does the fact that an animal does not have the potential for critical thought negate the animal’s rights?
Only half true. To grant consent implies she has the ability to think critically. To withhold consent, all she has to do is stand mute. You do not have the right to put your penis in her orifice without her consent under any circumstances. Since you agree she does not have the ability to think critically, and therefore cannot offer meaningful consent, you must wait until she has that ability. Just as you must wait for the sleeping woman to awake before you put your penis in her orifice, you must wait for the child to grow up.
The inability to consent does not imply consent.
Straw man. You made the claim that inserting your penis into a non-consenting 3-year-old is not rape. I made the claim that it was rape by definition.
Who ever has the better claim to them.
Straw man.
Then where does this role/responsibility originate?
To recap;
Why? I never asserted that. You make the case that Santa Claus is a 30 foot giant with 4 heads. Do it. Now. Right now. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 DO IT. [;)]
Right, because the parents don’t have consent because they have a responsibility that transcends the lack of consent for or against from the child. Is that correct? We’re still back to where this responsibility comes from.
How do you delineate between animal, mineral and human?
I’m not saying I disagree with you, but that inability to consent does not imply consent as you used it, presumes consent only from humans. We still haven’t figured out how consent from a baby (or lack of capacity thereof) differs from consent from a cow or spider monkey.
It will either be the courts of the society you have voluntarily chose to partake in. Or it will be someone who is stronger than you in a state of nature. Pick whichever one you prefer.
Since we’ve gone off track (and LS helped in doing so, and in the process made it easy for Spidey to avoid my question [;)]) I will go back to my question which Spidey never answered.
Spidey, is it possible to have mutually-consensual inserting of your penis into a 3-year-old? If it is not possible to mutually-consensually insert our penis into a 3-year-old, is that not rape?
I’ll withdraw if you think my involvement is the problem.