Oh, OK. I got confused with the double negatives. Anyways, yes, if one believes that killing someone is murder, no matter what, then yes, he would think libertarians that think killing someone in self defense is wrong.
Because that is the definition of “steal”.
You say “killing is not always murder”. A pacifist says, “killing is always murder”. Which one is more consistent? If I go by the pacifists morals, I know that if I kill someone, no matter what, it is murder. If I follow your morals, is it murder if I kill someone for stabbing my leg? What about just lunging at me? What about running away with some of my food? At what point is the other person aggressive enough for it to be considered justified homicide?
That takes time. It is not instantaneous. In the case of a deep sleep with the aid of medication, it may take several minutes. In the case of a medically induced coma, it may take hours or days.
I reject your assertion that on one hand no time has passed. Reject and absolutely prove otherwise. Under no circumstances does waking someone take no time at all.
Non-sequitor. Children have the potential for critical thought; animals do not.
Still fairly new to the game and certainly am not bold enough to try and “take on” Spidey in this matter, it seems pretty sound, although I do for some reason think “there has got to be some kind of reasoning out there” to disprove him, but that obviously doesn’t count for anything. I think its more to do with the line of agression than anything to do with parental obligations. I certainly feel that parents are under no obligation to feed their child, and thus are free to allow their newborn to starve to death, so maybe it seems strange or maybe not that I think there has to be a line crossed when you molest a 3 year old in the way described or use any other sort of violence against a child. But violence or agression could also mean forcing a child to eat veggies or unwillingly carrying a child out of a store. Maybe children should be able to take their “abusers”/parents to court for things like this. I have a feeling that any damages awarded could just be offset for the month/years of “free” room and board, although that sounds like a slippery slope as well.
I think another dilemma is when children, maybe a little older than 3, ones that can think critically, but do not have the means to really live on their own decide to run away to a shelter or something and the child’s parents want to take him back against his will.
Also, if critical thinking is the key, (and I don’t know enough nuerology to know if this is possible, even in the distant future) I guess parents could have parts of their child’s brain removed at birth that prevented it from even developing the ability to think critically and thus forever owning some sort of half man slave, no?
Ok, I was going to walk away, but this is a backdoor move imo.
This is an appeal to authority. You won’t provide the argument, and telling me to go look for it, and thus have to attack Block is lazy. Can I assume if I get this argument, and debate it, you will defend it as your own, or will you also send me to debate it with WB?
If you won’t present your own argument or Block’s how can I possibly be strawmanning you? You’d have to actually offer a rationale for your own claim, which you have failed to do, in order for me to mischaracterize your position.
So, where was the strawman? Please explain or withdraw this claim that I am being logically fallacious.
How is it an appeal to authority? Please, prove your claim. Anyway, the Block position is the best one I;'e seen. I know you’ve said you don’t have the answers so I won’t bother to ask you to explain your position.
Anyway, I say we drop this. I didn’t want to go into the area which you led me too, although I thought it necessary to answer your question regarding the putting clothes onto a child.
My hitch on this is I think spideynw is making an epistemological error or is not logically extending his argument, which therefore leads his argument to such a situation that I find totally unnecessary as the baby, being human, has his or her own property right to not be violated, in this case, his or her body. That’s where I stand on this, but will drop it in this thread as I am currently discussing this concerning argument of mine in private messaging so no need to continue to publicly go on about this focus on what spideynw has already argued in previous threads in this forum.
You refuse to provide your own argument, insisting it is synonymous with Block’s and that I should research Block to find out your position.
Right, because that’s a red herring.
Where is the strawman? I still expect you to provide proof of it or withdraw your claim about logical fallacy.
And, you still have avoided responding with an answer to your claim about the responsibility of parents. Or does that fall under “see Block?”
In which case, why even debate if you are going to defer to someone else? You can just refer everyone to Block, I am sure they can find his arguments [sic].
Isn’t there a semantic misunderstanding?. perhaps i misinterpret spidey (im sure he will tell me!) but isn’t the force of his argument that the very notions of consent and non-consent imply a creature with a rational capacity that can thereby consent or not-consent. things that are not rational can not be said to consent and neither can they not not-consent. simply because neither consent or not-consent make sense outside of a Teleogical framework the words consent are meaningless in that context. the teapot neither consents to be used nor does not consent to be used. the terms lack meaning in that context.
the issue of debate would then becomes, when does it become appropriate to talk of consent and not-consent along the continuum of mindless feotal matter and rationally minded adult. are 3 year olds over the boundary of rational so that they can be said to consent or not-consent? are 1 month old? are 1day gestated feotuses over the boundary?
No, it is fully true. You don’t think children can appear to give consent as well as withhold consent? Even an animal can “consent” to being pet. But the giving or withholding of consent is not the only important facet. Just as important is whether or not there was any critical thought behind the consent or lack thereof.
Then I cannot change her diapers, lock her in her room, etc., etc.
And when and where did I say that Block is the authority on this and, therefore, he is correct. All I said was that my position was his position. What if Block said that his position is my position, would that also be an appeal to authority?
Btw, what is your position?
I didn’t say that you straw manned me. I said, “don’t straw man me.”
Hence, me saying that I want to drop this. Btw, did you ever prove my claim was a positive obligation?
But does this justify treating children like animals? Are children animals in that regard? Since they cannot appropriately consent to things their decisions are defaulted for them?
If a lady is asleep and she cannot consent to having sex does it default to yes?
Rape by definition implies non-consensual sex, which implies ability to think critically, because otherwise, having sex with an animal would be rape. Given that babies/toddlers cannot think critically, they cannot be raped, by definition.
So you hold his opinion but you don’t think he is correct?
I’ve already answered that. The red herring can’t pull your ass out of this fire Dan.
And the difference is?
That’s just because you have been completely routed. When I offered to drop out, you took pot shots. I did it to be the bigger man. You seem to be doing it to avoid clarifying your statements.
Did you ever clarify that it is or is not? Have you not dodged my direct questions?
You asserted without proof. Either you have a proof, you rescind your claim or you are being dishonest. Have I missed an option here?
This is uber disappointing from you, because I know you and I have differences of opinion, but I didn’t expect this level of evasiveness and bad faith in debate.
And in a free society, there would be no legal standing from someone to complain about how I treat my child.
Which is very true. But I am just concerned with the legal aspect. Someone may be able to take my child from me by force, but I would then have legal standing to bring a suit against him.