Do you agree with this statement? People will generally be willing to use violence to stop child molestation. If you don’t then we have completely different views about what human nature will do and there is no possible reconciliation of views. In the history of humans has there ever been universal molestation of children that has been considered a generally acceptable practice?
Molesting children is contrary to our basic human instinct.
What does ‘molesting children’ mean?
What’s worse, abortion (killing a child) or molestation? If abortion is worse, then why aren’t people using a lot more violence to stop that?
Also, as far as I know, lots of molestation occurs today. Why isn’t more violence being used to stop it today?
before going down further tangents, perhaps you might address my question directly?. or perhaps you’d prefer if I simply counter with yet a further question for you to answer?
Child molestation is self evidently wrong. If you disagree then there is no middle ground for discussion.
The issues you mentioned are not self evidently wrong. This is how the flawed logic of not being sure what a human being is leads you to these wackadoo conclusions.
I am not looking for your agreement to my position because my position is just a fact. You can join spidey in the alternate reality where everyone thinks child molestation is ok. Just don’t be surprised when the mob takes you and spidey out to the nearest hanging tree after molesting their children.
Child murder and child molestation are illegal everywhere. So right now the overwhelming majority of the planet thinks these things should not be allowed. You are under the delusion that this will radically change for some reason.
This is not a form of deductive reasoning, it’s a form of circular reasoning.
Many people are missing Spidey’s point. He’s not advocating child molestation. He’s asking how you can ethically prevent him from doing so. The logic of reasoning that determine’s what is and is not human is not what is currently debated and as such it is a red herring.
Why is it wrong? And how is that self-evident.
Abortion is legal in the U.S. And not just for the 1st trimester. Not only that, but a full half of the population thinks it should be legal.
He’s using ethics to mean libertarian ethics i.e. NAP style. Everyone else on earth supplements their moral code with subjective judgments which while they cannot be shown to be universal, are just as important to agents as the objective ethical guidelines.
I would violate the NAP to stop child molestation.
Well, it is happening all the time, right now. So what have you done to stop it?
Are you and Spidey sharing a crack pipe or something?
How can I ethically prevent him from molesting children…did you actually say that? Why don’t you answer the question since it seems there is doubt in your mind?
The definition of what a is human is completely relevant to the relationships between humans. Spidey’s whole argument hinges on his idea that 5 year olds aren’t human so you can do whatever you want with them. Do you agree with this premise?
And it is illegal in a lot of other places. In fact it has only been legal in the US for 40 years. For ten thousand years it had been illegal. At any rate, you are talking about 5 year olds, not fetuses. Your logic doesn’t make sense for 5 year olds or fetuses.
Ad homonim’s don’t give merit to your argument.
I actually did answer the question. Several pages of this thread were writings from me and some of them were rather lengthy. I can’t be bothered to repeat myself to people whom are too lazy to read the thread in it’s entirety. Such people are derailing trolls as they jump in without understanding the context of the discussion.
You didn’t define what is human or what human rights are. You arbitrarily called it wrong simply because you say so. Your logic was a form of circular reasoning. I linked the logical fallacy for you. I use links to help you, don’t ignore them. 
The only relevant fact, as far as libertarian philosophy is concerned, is whether involved actors consent to action X, or not. So, when you talk about child molestation I don’t know what you are talking about. If the acts in question are non-consensual then it’s something for libertarians to worry about. If the acts are consensual, then, get this, it is none of your business.
As long as you keep on talking about ‘child molestation’ without really addressing the key issue of consent, your posts are, as usual, irrelevant.
Majority opinion is irrelevant. The mob will not rule. As I keep asking, how will you enforce your dictates on your neighbors without a government?
What is child molestation ? What about sending children to school, against their will ? Or brainwashing them with all sort of lies, most notably revealed religion ?
I pay my taxes [;)]
Don’t taxes result in a lot of people going to jail for selling plants? Yeah, I guess you do violate the NAP.