I still haven’t seen any position whatsoever taken on it. Except for mine, which was unreasonable folly.
A child sleeps too. It is about whether or not one has been unconscious so long that one is not able to take care of his or her self. That is something to be decided by arbitration. It is a pretty simple threshold. Either one can take care of one’s self, or one cannot.
I don’t understand why they cannot reason. Please prove that they cannot reason.
Please explain how to prove a negative, and I will happily do it. Otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.
Can we stay on topic? Briefly, we can’t guarantee that whatever private law firms will follow libertarian law. People are welcome to voluntarily submit to governmental rule or Sharia law. Jurisprudence is not solely qualitative evaluation within a praxeological framework of the social sciences. The technological means to evaluate evidence is one example of the variation possible at any given time, whilst adherence to the libertarian theoretical framework is still possible. Also, the judge or juror acts in part as a historian and his interpretation is subject to error. Finally, all theoretical maximum punishments are just that, maximums. Not only can a victim decide to seek a lesser punishment, but courts may choose to not enforce certain laws. For instance, a court might decide that it is ludicrous to punish someone for trespassing when they are fleeing a mudslide.
I haven’t explained my position yet and don’t have time now to catch up with every point. I just wanted to work through all of these guys’ inconsistencies one last time in a single thread, then I will explain further. It is pointless when they still don’t recognize children as human beings.
This is what is idiotic about yours and Strangers position. How can you support a position that you not only do not know is true but cannot be proven to be true? Are you saying that children do not reason because they have not been shown to reason? Well, that is also an idiotic position to hold since you have not studied all children living and children that have ever lived, and therefore, cannot possible determine whether all children can reason or not. What if there is a 4-year-old in the jungles of Africa that reasons all day long? Would that not prove your position to be wrong? Given this possibility, would you concede that it may be possible for a 4-year-old to reason? Also, how could the burden of proof be on me when I have not made a statement which must be proven, that is, I have only asked questions?
So how do you know that children do not and cannot reason?
Arn’t you the one asserting they cannot?
Any how your assertion is an argument from ignorance.
Fine, but what we are talking about is someone taking care of coma patients, and stabbing them to death is not “taking care of them”. Many coma patients have been said to not have a chance in returning to consciousness and still did. That the coma patient has this potentiality affords him the same basic negative rights. This is the exact same situation as children except that the coma patient has varying needs and any expression of their anterior, contingent rights during a previous period of active moral agency, for example a living will, must be upheld along with the basic grundnorms of guardianship.
With the last sentence, it seems instead of “Abuse implies reasoned refusal to give consent,” a more accurate statement of your position would be:
“Abuse has occurred only when both (a) the victim gave no consent and (b) they are generally capable of doing so.”
Is that a fair statement?
I don’t. I assume they do not until there is evidence that they do.
What evidence do you require to prove that children do and can reason?
Probably the same evidence you require to show that a child can choose to have sex or kill someone.
I am attempting to understand your position.
Why would someone taking care of a coma patient stab them to death?
Is any aggression against a child actually aggression against its parents or kin?
Exactly. So, if they stab them to death or rape them, these actions are not within the bounds of what we might even consider as justified in aiding them in a return to moral agency.
This situation is very similar to that of children. It is your contention that it is justified for parents to rape, stab, maim, murder children, not mine.
I am attempting to understand your confusion about my position.
No it isn’t.
My attempt to understand your position does not involve confusion in my understanding of your position. My question is simple: What evidence do you require to prove that children do and can reason?