Yes, Spidey already admitted to not knowing if all children cannot reason, although he continues to make the assertion that they cannot. I think it is clear to the readers of this thread that Stranger’s and Spidey’s positions are fundamentally flawed.
How is this going off topic? I’m trying to work out what people’s positions are in the debate. I’m sorry if you misconstrue it that way.
However, the “taught” aspect of what filc said is interesting. Maybe the qualifier should be consideration of consequences in the abstract. That is, not relying on direct trial and error experience to infer a consequence.
For example, if I saw another person burn themselves on a range’s coil when it is red hot, I might be able to infer that the same thing would happen to me without actually trying it out.
I never said someone is entitled to being taken care of if they could once reason. Someone is only entitled to being taken care of so long as they have savings to pay for the service. After that, they can be owned. I’m pretty sure in a voluntary society, businesses would want to treat their comatose customers with the utmost respect.
Anyways, you obviously cannot answer my question about when has a baby ever actually argued for its supposed rights? You just keep dodging it over and over. Because we all know the answer is never. Which means it does not have any rights, because it does not claim any.
At some points in time, humans are unable to reason. I do not care for your opinion on what it means to reason or if animals reason. What spidey can’t qualify is why years, versus 8 hours during sleep, is too long to not be afforded basic negative rights to be raped and murdered.
BS. It doesn’t need to argue rationally. You can deny that there are limitations to the extent of ownership of children by parents, and yet what we are talking about is a new, legitimate guardian making a claim on behalf of the child. This is like a dog owner making a claim against someone who killed his property.
Oh really? So if I go to court about my car being stolen, and just blabber baby jibberish, the court will know exactly what’s going on huh? You try that, and let me know how it works out OK? Or how about you go and just start talking weird stuff. I be that will go over really well too. Meaning act like a 3 year old.
Judge: So, was your car stolen?
You: Uh, yes.
Judge: So it was stolen?
You: I think so.
Judge: Was it your car?
You: You look to your parent who shakes his head yes, and then you look to the judge and say "yes.
Judge: Why are you asking your parent?
You: I don’t know.
Etc., etc.
Why precisely does a court have to be involved in this at all?
You cannot be serious.
For you filc, just replace “court” with an “arbitrator” or “PDA” or “3rd party” or “another human”. Better?
yet what we are talking about is a new, legitimate guardian making a claim on behalf of the child. This is like a dog owner making a claim against someone who killed his property.
You guys are ridiculous and I am going to move on.
Does the ability to reason require the ability to argue and communicate coherently?
Neither can you, to believe that one-liners are sufficient. Why cannot he be serious? Perhaps an explanation would actually allow us to understand your argument or position.
Not really. I asked you how a system of property rights comes without self-ownership, and you basically equivocated. “Personal sovereignty” just speaks to the indirect/direct dichotomy Kinsella wrote about and technological limitations in regards to “transferring a life”. If such were possible, it would be justified within the theory to transfer the life of a murderer.
Now I asked you basically what you will do if nobody can own anyone. Are you going to ask a murderer nicely to make restitution? Whatever.
And I re-assert. Why do any of them need to be involved?
Spidey, perhaps we would understand your argument/position if you answered all our questions.
So whats the big deal again?
–(word)-- is strikethrough since strikethrough doesnt work for me.
“new owner” and “current owner” are not synonymous. Want to try again E.R.?
An adult does not need a lawyer to argue his case.
Regardless, try the scenario without a parent present. How do you think that would go? But wait, you don’t seem to understand children at all. How about you go ask a child psychologist how it would go? Since you seem to need an expert. Let us know how good a 3 year old could make a case for his rights, OK?
Children aren’t cows. You are committing a category error. [|-)]
Neither does a child, they just choose to, or the guardian chooses on their behalf. And adults just choose to use lawyers the same.
“new” and “current” are not synonymous. Want to try again E.R.?