If that is indeed what we are talking about, then you have been deceiving everyone from the beginning, as this is not a debate about the rights of children but about the property rights of guardians over children.
A small child can choose to have someone represent herself? I guess that means a two year old can choose to run away too right?
Putting a fence around a vast area of land is not sufficient for ownership of the whole area. Raping an infant is not consistent with in what sense children may be owned. That you don’t seem to be able to understand this is not an argument.
Actually, I still hold that children have a certain amount of rights. There are several points regarding their potentiality that are repeatedly ignored. We’re just talking about a claim being made in court. We can start talking about the economics to see why there will be plenty of agencies developed, ready to defend children if to do so is justified.
A murderer who “eradicates a whole bloodline” is no less a murderer. These instances may be all the more profitable for “thief takers”, because they can claim the whole bounty rather than just a cut of any possible restitution.
Then you still understand nothing about property rights or the judicial process.
Why can’t it? Please prove that it cannot.
Thanks for your opinion. There is no time limit for justice ex post facto.
Why is such a proof needed?
Is such proof not needed?
No.
I think the question that needs to be answered is why a child needs to prove they have negative rights before they are afforded negative rights? If a child is imprisoned at home, then they have no recourse to demonstrate before a court that they have negative rights. If a child is just a piece of property, then how does a piece of property demonstrate it is capable of reason. Meaning, How can they prove that they are rationale, if at the time they are making their case for rationality you do not believe that they are rationale, therefore any argument made for rationality can be discarded. What is the catalyst to becoming rationale and the process for demonstrating rationality?
Why not?
No.
So that we know that the former child is responsible for those rights.
You say no. Me say why not. You say no. Me say why not no.
Ok, so what about the second part of my question.
How can they prove that they are rationale, if at the time they are making their case for rationality you do not believe that they are rationale, therefore any argument made for rationality can be discarded. What is the catalyst to becoming rationale and the process for demonstrating rationality?
Kid: “please stop, that hurts!”
You: “Shut up, you haven’t proven you do not consent to my beatings”
What is that supposed to mean? The child didn’t aggress against anyone. What more do you want to have evidence of them “following a rule”?
MVP? Can I report this post so the whole line of spam is deleted?
Do you assume unicorns exist unless someone proves otherwise or do you assume unicorns do not exist until proven otherwise? Do you assume someone is guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty? Do you assume animals can reason until proven otherwise or do you assume animals cannot reason until proven otherwise? Do you assume babies can reason until proven otherwise or do you assume babies cannot reason until proven otherwise?
It has to do with the negative proof fallacy. If you do not understand it, you should go talk to a college English professor.
Simply enough the fact that they are arguing for their rationality is the proof that they are rational.
This
My answer to your red herrings: no. Anyway, then why do you assume that children cannot reason until they are proven to reason, in other words, why are you making an argument from ignorance? Furthermore, I would attempt to prove that children can reason, however, you have not given me what criteria you require to prove that children can reason. We can go around in circles all week long if you’d like, but you made the assertion and I am the one using the Socratic method to not only understand your argument, but to make sure that your argument has to not holes in it. If you would rather have a sloppy argument and use cop outs when you are cornered, then fine. That is your choice.