Why don’t you just show me the evidence that unicorns do not exist? I am just trying to educate you on the negative proof fallacy.
I never hypothetically asserted that unicorns do exist.
You made the hypothetical assertion that children don’t reason. Now do the science and prove it. But obviously you are not doing science, so, next time don’t make hypothetical assertions and try to pass that off as an argument. It’s invalid.
You made the assertion that children cannot reason. Wilderness did not make the assertion that unicorns exist.
I’m afraid it is the other way around. In order to prove that children have rights, you must prove that they reason. Since we do not claim that children have rights, we do not need to prove that they don’t reason.
I don’t need your false education. I’m too intellectual for that. Don’t assert what you don’t know. You’re not my demagogue.
This.
Neither wilderness nor I have claimed in this thread that children have rights. It is not an obligation of ours to prove that they do.
So you are saying children need to be able to reason in order to have rights? If so, then back up the claim that they don’t reason. Do the science or don’t make the hypothetical assertion.
Then what are you doing here?
I’m afraid we won’t be able to resolve this argument until you improve your knowledge of logic.
I am attempting to understand your and Spidey positions by asking questions.
Agreed.
Negative proof fallacy.
You have failed. You are by far one of my worst students.
Don’t be petty and personally insulting. Since you didn’t point out where my logic is faulty, drop the ad hominems.
So far, yes. Wow! It feels great to give an honest answer.
You are, by far, one of my worst teachers.
That is like 2 pages of completely irrelevant garbage.
It is obvious that no one in this thread can reason, hence I am hereby homesteading all of you as my just property. One of my easiest portfolio acquisitions ever.
Z.
Easy. In eight years, someone would be dead. People don’t die from 8 hours of sleep. In other words, the threshold is, “will the person die if he or she is not taken care of by someone else with the other person’s wealth before he or she can make a legal claim?” If so, then the person can be owned.
Spidey, this is your theory of human rights (replace 8 with some other arbitrary number if you like):
- A child can not reason for 8 years, so his guardian can rape or murder him on a whim.
- An adult can not reason for 8 hours while sleeping, yet retains his rights to property, including to not be raped or murdered.
I don’t see what your response has to do with this at all. It kind of seems like a strawman. That a child is likely to die from 8 years without care and a man sleeping for 8 hours is not is completely irrelevant. This fact speaks to another, that a guardian can in some way restrict the child justifiably. The purpose of what might otherwise be illegal (“No, you can’t go outside until you finish your homework”, for instance) must be that it sustains the child. What you propose does not meet this criteria.
I don’t think that you are too irrational to understand the issue. I think that you are, much like some children, unable to admit your error.