What I’ve been trying to stress is that the assumption on the truth value of a demonstrably uncertain statement, either assuming it’s true or assuming it’s false, is a logical fallacy. Claiming unicorns don’t exist, only because there is no evidence that they do, is text-book argumentum ad ignorantiam. Claiming children cannot reason, only because there is no evidence that they do, is text-book argumentum ad ignorantiam. You claim that you’ve studied logic and fallacies. This one is not new. It goes all the way back to Aristotle.
Thanks Jack. The outlining of logical fallacies were created to help us scrutinize our own line of reasoning. Its dissapointing when someone uses the term as a bully to push an agenda.
Because after a certain number of days, minutes, hours (or whatever bull shit one of you guys came up with) I cannot because that person (“magically”???) has rights.
(And of course they tell me I cannot kill them).
This is what I was replying to.
Provably false. His recent thread on Fractional Reserve Banking being a cause for the destruction of capitalism ventures well beyond IP critique.
You weren’t. It was a serious nomination.
I wouldn’t disagree and that post needs no defense. [:)] I just didn’t expect this forum to foster an environment of antagonism.
[EDIT] I did not see Strangers post until you guys linked in the MVP section. It was a single, valuable contribution.
Personally, I think the topic of MVP should be dropped here and the discussion on child slavery continued.
I feel a little embarrassed for continuing it pages later, but felt it was important to bring closure to a tangent.
Plain text is neutral toward emotions. I think we all have jumped the gun at some point on the internet regarding interpretations.
As for “a single, valuable contribution”; value can be subjective :]
I intend on not off-topic’ing anymore in this thread, so THE END.
I still don’t understand the concept of rights providers… who provides rights?
I don’t know what Stranger meant by this and I am not sure if he can write a full paragraph. He seems like one of those parents who would say, “Boy, I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it too!”
I am not really over my cold and don’t feel like spending more time than I have to chained to my desk, but I will try to write something up tonight. I am kind of hung up on something else, but we will definitely get to the economics of justice and security in a free society. Can I ask you Jared, do you consider yourself an anarchist? (I ask because of your avatar and I love Ron Paul, but I am not into any government or voting.) If you aren’t, is there something you think is impossible for a free market to provide related to defense? This essay is going to be required reading to understand the rest of this thread if you want to look it over now.
I had this friend who called himself a anarcho-capitalist (but he obviously wasn’t). He told me to listen to Alex Jones and go on infowars.com and read up on why our government is horrible, so I did. I watched some movie of his that featured Ron Paul’s dad cheering in an “End the Fed” movement. I didn’t know what that was about so I bought his recent book about it. He talked about Austrian Economics, Lew Rockwell and Mises.org. So I went to mises.org asked some questions, formed my own opinions and here I am reading “Economics in One Lesson” and still asking questions.
But yes I am all for an-cap (so long as little kids are able to fight against rape). I’ll take a look at that essay.
^ AJ rulzz lol but he’s a minarchist too.
The question of “when do children acquire rights” is a red herring. Rights aren’t acquirable, they are only recognized, and they usually come to be recognized when it’s economically feasible to do so, or when some group makes it de facto by force (state).
For a silly example, it may come a time when we are able to grow synthetic types of meat cheaper and more nutritious than any regular meat, and then we can recognize all vertebrate animals to have individual rights as well so killing them is just as frowned upon as killing a human.
Now past that, I don’t know much about frameworks of law and/or ethics of today, but I think a standardized logical test would be a better way to establish majority, resposibility, rights etc. than a simple arbitrary age as it is. More often than not do I see adults who behave like minors, and children who could be deemed adults already. There may be a better answer but there can’t be a perfect one.
If the child can answer logical questions straightly and be able to not just crawl into a corner and die of hunger if left alone, he’s an adult already IMO lol, but idk.
Good thoughts… I’ve always wandered about animals. I think it’s wrong to kill them (even though there’s some logic behind the motive of over population) but they are too damn tasty. BTW I’m not a big Alex Jones fan, but I’m very familiar with his work and because of him I was some way introduced to Austrian and an-cap.
I’m sorry you don’t like the answer. Too bad. It’s a pretty easy threshold to understand. Why you can’t recognize the fact that both babies and adults sleep for eight hours but when adults wake up they can reason whereas babies cannot is beyond me.
You strawmanned a response to your other strawman. [:P]
You being hung up on this simple problem is boring. Let me ask you another question. The fact that 99% of people might think your premise is crazy or whatever doesn’t mean we should discount it (there are other reasons, already stated, and more forthcoming). Still, the case where this applies also assumes that a mother doesn’t have a say in her child’s upbringing, with these discussions of you raping infants. What do you say if the father decides one day he wants to rape then murder his child, but the mother disagrees?
That there is a property dispute, just like the husband taking their car and destroying it, without the wife’s consent.
Of course I can, and have. You just don’t like the answer. The threshold is, “If someone is unconscious, but can be woken up, and has the ability to communicate and reason, then they cannot be owned. If the person is unconscious, but can be woken up, but cannot communicate or reason when woken up, then they can be owned.”
So, childhood is a process of “waking up”. What if I am in a coma for 3 days, 3 months, 3 years? Does the fact that I have ever reasoned really make a difference? I forget your opinion on invalids… can they be raped and murdered as well? You are overstating the importance of the ability to reason at any one instant, and forgetting what rights themselves are. I understand your position as you restated it, but you still have yet to qualify your position.