What does the current court system have to do with what the law should be? Again, relevance.
Can you murder an animal? If not, then why not? Is it not because murder implies lack of consent and that animals cannot consent because they cannot reason, as far as we know? Well, neither can a baby.
Great. Again, when was the last time a baby was able to make a case for itself in court? If a baby cannot, then it does not possess the right to self-ownership. Just because you keep quoting a fallacy does not make it truth.
When have I ever said anything about needing to control children?
These questions are relevant to whether or not children have rights how?
More like 9 years +. But you laugh. Why? Do you think a 2 year old can choose to die? Do you think a 5 year old can choose to murder someone else?
No more grotesque than someone who believes in the right of animal owner’s to kill or torture his animal. Do you think an animal owner should be able to kill or torture his animal?
Of course. Don’t murderers hire defense attorney’s all the time?
A parent has the right to do with his child as he wishes, so long as he has the other parent’s approval. Is that what you are looking for?
Interesting point. I’d think most Western cultures would be strongly propertarian, but not absolute about it. A guy is running from a bear and happens to pass over your property, therefore you’re justified in using him for target practice is just way too extreme for me. (“Hey, it was clearly marked!”)
Just so we’re clear, are you talking about shooting first and asking questions later, or about forcefully expelling someone from your property in general?
Spidey that was the position YOU took. You challenged us to explain how a child could present a case in court, as if it were relevant.
So now humans are animals untill they turn 18?
Great the same non-sequtuir point from above.
If a man doesn’t recognize what property rights are should we steal from him?
Self ownership is not determined by one’s ability to go to court. Courts do not decide what is and or is not property. People come to these conclusions on their own out of interpersonal trade, economic incentive, and respect for those things.
That is the whole premise of your argument.
Yes, your saying a parent has the right to rape and torture their child.
But that one day that child magically stops being property, and all of those atrocious things will just magically go away.
I’ve never heard of someone formulating an ethical system that justifies preemptive murder. rape, torture, untill I met you and Stranger.
And your clearly out of touch with obvious reality, as demonstrated below.
Well I am glad you finally conceded the point. Earlier it was either you or Stranger who said that people of dementia or retarded could not be owned. Which didn’t follow at all from your original premise.
But you have answered just one question of the half dozen I provided. And 2 months ago when we went over this you guys couldnt answer it then. You can’t answer them now.
I’m sorry, but the levels of resistance are completely different. Talk to a child who has been sexually molested; they themselves know the difference between the level of discomfort felt when they are made to eat broccoli and when they are sexually molested.
Abuse implies lack of consent, which implies the ability to reason, which a small child does not have. So no, a small child has no way of determining if he or she is being abused.
Runnaway’s happen all the time. Ultimately the child decides whar it’s going to do.
Your the one calling children property, not me. Why do I need to backup the facts of your own argument?
No you do. And I am simply pointing out how your trying to apply ownership to something you cannot own. Property does not get up and walk away.
I already made these points several times over on this thread alone. GO back up and re-read. You’ve been debunked several times and you have no argument that has any meat to it.
I’m almost certain I understood abuse when I was a small child. When I was three years old and my sister hit me, I knew that what she was doing was wrong.
More assertions. When did you become a pediatrician again? Oh wait your not.
So raping your child and whoring her out to people for money is fine. And it won’t cause any problems for her when she just magically wakes up one day and realizes she is a self owner.
Shear utter lunacy.
There is no consistent sound logic to support any of these positions.
What’s wrong with you people? We’re not discussing whether whoring out your children is “fine”, but whether it is illegal. Your attempt to define what is legal based solely on your own moral standards is just crass legal positivism.
Okay? That still doesn’t mean that a child can’t feel more uncomfortable getting sexually molested. I was forced to do push-ups, crunches and side-straddle-hops until I threw up or defecated in my pants [U.S. Army infantry training], but the level of discomfort was completely different from one that I would feel if I was forced to have sex with a girl I felt absolutely no attraction towards [and yes, grown men can be raped if they are drunk and blacked out].