Rights

[JackCuyler]

@twistedbydsign99

So distinguishing question is, does the man torture his daughter in the presence of other men? Or does he hide the fact and do it at home behind closed doors? Do people tortue animals in public or behind closed doors? Do you steal a guy in a comas wallet when the doctor and family are around or when no one is around?

I don’t masturbate in public, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with spanking the monkey every now and them. I don’t defaecate in public either, but you’re not going to convince me shitting is immoral.

@twistedbydsign99

I’m not an optimist I know that mankind has suffered from mass psychosis in its history (wars and torture being accepted), but its not constant, because if it was we would be extinct. If we tortued and mutilated our children as a mankind objectively chosen goal, I would not envision a bright or any future at all for us.

If everyone became a medical doctor, we’d surely all starve, but there’s nothing wrong with someone choosing to be a doctor.

I’m against fathers torturing daughters, but I don’t think either, “He doesn’t do it in public,” or, “If everyone did that, it would be disaterous,” are very good arguments against the practice.

[bschraders]

@Spideynw

Do you know what intuitive morality is?

Try explaining intuitive morality to the mother of a 7 year old girl who was just raped by her dad, and then why, according to your laws, he can’t be punished for it.

[wilderness]

@bschraders

@wilderness

1. No. Having a guest leave is not murder, unless a person kills the guest. The mother isn’t killing the guest. Nature is.

2. And guests can’t force themselves to stay either - it’s not their property.

1. According your thinking, you can also say that If I strangle you, I’m not murdering you, Nature is.

I never said that - so - it’s better said according to your thinking this would be true, for on the other hand, I say: (Not to personalize this) - the person is doing the strangling.

@bschraders

How did I know you needed to breath to stay alive? Knowingly putting someone in a position that will kill them, is murder. Worse, it’s premeditated murder because you know what’s going to happen.

So let’s give everybody welfare eh? The mother’s property. What happens outside of her is nature doing the killing. Not the mother. She had no part in applying physical coercion. She didn’t touch the baby as it left the womb and “strangle” it, nature metaphorically did.

@bschraders

2. The guest (in this analogy) has no say in the matter. By choosing to have a child, you assume responsibility (yes, positive rights) to its well being until it reaches such an age it can mentally and financially acquire and maintain its own property.

again, you have a welfare state argument, and if we are all to coerce to maintain this - warfare state mentality too? So nope. I’m looking for a way without coercion.

[wilderness]

@bschraders

@Spideynw

Do you know what intuitive morality is?

Try explaining intuitive morality to the mother of a 7 year old girl who was just raped by her dad, and then why, according to your laws, he can’t be punished for it.

Is somebody really arguing that it’s ok for a dad to do this to a girl? Or are you making this up as you go? provide the quote please

[Spideynw]

@bschraders

@Spideynw

Do you know what intuitive morality is?

Try explaining intuitive morality to the mother of a 7 year old girl who was just raped by her dad, and then why, according to your laws, he can’t be punished for it.

I have never made this argument. Parents both have rights to the child. In fact, I think it can be argued pretty well that a mother has more rights to the children than the father does. A father that harms his child against the wishes of the mother is a rights violation against the mother. That is like me, taking an expensive painting that me and someone else jointly owns, and destroying it, without getting permission first.

[Spideynw]

@wilderness

Is somebody really arguing that it’s ok for a dad to do this to a girl?

I would argue that it is legal for the father to sexually molest the child, up until the child has “rights”, meaning the point at which a child can take care of his or her self, as long as the mother consents to it. If there is no mother, then that would mean the father could legally do it regardless.

[wilderness]

@Spideynw

@wilderness

Is somebody really arguing that it’s ok for a dad to do this to a girl?

I would argue that it is legal for the father to sexually molest the child, up until the child has “rights”, meaning the point at which a child can take care of his or her self, as long as the mother consents to it. If there is no mother, then that would mean the father could legally do it regardless.

Spideynw, I know of NO natural rights advocate that ok’s this - none (outside of you at the moment).

[Lilburne]

@Spideynw

@Lilburne

I’m saying that a man with a conscience doesn’t need all this convoluted theorizing to tell him that there is nothing wrong with interfering with a man torturing his daughter.

Do you know what intuitive morality is?

Are you going to argue that conscience has nothing to do with feeling, but that is a semi-unconscious form of reasoning, and that the unphilosophical man who regards child-torture as illegitimate does so because he intuitively makes the very same deductions a philosopher consciously makes? I hope not, because that would be absurd.

[twistedbydsign99]

[

@JackCuyler

“He doesn’t do it in public,” or, “If everyone did that, it would be disaterous,” are very good arguments against the practice.

Here let me help you. “He doesn’t do it in public” AND “if everyone did that it would be disasterous” then its a good argument against the practice. And also the man doing it in private knows hes being a subjective moral dbag.

[Lilburne]

@wilderness

Spideynw, I know of NO natural rights advocate that ok’s this - none (outside of you at the moment).

Whether rights are about logic or about feeling, one thing they’re definitely not about is an academic popularity contest. So far, Spideynw’s deductions have been more rigorous than any of the objective children’s rights advocates. If the logical conclusion of the accepted premises is that child-torture is okay, then by your lights, child-torture must be okay, right?

wilderness, we’ve all been wrong about questions of logic before right? We’ve all gotten a theorem botched up in geometry class, or a praxeological argument backwards on these forums, or something. So you have to at least grant the possibility that Spidey’s inferences are sound and yours are not. IF it was proven to you, by sheer force of deduction, that Spidey’s inferences were sound, and yours were not, would you honestly go ahead and regard it wrong to interfere with a father in torturing his 2-year-old daughter?

[bschraders]

@wilderness

Is somebody really arguing that it’s ok for a dad to do this to a girl? Or are you making this up as you go? provide the quote please

It’s a possible scenario of the logic in the original post.

"However, children do not have rights, because as has already been established, they do not have the mental ability to grant consent.

A child having no rights, means it also no rights to determine what happens to its own body.

[JackCuyler]

@twistedbydsign99

[

@JackCuyler

“He doesn’t do it in public,” or, “If everyone did that, it would be disaterous,” are very good arguments against the practice.

Here let me help you. “He doesn’t do it in public” AND “if everyone did that it would be disasterous” then its a good argument against the practice. And also the man doing it in private knows hes being a subjective moral dbag.

Off the top of my head in-the-closet homosexual sex… smoking crack… purging after bingeing

[twistedbydsign99]

@Spideynw

I would argue that it is legal for the father to sexually molest the child, up until the child has “rights”, meaning the point at which a child can take care of his or her self, as long as the mother consents to it. If there is no mother, then that would mean the father could legally do it regardless.

Give your defintion of a right in detail please.

[twistedbydsign99]

@JackCuyler

Off the top of my head in-the-closet homosexual sex… smoking crack… purging after bingeing

Right. All non virtuous things.

[ivanfoofoo]

Maybe we can get to the conclusion that the parent that molests his child has a right to do it, despite the fact that he’s being immoral. Then, we should discuss if it should be outlawed or not. If we consider that every law must be related to the “a natural right”, then it shouldn’t be outlawed.

[bschraders]

@Spideynw

@bschraders

@Spideynw

Do you know what intuitive morality is?

Try explaining intuitive morality to the mother of a 7 year old girl who was just raped by her dad, and then why, according to your laws, he can’t be punished for it.

I have never made this argument. Parents both have rights to the child. In fact, I think it can be argued pretty well that a mother has more rights to the children than the father does. A father that harms his child against the wishes of the mother is a rights violation against the mother. That is like me, taking an expensive painting that me and someone else jointly owns, and destroying it, without getting permission first.

You’ve never made that specific argument, because you didn’t think anyone would bring it up as a possible consequence of your flawed theory on what’s right and wrong in human interactions.

This is from your post: “However, children do not have rights, because as has already been established, they do not have the mental ability to grant consent.”. So yes, following your line of thinking a 7 year old child can be raped by his/her father and the father cannot be punished for it. Transferring the rights to the parents still make this scenario possible. So your logic makes it OK if both parents abuse a child. It also makes it OK if it’s one of the parents, as long as the other doesn’t find out.

[Juan]

@Lilburne

Whether rights are about logic or about feeling, one thing they’re definitely not about is an academic popularity contest. So far, Spideynw’s deductions have been more rigorous than any of the objective children’s rights advocates.

Not really. The idea that being able to grant consent is the only requirement for rights has been shown to be false by a reductio-ad-absurdum involving drugged/sleeping people.

If the logical conclusion of the accepted premises is that child-torture is okay, then by your lights, child-torture must be okay, right?

But the conclusion doesn’t follow. You want to use Spideynw’s wrong deduction to undermine the rationalist position but you can’t. You could as well wrongly say that the fact that some people don’t understand math means math is false/wrong/invalid/irrelevant.

[Lilburne]

Juan, I ask you the same question I asked wilderness,

“we’ve all been wrong about questions of logic before right? We’ve all gotten a theorem botched up in geometry class, or a praxeological argument backwards on these forums, or something. So you have to at least grant the possibility that Spidey’s inferences are sound and yours are not. IF it was proven to you, by sheer force of deduction, that Spidey’s inferences were sound, and yours were not, would you honestly go ahead and regard it wrong to interfere with a father in torturing his 2-year-old daughter?”

[twistedbydsign99]

@Lilburne

we’ve all been wrong about questions of logic before right? We’ve all gotten a theorem botched up in geometry class, or a praxeological argument backwards on these forums, or something. So you have to at least grant the possibility that Spidey’s inferences are sound and yours are not. IF it was proven to you, by sheer force of deduction, that Spidey’s inferences were sound, and yours were not, would you honestly go ahead and regard it wrong to interfere with a father in torturing his 2-year-old daughter?"

If a moral theory holds that murder is good, something is wrong with the moral theory. I think that applies here, if you proves that torture is good, then his premises are wrong or his theory contradicts itself.

[wilderness]

@Lilburne

@wilderness

Spideynw, I know of NO natural rights advocate that ok’s this - none (outside of you at the moment).

Whether rights are about logic or about feeling, one thing they’re definitely not about is an academic popularity contest. So far, Spideynw’s deductions have been more rigorous than any of the objective children’s rights advocates. If the logical conclusion of the accepted premises is that child-torture is okay, then by your lights, child-torture must be okay, right?

Why are you conflating what I said with Spideynw? Obviously throughout this thread I’ve been in opposition to what he has said so far.

@Lilburne

wilderness, we’ve all been wrong about questions of logic before right? We’ve all gotten a theorem botched up in geometry class, or a praxeological argument backwards on these forums, or something. So you have to at least grant the possibility that Spidey’s inferences are sound and yours are not. IF you were to be convinced, by sheer force of deduction, that Spidey’s inferences were sound, and yours were not, would you honestly go ahead and regard it wrong to interfere with a father in torturing his 2-year-old daughter?

I don’t need to grant a flawed premise the possibility at all. Rights are principles. If that’s not understood, then on the science of justice as Spooner says:

"X.

If there be in nature such a principle as justice, such a principle as honesty, such principles as we describe by the words mine and thine, such principles as men’s natural rights of person and property, then we have an immutable and universal law; a law that we can learn, as we learn any other science; a law that is paramount to, and excludes, every thing that conflicts with it; a law that tells us what is just and what is unjust, what is honest and what is dishonest, what things are mine and what things are thine, what are my rights of person and property and what are your rights of person and property, and where is the boundary between each and all of my rights of person and property. And this law is the paramount law, and the same law, over all the world, at all times, and for all peoples: and will he the same paramount and only law, at all times, and for all peoples, so long as man shall live upon the earth. But if, on the other hand, there be in nature no such principle as justice, no such principle as honesty, no such principle as men’s natural rights of person and property, then all such words as justice and injustice, honesty and dishonesty, all such words as mine and thine, all words that signify that one thing is one man’s property and that another thing is another man’s property, all words that are used to describe men’s natural rights of person or property, all such words as are used to describe injuries and crimes, should be struck out of all human languages as having no meanings; and it should be declared, at once and forever, that the greatest force and the greatest frauds, for the time being, are the supreme and only laws for governing the relations of men with each other; and that, from henceforth, all persons and combinations of persons - those that call themselves governments, as well as all others-are to be left free to practice upon each other all the force, and all the fraud, of which they are capable.

XI.

If there be no such science as justice, there can be no science of government; and all the rapacity and violence, by which, in all ages and nations, a few confederated villains have obtained the mastery over the rest of mankind, reduced them to poverty and slavery, and established what they called governments to keep them in subjection, have been as legitimate examples of government as any that the world is ever to see.

XII.

If there be in nature such a principle as justice, it is necessarily the only political principle there ever was, or ever will be. All the other so-called political principles, which men are in the habit of inventing, are not principles at all. They are either the mere conceits of simpletons, who imagine they have discovered something better than truth, and justice, and universal law; or they are mere devices and pretenses, to which selfish and knavish men resort as means to get fame, and power, and money."

---

Bad logic is no substitute for good logic from understanding the very concepts we are using. So, again, I have no idea what you’re asking.