You obviously did not get what I was getting at. At what point does this become “torture”?
If you dont have the ability to perform any trades, that is a death sentence. A restructuring of capital causes no possible trades for a time, causing harm.
Either shyness or because children may be present.
So an overcrowded world does negate his monkhood, not very devoted.
Murdering or hunting? I think killing them for fun is wrong. As for eating them, they eat eachother, I don’t see why we need to be any different.
Great opinion. Now, do you have an argument as to why it is wrong?
For those of you who think you are so smart to suggest that my argument is wrong because it suggests that people who are sleeping do not have rights, well I have yet to see any of you suggest why it is wrong to kill, sexually touch, or hurt an infant/child besides “they do not consent to it”. Well, my little girl does not consent to being bathed or put in a car seat, so what? Does that mean I am torturing her when I do those things? And if lack of consent is your only objective criteria for knowing if we have wronged someone, then that means that killing animals, hurting animals, or having sex with animals is wrong as well.
Also, I know of men who have said their father whipped them with a belt when they were children, and that they were glad because of it. But some of you would suggest that “intuitively” beating your child is wrong. Yet you provide no objective criteria for why it is wrong.
The rape does not cause the implantation of the fertilized egg, the mother’s body willing does that and is in fact designed to do so. The fact that the child was unwanted originally is irrelevant to the fact that the child was invited into the mother’s care. Off-topic but that is the answer.
Trespassing is still trespassing, even if you leave your door unlocked. Invited guests are not trespassers.
In fact it is clearly always the case. You are confusing the circumstances underwhich a person is created with the fact that the woman’s body invites the child after it is created. They are two separate events.
If you invite someone under your care you are responsible for at least not doing intentional harm and when you wish your care of this person to come to an end then you have at a minimum an obligation to see to it that the person is left in the care of someone who is providing at least the minimal care you are currently providing. This assumes that the person is not capable of caring for themselves at some point at which point they can choose to leave.
You can seek to punish the woman and her accomplices. Why? For violating the rule above, you can’t nvite people into your care and then agress against them.
I think you just set women’s liberation back a couple centuries.
@max, its hard to invite someone that doesnt exist on to your property…
Yeah, it’s called Stockholm syndrome
Not to mention that there are other people who didn’t agree to be whipped, were not happy about it, and probably are not happy about it now.
Probably. But again, that is a choice to be left up to parents, because children are unable to reason and therefore unable to make the choice.
You’re misusing the term.
Hmm, it seems to me that instead of attributing madness to a position you don’t agree with, you could view this as subjective interpretation and utility.
By your standard, someone who enjoys rough sex is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome but someone who doesn’t enjoy it is being raped. So how do we determine if rough sex is objectively good or bad then? It can’t be good or bad, because that would be subjective, right?
Well let me pose this situation to you, you are in a grocery store in new hampshire, meaning those around you are carrying pistols. Your child is acting up and your method of disciplining you child is belt whipping. Do you whip your child in the store in front of everyone? Or do you wait until you get home to do it?
I would wait until I got home.
Would you poop in a public place?
It would not have happened without the forcible introduction of sperm to her body. Beyond that, an invitaion is a conscious act. Implantation of an egg is not.
That’s why I think it’s important to understand pursuit of happiness. It’s agent-relative, thus retains choice, but I find it important that a human being flourishes:
“Compelling others to do one’s bidding thus makes sense only when one is dealing with persons who have not yet achieved much capacity for moral choice for example, very young children. And even in the case of children, it’s best to foster their independent decision-making as much as possible so that they may develop the moral skills needed to flourish as self-responsible adults.”
And the child retains liberty. Has free-will. Is a property unto him or her self. So to violate the life, liberty, and property of said child is unlawful. And it wouldn’t help the child to flourish in life and grow up to eventually decide what is right or wrong. In other words such children are inclined to become criminals.
I’d go home first.
If you were in the same grocery store, and your wife whispered to you that she was feeling exceptionally amorous, would you make love right there in the produce aisle, or wait until you got home to do it?
It’s still funny though. I mean beating people isn’t humorous but the fact he said ‘Yea…it’s called stockholm syndrome’ made me chuckle.
…how amorous…?
Ah yes why didn’t I group pooping with the ruin of a human life in the same moral category. On that note I think I’m done with this dicussion.