|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted May 01, 2009 01:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Therefore, no freedom crossing in this case. For freedom is a product of autonomy. Unless they would also allow a child to play in a mine field, not to violate their freedom.
Isn't this a case of "I know what's good and what's bad for you, so the laws should be like this..."? Of course it may be valid in the case of children, but for grown-ups?
For example, the right to safety as you have mentioned. Maybe someone doesn't want to live without some personal object of his. Are you going to say to him "some criminal destroyed your object, but that's not really that bad for you, since we decide! You're healthy, that's what matters, right?" when he will probably even want to kill himself for no reason to live anymore.
What about the particle accelerator, for example? Maybe some people are "hurt" by the very idea of it (not me, personally I like Black Holes, but a girl in India killed herself for example over fear...). So who are we to decide where this line should be drawn, and what's good/bad for someone to justify punishment for the offender? Or whether some are 'trivial'? (maybe to us but not to them)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 01:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
For example, the right to safety as you have mentioned. Maybe someone doesn't want to live without some personal object of his. Are you going to say to him "some criminal destroyed your object, but that's not really that bad for you, since we decide! You're healthy, that's what matters, right?" when he will probably even want to kill himself for no reason to live anymore.
Im not sure if I follow you here. But let me give another perspective to you. Lets assume this object in question is a high velocity-rifle, ant the person in question a heavy eschyzofrenic with paranoid delusions, or an old Alzheimer patient who thinks he in WW2.
Are those men in the full exercise of their autonomy? Are they able to respond for their actions? Should they be FREE, to own such a gun?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 01:20 AM |
|
|
@Wolfsburg
I sympathize with your position, but I don't like your logic.
Using the same logic, one could say: John isn't a physician and doesn't understand anatomy completely. Therefore, Dr. Smith should make all John's medical decisions without consulting John.
People have a right to be ignorant. If they kill themselves because of it, I consider it part of evolution. As long as people aren't killing someone else because of their ignorance, I'm fine with it.
Children are another matter because they haven't had the chance or don't have the capability to educate themselves. But any line you draw as far as age is concerned is going to arbitrary. So you've got to pick one that seems reasonable for the purposes of the law and just go with it.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 01:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Wolfsburg
Using the same logic, one could say: John isn't a physician and doesn't understand anatomy completely. Therefore, Dr. Smith should make all John's medical decisions without consulting John.
Not at all, Corribus.
The right to be informed is a part of the many rights enjoyed by "John". Of course Dr. Smith has the FREEDOM not to say a single word about his conduct. But as a person imbued of full capacity and autonomy, we will much likely answer for that in court.
Now lets assume Dr. Smith calls John on the phone but its answered by John Jr., a seven year old. Lets now assume he says: "Exams show your father has a very serious condition, would you do me a favor and tell him to come to the hospital as soon as possible?"
Four hours later, forgetting completely to give him the message, Jr. finds his father dead on the carpet. Was Jr. the one to blame for? I am sure he understands the meaning of the word serious. Of course not. He is nor morally nor legally accountable for that. Dr. Smith, using full hold of his freedoms made the bad choice of enthrusting a child with suce a responsibility. And may again, answer in court for that.
EDIT: Im travelling for the weekend from now on. Unfortunatelly I cannot discuss this matter with you guys for a while. But have fun with it! Take care you all.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 01:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Are those men in the full exercise of their autonomy? Are they able to respond for their actions?
I don't know, how do you measure it?
Quote:
Should they be FREE, to own such a gun?
Tell you what: why not give a "harmless" example, like say, a photo. Some dude lost his kid, and he has a photo. He has a different mind, and most likely finds that photo the last thing he ever has.
Can you say that the photo is worth just as his neighbour's daily photo he takes? (economically it is)
Should the punishment or any judgment be done the same as his neighbour would?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 02:07 AM |
|
|
An object has as much worth as someone is willing to invest in it/ look at paintings; they are nothing but useless objects with tree skins, synthetic materials and wood around it; yet, the value is $300,000 for some paintings, so i'd say that emotional value is actually real value as well, like artistic value is real value, but this completely off-topic, so don't mind me. It's just a small note.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 02:44 AM |
|
|
But I could find it crap and worth $2...
my point is that values are subjective, so drawing the line for everyone is impossible -- and in some cases, even oppressive, so to speak. All values, not just emotional. And not only values, but also damage. Like having "just another photo" destroyed -- which is considerable damage to that dude, but not to me.
What about inhaling pollution? Maybe some dude finds it very bad, and it damages him and he goes crazy.
You say that "hey, you survive, so inhaling it ain't that bad" it's, again, deciding in HIS place what's good for him -- kinda like what communists used to do (and mvass blamed me for it  ). By that logic we can say that any pain, mental or physical (or 'flesh', if you prefer) which is treated is "ok" since "you survive anyway"...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 09:50 AM |
|
|
Agree with Wolfsburg - he nailed it.
And the good thing is that he nailed the line as well.
Now, note that even Mathematics isn't free of contradictions, and it has been shown that it's impossible as well.
It is reasonable to assume, that the complex body of human interactions within the frame of society isn't free of contradictions as well - morals are a good example, when you are forced to use violence in order to avoid more violence. It's like saying "This sentence is wrong."
We have to accept that there will always be contradictions, even that a society - a togetherness - without contradictions just isn't possible.
What we need, therefore, is something reasonable that works. It's not a question of following principles to the utmost and most absurd consequences, just so one can say that there is something that will always be valid.
Now matter where and how you draw lines, it will never be perfect. No human will ever be fully autonomous, and giving or granting it with a certain age is a common solution that will be wrong quite often: some people will be fully autonomous in any practical sense erlier, some never. The same is true for laws. With a 100% autonomy you wouldn't need laws.
In practise, though, it's better to forbid some things in general and to the benefit of the whole instead of leaving in to the autonomous actions of people to handle it. Autonomy makes it necessary to be fully informed, and that's something impossible to obtain.
There follows something from all this: if freedom is a function of autonomy and autonomy a finction of information, then it's pretty clear that freedom and education are connected somehow: the more and better the education, the more freedom a society can afford without collapsing. or dissolving.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 02:41 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
Yes, brilliant. Courts that profit from their decisions. Great idea. I already see the advertisements. "Trial? Why risk an error? Check our jurisdiction at www.courtnewyorkcentral. We accept PayPal."
So? Any court that accepts bribes would quickly lose customers.
Quote:
In practise, though, it's better to forbid some things in general and to the benefit of the whole instead of leaving in to the autonomous actions of people to handle it. Autonomy makes it necessary to be fully informed, and that's something impossible to obtain.
Alternatively, you could just allow it and then let natural selection take its course.
TheDeath:
Quote:
Now seriously, I mean... you know... can you be a little... more you know... precise? I hope that's not too much to ask.
I don't know. I'm not a dictator. Just like I don't know what the price of bread should be, I don't know what the optimal law is.
Quote:
Why? Why should I respect his property because he used "force" or means to colonize it, and I am expected not to use my means (i.e my bombs to blow it up) in return?
He didn't use force to colonize it. As for the imperialists - you can resist them while they're taking your land, but when you die and they die, your children shouldn't be able to do anything about it.
Quote:
would the 'economy' benefit by enslaving them?
No.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 03:12 PM |
|
|
graph paper
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 03:59 PM |
|
|
Father, you're making the assumption that either you manhandle your kids or you give them punishments that are merely nominal or nonexistent. I can't really see it that way. There are plenty of effective ways to punish misbehaving kids without beating them. I agree with the statement that if you have to hit your kids, you already failed. First, the time-out isn't even a punishment - that's not its purpose. Its purpose is to get the kid to calm down. Sometimes that's all it takes. Second, there are much better punishments than corporal punishment - like removal of priviliges. (No phone, computer, TV, etc.) Effective - and much less barbaric.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 04:24 PM |
|
|
Not quite. There certainly is no "perfect" parenting. Everyone can and will err (and errors are all the more common the more the parents themselves got spankd as children). However, DEFENDING spanking (a very vague term) as a means of education, that is somthing I cannot accept.
We all err sometimes, but we should at least try to do the right thing. If you accept spanking as normal, legal and useful means of education, then, yes, I dare say that you are wrong.
Worst of all is this "I HAVE to do it" attitude. No one is forcing you except your own childhood.
That famous sentence: "This will hurt myself more than you."
"Then let's just change sides for once", those children often think. "Let's change sides, then we'll see whom this will hurt more."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 05:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Three things:
1)  I never once said that we HAVE to do anything, spanking or otherwise and..
And how bout this then?
Quote:
That is the basis for every punishment that I have to hand out. In truth, I rarely have to punish my kids at all, furthermore, I havn't had to spank any of them for years now. It was only when they were younger and needed a serious wake up call.
You didn't do it - you HAD to. Because they NEEDED it.
Quote:
2) I also have never said that "This will hurt me more than you. Matter of fact I told them flat out... "This is going to hurt you a lot more than it does me"
I didn't claim that. I just said, that's the next step after the "have to" attitude
Quote:
3) My childhood was just fine, thank you very much. Oh, and so is theirs 
You see, the problem is, that the only qualification for parenting we have is the fact that we have been so as well. Of course that means that our parenting is rooted in how we were parented oiurself - after all it's the only thing we can work with.
I'm not interested in critisizing our parenting here - I just don't accept the idea that spanking is a natural part of education. I mentioned that there are grades or levels of abuse. Obviously, the higher the level of abuse - or spanking - the bigger the problems. A slap twice in ten years is one thing. A slap each year and a spanking twice in ten years will probably not have really grave consequences. But a slap every week and a good spanking twice a year? And what IS a spanking?
Quote:
I don't get where you come off thinking that parents that believe in spanking their children is in some way some form of vigilante justice for a make believe hard childhood of their own.
It doesn't have to do anything with vigilante justice, I explained it above. It's a simple form of copying behaviour.
Quote:
Goodness, what happend do you as a kid anyway? I'm willing to bet you were actually abused or something yourself...real abuse, not made up or supposed abuse because of an honest butt spanking. The resulting consequence was a few years of counseling or something?I don't make that observation as an insult, intended or implied. I'm being quite serious. & the reason I ask is because I AM in that field of study quite often and I recognize patterns within your posts on this subject...that's all.
You've lost your bet. By the way, what's honest about a butt spanking?
Edit: How about yourself? Got an honest butt spanking as a kid? This time *I* bet so.
Quote:
Kids of your own?
Sure.
Quote:
I seriously doubt that you are 137, so how old are you?
I've mentioned in the what are you listening, recently, that my first concert was Black Sabbath when they had just pubished their Master of Reality album. Make the math yourself.
Speaking of it, I've grown up in a time when teachers were still allowed to slap, spank or otherwise painfully disciplin pupils. Why do you think they forbid that (at least in Germany)? Because it's the sole right of the parents to beat up their children?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 06:44 PM |
|
|
I must have hit a nerve or something.
I don't think your posts need further commenting - they speak for themselves.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 06:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Is this a fine example of you taking words and putting them into whatever context best suits your argument? I think it is.
???
Dude, you said that "I never said once X" and he QUOTED that you said it. If that's not proof I don't know what is 
And what has his age got to do with anything? He is vague because this is flawed thinking. Dunno if it matters, but I know from CH he is 30+ something (37 I think?), and has a 19 year old daughter, does that count?
(btw JJ, please forgive me if I gave wrong numbers about you or your daughter )
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 08:05 PM |
|
|
Can't we have any discussion here anymore without screaming at each other?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 08:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Edit: No Death, you are wrong. & I can see that his concept fits your line of arguments as well...whatever.
Can you be more specific, where am I wrong? (and JJ for that matter)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 08:14 PM |
|
|
Death, I see you don't have all too intimate knowledge about Black Sabbath, which is a shame, considering your handle.
In any case, yes, a year ago my daughter was 19. I'm a bit more ancient than 37, though.
Just for anyone's information. I admit to having spanked my daughter once. It's one of the few things in my life I'm ashamed of. Was, immediately after it, still am, when I think about it. I'm most ashamed because I did it against better knowledge, though.
And I don't gloat because there is nothing to gloat about.
As I said, the problem is, that we don't really know much about parenting, except from our own childhood. And we see ourselves always or at least most of the time perfectly normal, no matter what kind of childhood we had. It was our shildhood, it was that way, it was perfectly normal, and haven't we alle grown up to fine people?
Additionally, most people are rather sensitive about that. The mere idea, something with their own childhood might not have been perfect, is abhorrent to them, which doesn't make things easier.
That's why it's so difficult to change things.
If everyone would just consiously try to spank their kids a bit less than they have been spanked themselves, we'll make it one day.
Edit: Corribus, I don't scream. My voice is perfectly normal.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2009 10:33 PM |
|
|
Father:
Quote:
I didn't make an assumption at all. But I see that I'm dealing with yet another person that can only see it his way.....whatever.
Come on. Instead of getting angry, respond to my point.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 02, 2009 07:09 AM |
|
|
Wow, gone two days and this has grown a lot. Now to get into the thick of it, and get a lot of people upset at me.
First, I happen to agree with Father. I believe in 'corporal punishment' if you want to call it that.
My parents are some of the most gentle people on the face of the earth. Sure, we've had problems and arguments, but they are the type of people our neighbors even called Ma and Pa. The first to stand up for what is right, and the last to sit down (sometimes I didn't agree with what they thought was right but I always admired them).
No matter how busy they were, or how bad things were, they always had time for us. Day or night, their door was open, and they would listen to us before making judgements. Like most parents, they would do the grounding thing, and the 'time out' thing. In fact they would use 'whupping' (I still smile when they say that instead of spanking) as a very last resort. However, they would use it. It was always with a bare hand, and always on the rear. The hand was always open (no fists). Never once did it actually hurt, but I would rather have been shot in the leg then to recieve the 'whupping'. Because I realised that I must have hurt my parents terribly (emotionally) if it came down to that.
Me? I don't know if I have it in me even for that. Not because I think it is wrong, however. Because I've seen my fathers eyes when he 'whupped' my brothers, and my mom's when she 'whupped' me or my sisters. I would never want to go through the pain I witnessed in their eyes.
I'll try to cover the rest shortly, but there is a lot of things to cover.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
