|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 20, 2012 12:12 PM |
|
|
Where did I say a child BELONGS TO society?
A child is part of society, a member, and as such the child and all other members have certain rights and interests.
The first one is, that a child - as PART of society - is considered to have a right to be protected, even from parents. This would be obviously the case, when there is abuse (which means, the parents or a parent basically teach their children that it is right and normal when a parent has sex with their child) or neglect (kid is ill and not cared for, for example).
The second one is, that society is also not forced to allow teachings that may be harmful for OTHER members. An example would be the teaching that it's correct to take justice into your own hands when you are not satisfied with the results the authorities of society deliver (shoot a raper, who's sentenced to serve 10 years).
Generally, those things tend to blur a bit. Parental educational errors may result in self-destructive tendencies or destructive tendencies, resulting in the end in harm to member(s) of society.
Oh, I forgot: A child BELONGS TO itself. As long as the child is still learning, parents have the duty to care.
Society jumps in when there seems to be a general need.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 20, 2012 02:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
EDIT: 20 post count et cetera:
Quote:
) The kid will become part of society, and society has a justified interest in making sure the kid won't be a risk for said society and its members.
Quote:
Oh, I forgot: A child BELONGS TO itself. As long as the child is still learning, parents have the duty to care.
Society jumps in when there seems to be a general need.
He's not his own man, the child didn't decide to be part of society, did he now? Ergo how can he belong to himself when society forces the child into education? (it's the law) Child is not allowed to say no, otherwise his/her carers face persecution/fine, to the extent where the child is removed from those carers and placed int he hands of another. Please explain to me how in this in anyway proves that the child belongs to himself/herself? (because it seriously looks like the opposite)
The parents are the "caretakers" of the children. They for THEMSELVES have decided that they want to be part of the society they live in (if they didn't, they could always at least try to emigrate into another one).
The children miss any real means to actually counter that decision, at least as long as they are not able to feed themselves, independent from any other rules. So whether they want or not (and they want, since they usually love their parents and want to keep with them), they can't emigrate to another society.
Which means, children haven't got a lot of options.
Ultimately, everything parents and society do for or with the children has the purpose - SHOULD HAVE the purpose, I should probably say - to enable the children to "belong to themselves", meaning nothing else than making them independent from anyone's care, so that they don't need caretakers anymore.
Obviously, society would want to make sure, that said independence is not bought with harm to anyone else.
So parents are the caretakers and society - a certain branch of the government - tries to set a couple of basic rules and regulations make adjustments or provide services should that be deemed necessary or beneficial.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted January 20, 2012 02:34 PM |
|
|
That is a whole lot more contradiction than my brain cannot fathom, I fold.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 21, 2012 12:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
All me, Meroe and (never thought this would happen) Elodin are saying is that parenting is individual and private, and not something government should interfere with. If I want my kids to praise Allah, become neo-Nazis ,reptilian conspiracy theorists or any other retarded thing out there it's still our choice how to raise our kids, is it not ?
Exactly. Parents are the experts when it comes to their children. Not some loon in Washington. Parents have the right to determine what ideologies to teach their children. Not some loon in Washington.
I think it is silly to say that the State is the expert on child-rearing and parents are the amateurs.
Corribus wants to teach his child that Jesus is only a fairy tale. It is his right to teach his child the incorrect information. I taught my children that God exists and lead them into a personal relationship with him. That was my right.
Quote:
I don't want the government to tell me how to raise my kids, I don't want the government to censor my Internet either, I don't want the government to force my kids into a certain diet in schools either.... Way too many limitations and interferences by the government and all of it is of course done for the greater good and for a better society.... Dont like it one bit and if you guys do, it's cool, we don't all need to see eye to eye...
Preach it brother!!!
I don't worship the State. I don't belong to the State. The State is to serve the people, not the people the State.
Public Education exists to ASSIST parents in educating their children, not for the State to indoctrinate children into whatever beliefs the current loons in power hold. I repeat, public education is not for the purpose of social engineering.
Quote:
1) The kids are not the parents's property, which means
The kids are not the State's property dude. It is to the parents that God/nature entrusted the kids. You argued that if nature gives an 8 year old girl the ability to menstruate she is mature enough to have sex because nature made her capable of having a baby. So the only position you can LOGICALLY hold is that since nature gave the parents the kids they are mature enough to handle the parenting job. So your position should be that the State should butt out and leave the parenting to the parents. 
Quote:
2) The kid has a right of protection, even from his parents, and there are enough examples that's a good thing
The kid has a right to be protected from loons in Washington who want to warp his little mind. PARENTS LOVE THEIR CHILDREN, LOONY POLITICIANS DO NOT LOVE THE KIDS. Parents make their decisions about the child based on their own personal experiences/knowledge and the knowledge of the child. Parents are the the best position to teach their children and to lovingly guide them through the changes in their lives. Political control freaks need to worry about parenting their own kids instead of wanting to mold everyone else's kids.
Quote:
3) The kid will become part of society, and society has a justified interest in making sure the kid won't be a risk for said society and its members.
The family existed before the State. The State exists to serve the family, not the family the State. Parents have a far greater emotional, financial, and personal "investment" in their child than some politician in Washington. Parents often have lifelong consequences related to the successes and failures of their children. The kid is just a number (potentially brainwashed voter) to the politician.
The "good intentions" of liberal forcing their views on others children has lead to far more devastation to the child and to society itself than any errant teaching pf a parent.
Parents have the right to establish their home and the moral beliefs of the home. If JJ wants to teach his little girl that as soon as she begins to menstruate she needs to start experimenting with all different kinds of sex because that is the only way she'll find "the right person" that is his right to teach. He is free to teach his fairy tale that there is no such thing as right and wrong. That is his right no matter how strongly I disagree with him.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 21, 2012 01:29 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 01:43, 21 Jan 2012.
|
Right. Time to bring in the artillery.
Quote:
If I want my kids to (...) become neo-Nazis ,reptilian conspiracy theorists or any other retarded thing out there it's still our choice how to raise our kids, is it not ?
Quote:
Exactly. Parents are the experts when it comes to their children.
Invigorating as that may be, I still remember you being fiercely against me masturbating on my children in the glorious name of Satan, El. Leading me to believe you don't really agree that someone should be allowed to raise their children as reptilian neo-Nazis and, therefore, don't fully understand the implications of your position.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 21, 2012 02:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Invigorating as that may be, I still remember you being fiercely against me masturbating on my children in the glorious name of Satan, El.
Indeed. Unlike certain community members I believe that not only is there such a thing as moral "right" and moral "wrong" but that morality is absolute. Such a deviant sexual act would be repulsive, would be morally wrong and is such a heinous act that it should be unacceptable and illegal.
Your proposed scenario poses no problems for theists but is very problematic for atheists who claim that objective morality is non-existent.
____________
Revelation
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted January 21, 2012 02:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Invigorating as that may be, I still remember you being fiercely against me masturbating on my children in the glorious name of Satan, El. Leading me to believe you don't really agree that someone should be allowed to raise their children as reptilian neo-Nazis and, therefore, don't fully understand the implications of your position.
I really don't think that this is accurate, since that counts as child abuse and it is illegal.  Children are taken away and parents are arrested for that sort of thing...
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 21, 2012 07:55 AM |
|
|
yeah mastrubating your child is abuse, I'm pretty sure all the evil immoral atheists don't approve of it >.>
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted January 21, 2012 10:52 AM |
|
|
Bak doesn't get to worship Satan through masturbation.
Meanwhile a large group of people cut their babies' penises to appease their god.
Freedom of religion... complicated.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 21, 2012 12:39 PM |
|
|
I would kindly direct everyone outside the circle consisting of Elodin, me and Adrius (who appears to be well versed on the subject) to consult the previous discussion between us two on the matter.
See, hate speech is illegal too, and yet Elodin supports a parent's right to teach his children to be neo-Nazis. As well as circumcision as a parent's religious freedom and right over their children.
As we showed in the other thread, feeding your baby a spoonful of semen every day in no way damages the baby, and on the contrary, it's brimming with proteins which are key to healthy growth and development; while, on the other hand, as Adrius mentioned, circumcision causes very clear physical damage, and yet it's not viewed as physical abuse against the child because of the parents' religious creed (note how the effects are permanent and the circumcision is done before the child has any option to decline it).
Isn't that right, El?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 21, 2012 03:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
See, hate speech is illegal too, and yet Elodin supports a parent's right to teach his children to be neo-Nazis.
No, hate speech is not illegal, at least not in the US. You are free to be a member of the KKK, Black Panthers, Freedom From Religion Foundation and other hate groups and are free to spout hatred in public to your heart's content.
Yes, I do support you right to use hate speech in public if you wish as the Constitution says you have freedom of speech.
Quote:
As well as circumcision as a parent's religious freedom and right over their children.
Yes, I support the right of freedom of religion. I believe in the Constitutional rights. If you don't like freedom of religion try to get a Constitutional amendment passed doing away with it.
Quote:
Isn't that right, El?
No, we learned that circumcision is not harmful to the child and that there are a number of benefits associated with it.
However, there is already a thread for discussing the things you brought up in your latest post. Let's not have 2 thread discussing the same things please.
____________
Revelation
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 22, 2012 01:34 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 13:43, 22 Jan 2012.
|
But we're not discussing it in that other thread anymore, are we. And it's quite on topic here too.
I mean, I can't discuss something with you if you don't want to. I simply have trouble digesting your belief that parents should be allowed preach hate speech to their children*, as well as commit circumcision which, contrary to what you believe, leaves not only physical scars (such as the scar tissue, repulsive to a lot of people, forming on one's penis), but also makes the person feel less during sexual intercourse, not to mention the risks of things that can go wrong. The sharp decline in circumcisions undertaken in the US in the last 20 or so years, as well as all the activist groups fighting against it that have arisen since then, show that things are not that peachy. I think every man has the right to decide for himself whether he wants his penis mutilated, you strongly believe he does not (or rather, you're supporting every man's freedom and right to have his penis cut without his consent), whereas you would imprison people who masturbate on their baby (technically hurting it neither physically nor mentally) because you have been taught that's bad.
The gist of it is that if Jews masturbated on their children for 2500 years, we wouldn't be having this conversation, illustrating that, in fact, you seem to be (consciously or subconsciously) far less subject to absolute morality than you believe.
*"Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States, outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words."
You might as well get an anti-hate-speech law like the rest of the civilized world, though.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 22, 2012 03:29 PM |
|
|
Yeah, let's just agree that the Jews introduced the general moral that if in doubt everything concerning sex is immoral while everything concerning violence is not.
That's not really astonishing, considering that their lone God was - as opposed to the ones being worshipped by other peoples - asexual, but quite violent.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted January 22, 2012 04:29 PM |
|
|
Violence is a means to an end, sex is not. (Not in modern society anyhow)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 22, 2012 04:41 PM |
|
|
In an effort to keep the thread on topic I have commented on JJ's latest comments in the circumcision thread.
For my views about free speech and why even "hate speech" must be protected see my excellent opening post in the thread: "Free Speech [Religous people welcome to express their ideas]."
Clicky
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
