U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 09:20 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
9,257 posts, read 4,554,095 times
Reputation: 1457

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewjdeg View Post
If a state cannot claim a citizen at birth, then what gives parents the right to claim their own child at birth. I can not find a sufficient answer to this question anywhere in this thread.
Oh, but the State does claim the child at birth. When getting the BC, the parent has to get the child's SSN too ... the State will track a person from cradle to grave.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
10,058 posts, read 2,818,325 times
Reputation: 2668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
Oh, but the State does claim the child at birth. When getting the BC, the parent has to get the child's SSN too ... the State will track a person from cradle to grave.
That wasn't the question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:48 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
9,257 posts, read 4,554,095 times
Reputation: 1457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
That wasn't the question.
You're right ... It was a statement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:11 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
6,489 posts, read 4,275,044 times
Reputation: 4978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
So then what right do you have to act if you don't know they consent or not?

If you don't know a baby wants to be locked away in a crib then what right do you have to act?
Its like discussing quantum computing with cardboard cut outs

You cannot claim the right of consent nor denial.

What does that mean practically?

There are three states anyone can be in when interacting with another person or their property.

The actor receives explicit consent, they may proceed with whatever action they are performing on an individual or private property.

The actor receives explicit denial, they may not proceed with whatever action they were performing or planning to perform on an individual or private property.

The actor has neither denial nor consent, it is left to the judgement of the actor to proceed or not on their action until they judge they have received consent or denial, then they act according to one of the rules above.

If one acts against explicit denial or they continue to act when they really know that there has been a denial, they are acting with aggression. However, even though an actor may have been aggressive, it is on the recipient of the aggression to act against it, or make a complaint.

99% of life is spent in the tertiary state, you have neither denial nor consent, you determine by your judgement and the responses to your actions whether consent is given, denied or neither.

So with children, it is the parents responsibility to hold in trust the child's rights until the child is able to assert its rights itself. Thus a parent is trusted to use their judgement as to whether their child is or is not consenting or denying. It's not going to be easy, because expediency often relies on utilitarian principles, which are frequently at odds with the NAP. However that's why parents have a significant responsibility.

Is this so hard to understand?
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules Infractions & Deletions Who's the moderator? FAQ What is a "Personal Attack" What is "Trolling" Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:14 AM
 
Location: Round Rock, TX
2,775 posts, read 837,143 times
Reputation: 779
So if a child feels very complacent with the enviroment their being given for whatever genuine reason, would that also guarantee a principle of consent vs denial?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:36 AM
 
Location: SM
25,928 posts, read 10,001,595 times
Reputation: 9982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Its like discussing quantum computing with cardboard cut outs

You cannot claim the right of consent nor denial.

What does that mean practically?

There are three states anyone can be in when interacting with another person or their property.

The actor receives explicit consent, they may proceed with whatever action they are performing on an individual or private property.

The actor receives explicit denial, they may not proceed with whatever action they were performing or planning to perform on an individual or private property.

The actor has neither denial nor consent, it is left to the judgement of the actor to proceed or not on their action until they judge they have received consent or denial, then they act according to one of the rules above.

If one acts against explicit denial or they continue to act when they really know that there has been a denial, they are acting with aggression. However, even though an actor may have been aggressive, it is on the recipient of the aggression to act against it, or make a complaint.

99% of life is spent in the tertiary state, you have neither denial nor consent, you determine by your judgement and the responses to your actions whether consent is given, denied or neither.

So with children, it is the parents responsibility to hold in trust the child's rights until the child is able to assert its rights itself. Thus a parent is trusted to use their judgement as to whether their child is or is not consenting or denying. It's not going to be easy, because expediency often relies on utilitarian principles, which are frequently at odds with the NAP. However that's why parents have a significant responsibility.

Is this so hard to understand?
It's like watching a man get hit by a car and knocked unconscious. They believe you can't aid him because he can't verbally consent to the aid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:48 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
10,058 posts, read 2,818,325 times
Reputation: 2668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Its like discussing quantum computing with cardboard cut outs

You cannot claim the right of consent nor denial.

What does that mean practically?

There are three states anyone can be in when interacting with another person or their property.

The actor receives explicit consent, they may proceed with whatever action they are performing on an individual or private property.

The actor receives explicit denial, they may not proceed with whatever action they were performing or planning to perform on an individual or private property.

The actor has neither denial nor consent, it is left to the judgement of the actor to proceed or not on their action until they judge they have received consent or denial, then they act according to one of the rules above.

If one acts against explicit denial or they continue to act when they really know that there has been a denial, they are acting with aggression. However, even though an actor may have been aggressive, it is on the recipient of the aggression to act against it, or make a complaint.

99% of life is spent in the tertiary state, you have neither denial nor consent, you determine by your judgement and the responses to your actions whether consent is given, denied or neither.

So with children, it is the parents responsibility to hold in trust the child's rights until the child is able to assert its rights itself. Thus a parent is trusted to use their judgement as to whether their child is or is not consenting or denying. It's not going to be easy, because expediency often relies on utilitarian principles, which are frequently at odds with the NAP. However that's why parents have a significant responsibility.

Is this so hard to understand?

Its very hard to understand and I think wholly inconsistent. We've moved from consent is assumed to nothing is assumed.

How can that possibly be logical? If someone has not invited me into their house I don't go in. That is private property. If a girl has not consented to having sex I do not engage in this activity. If someone has not consented to me punching them in the face I don't do it.

What you think doesn't matter but I guess it would matter if you're faced with consequences. Supposedly according to anarchists you forfeit your autonomous rights when you enter the property or domain of someone else. But how can property owners enforce the law (a term that is very fitting) if the 'aggressor' can assume consent? How could anyone act on anything?

And you can use some arbitrary notion of common sense but not everyone shares the same logic or mental capacity you have.

The baby is still in a lot of trouble. If parents have to act based on what they think the child wants then what right do they have to forcibly bath him/her if the baby doesn't want it. What about when the parents leave the room and lock the baby up in a crib. They do it for the baby's sake but the baby can still resist?

What right do parents have to do any of this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:51 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
10,058 posts, read 2,818,325 times
Reputation: 2668
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
It's like watching a man get hit by a car and knocked unconscious. They believe you can't aid him because he can't verbally consent to the aid.
Actually that should be the libertarian stance if we were looking for consistency, but that has nothing to do with a baby forcibly being bathed despite its resistance.

And since consent is neither assumed or denied an individual can technically act in any way they want since they can just assume consent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:59 AM
 
Location: SM
25,928 posts, read 10,001,595 times
Reputation: 9982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Actually that should be the libertarian stance if we were looking for consistency, but that has nothing to do with a baby forcibly being bathed despite its resistance.

And since consent is neither assumed or denied an individual can technically act in any way they want since they can just assume consent.
You're the baby again? How cute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:01 AM
 
Location: SM
25,928 posts, read 10,001,595 times
Reputation: 9982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Its very hard to understand and I think wholly inconsistent. We've moved from consent is assumed to nothing is assumed.

How can that possibly be logical? If someone has not invited me into their house I don't go in. That is private property. If a girl has not consented to having sex I do not engage in this activity. If someone has not consented to me punching them in the face I don't do it.

What you think doesn't matter but I guess it would matter if you're faced with consequences. Supposedly according to anarchists you forfeit your autonomous rights when you enter the property or domain of someone else. But how can property owners enforce the law (a term that is very fitting) if the 'aggressor' can assume consent? How could anyone act on anything?

And you can use some arbitrary notion of common sense but not everyone shares the same logic or mental capacity you have.

The baby is still in a lot of trouble. If parents have to act based on what they think the child wants then what right do they have to forcibly bath him/her if the baby doesn't want it. What about when the parents leave the room and lock the baby up in a crib. They do it for the baby's sake but the baby can still resist?

What right do parents have to do any of this?
You're the baby again?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top