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 09-09-2019, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
10,099 posts, read 2,831,492 times
Reputation: 2676

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Swing and a miss.

Going to try again?
Swing and home-run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
That's terrible.

Did you communicate your desire to not be forcibly locked into a cage to the alleged perps?
You say it here, without communicating desire to not be forcibly locked in a cage the parent has good authority to do such.

And apparently the baby crying is not enough either, but that is separate from not communicating denial.

Last edited by Winterfall8324; 09-09-2019 at 04:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-09-2019, 03:55 PM
 
Location: SM
25,988 posts, read 10,027,050 times
Reputation: 10001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Swing and home-run.



You say it here, without communicating desire to not be forcibly locked in a cage the parent has good authority to do such.

And apparently the baby crying is not enough either, but that is separate from not communication denial.
You were in the cage, brother. I made that quite clear in my statement. I was wondering why you weren't communicating your desire to get out. You've written numerous posts in this thread and forum (nearly all factually wrong) but you are communicating nonetheless.

Ergo, I surmised that you would be able to communicate your desire to not be locked in a cage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2019, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
10,099 posts, read 2,831,492 times
Reputation: 2676
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
You were in the cage, brother. I made that quite clear in my statement. I was wondering why you weren't communicating your desire to get out. You've written numerous posts in this thread and forum (nearly all factually wrong) but you are communicating nonetheless.

Ergo, I surmised that you would be able to communicate your desire to not be locked in a cage.
Babies can cry and be visible upset. Are the parents obliged to free them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2019, 11:38 PM
 
Location: Itinerant
6,511 posts, read 4,281,978 times
Reputation: 4985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Babies can cry and be visible upset. Are the parents obliged to free them?
If doing so would not bring harm to them, then yes.

Parents hold the rights of the child in trust until the child is able to assert those rights itself.

So examples

parent is using an ascender to climb a rope up a cliff, with baby in a chest harness. Baby is yowling kicking and screaming, to free it from the carrier will result in the death of the baby, and possibly the parent. The baby needs to put up and shut up.

Parent is watching TV and having a scotch, baby is in crib. Baby is yowling kicking and screaming to be free from its crib (maybe it wants to watch GoT and drink a scotch too). The parent needs to let the child out of the crib, since there is no real risk of harm to the child in being released.

Parent is watching TV and having a scotch, baby is in crib. Baby is silently sleeping. Parent needs do nothing.
__________________
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 09-10-2019, 12:01 AM
 
13,734 posts, read 4,135,647 times
Reputation: 4073
It's just common sense that sometimes aggression and force and violating someone's consent is necessary and for the good. It's not even possible for everything that happens within any society or group to not violate someone's consent.

Just for example, let's say someone was not feeding their child. Wouldn't it be justified to violate that person's property rights by entering and giving the child some food?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 01:31 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
6,511 posts, read 4,281,978 times
Reputation: 4985
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Just for example, let's say someone was not feeding their child. Wouldn't it be justified to violate that person's property rights by entering and giving the child some food?
Sure, but the reason its justified is that the parent is already violating the child's rights.

They already violated the NAP by failing to uphold their responsibilities as a parent.
__________________
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 09-10-2019, 05:31 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
10,099 posts, read 2,831,492 times
Reputation: 2676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
If doing so would not bring harm to them, then yes.

Parents hold the rights of the child in trust until the child is able to assert those rights itself.

So examples

parent is using an ascender to climb a rope up a cliff, with baby in a chest harness. Baby is yowling kicking and screaming, to free it from the carrier will result in the death of the baby, and possibly the parent. The baby needs to put up and shut up.

Parent is watching TV and having a scotch, baby is in crib. Baby is yowling kicking and screaming to be free from its crib (maybe it wants to watch GoT and drink a scotch too). The parent needs to let the child out of the crib, since there is no real risk of harm to the child in being released.

Parent is watching TV and having a scotch, baby is in crib. Baby is silently sleeping. Parent needs do nothing.
"Until the child is able to assert those rights itself". Wait, what arbitrary standard are you using to define this?

What happen to universal autonomy? Who enforces this date of change? Does it happen when a child speaks its first words? When he walks? When he learns to write? When he's a teen without any practical skills? When he is an older teen? What arbitrary standards are you using?


And not all situations are so direct. Leaving a baby to crawl around on the floor all night can be just as dangerous, but not in such a direct manner. And what if you don't want to damage your property? What if you keep a child locked away not for their own sake, but because you don't want milk spilled all over your floor?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 06:08 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
6,511 posts, read 4,281,978 times
Reputation: 4985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
"Until the child is able to assert those rights itself". Wait, what arbitrary standard are you using to define this?
What do you mean "arbitrary standard"?

Like say age? Which is totally arbitrary. Clearly at your age you're incapable of functioning independently without guidance, your questions prove that you've not yet figured out some pretty basic social skills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
What happen to universal autonomy? Who enforces this date of change? Does it happen when a child speaks its first words? When he walks? When he learns to write? When he's a teen without any practical skills? When he is an older teen? What arbitrary standards are you using?
The individual does. You're kind of flipping out over nothing.

Rights like authority cannot be given, they must be taken, as I've already explained several times parents exercise the child's rights until the child chooses to exercise them itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
And not all situations are so direct. Leaving a baby to crawl around on the floor all night can be just as dangerous, but not in such a direct manner. And what if you don't want to damage your property? What if you keep a child locked away not for their own sake, but because you don't want milk spilled all over your floor?
If you don't want your child damaging your property, or being active while you want to sleep, you should have thought of these before having your child.

If you lock your kid away for your sake, that's by any measure abuse, and clearly bad parenting. I thought that would be obvious to the marginally intellectually competent. Did I err on the measure, or the measured?
__________________
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 09-10-2019, 06:29 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
10,099 posts, read 2,831,492 times
Reputation: 2676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
What do you mean "arbitrary standard"?

Like say age? Which is totally arbitrary. Clearly at your age you're incapable of functioning independently without guidance, your questions prove that you've not yet figured out some pretty basic social skills.



The individual does. You're kind of flipping out over nothing.

Rights like authority cannot be given, they must be taken, as I've already explained several times parents exercise the child's rights until the child chooses to exercise them itself.



If you don't want your child damaging your property, or being active while you want to sleep, you should have thought of these before having your child.

If you lock your kid away for your sake, that's by any measure abuse, and clearly bad parenting. I thought that would be obvious to the marginally intellectually competent. Did I err on the measure, or the measured?
For the first half, um????

Individual chooses to be autonomous? What does that mean? I thought autonomy is an individual wanting things for themselves. Isn't a baby autonomous because it has desires it pursues? And if so shouldn't it be allowed to pursue those desires even if it creates self harm?

And before you say they don't understand the consequences or can't comprehend, you can say that about a lot of grown up addicts who do stupid things. Do you want to infringe on their autonomy as well?

As for the second half, the child doesn't need to be in direct harm to hurt itself or you. If a child and a parent is just a voluntary relationship like ancaps say why do kids get special privileges? If I invite someone into my home (like choosing to raise a child) and he is breaking my property (intention doesn't matter as you say) do I not have a right as the property owner to infringe on their autonomy to stop them?

Why is a child any different, after all you guys say a child is just something parents choose to care for? If the desires of the child supersede all else except in case of immediate danger you don't think a child could be kept away from a room of knives or guns? Or are you obliged to let them be as they want to be there?

And if you can stop them how far does indirect consequences go? Can you control a teen who wants to go to a party because it could be dangerous? You'd probably say no so what is the fundamental difference between that and forcing a child to stay away from an environment that can harm them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2019, 10:49 AM
 
13,734 posts, read 4,135,647 times
Reputation: 4073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Sure, but the reason its justified is that the parent is already violating the child's rights.

They already violated the NAP by failing to uphold their responsibilities as a parent.
And per the NAP, the property owner is justified in shooting the good Samaritan who aggressed property rights. In the real world NAP has so many loopholes and exceptions and other practical problems, it's a near useless principle.
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