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 09-08-2019, 02:53 PM
 
Location: SM
25,930 posts, read 10,001,595 times
Reputation: 9982

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_browser View Post
Come on. It was clear that I was responding to Gungnirís claim that kicking and screaming = against a childís will and comparison of a kicking and screaming child to a kicking and screaming adult.
And he answered it. You guys just don't like the logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Only if the one locked in a cage objects to being locked in a cage. If the child is picked up and does not protest, then there is no violation of it's right.

Aggression can only be determined by the person who is the subject of it.



Same standard. Children when they object are asserting their rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2019, 02:56 PM
 
1,641 posts, read 1,541,330 times
Reputation: 3825
By these standards of consent few children would make it to adulthood. It’s functional antinatalism, I suppose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 03:08 PM
 
Location: SM
25,930 posts, read 10,001,595 times
Reputation: 9982
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_browser View Post
By these standards of consent few children would make it to adulthood. Itís functional antinatalism, I suppose.
The irony here is that non-violent parenting is a cornerstone of the modern anarchy movement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 03:11 PM
 
Location: SM
25,930 posts, read 10,001,595 times
Reputation: 9982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Are you being purposely obtuse?

Jeez I don't even have kids and can tell the difference between the "get your stinkin' hands off me" cry, and the I'm hungry cry, and the my diaper needs changing cry, and the I'm tired and want to sleep cry.
They can't get past the notion that they aren't morally or logically permitted to make a claim on rights of another individual (in this case the assertion that a baby's rights have been violated).

AKA another day in Statistville
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 03:16 PM
 
1,641 posts, read 1,541,330 times
Reputation: 3825
And I submit that it would be impossible to raise children to adulthood safely with such an absolute prohibition of consent violations without a great deal of rationalizing. Not corporal punishment, sure. Maximizing a child’s options, sure. But there will be some force used or the infant/toddler won’t live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 03:19 PM
 
1,641 posts, read 1,541,330 times
Reputation: 3825
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
They can't get past the notion that they aren't morally or logically permitted to make a claim on rights of another individual (in this case the assertion that a baby's rights have been violated).

AKA another day in Statistville
So we deal with this by declaring there are no consent violations unless the victims are able and willing to show up on City Data and complain. Got it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 03:46 PM
 
9,773 posts, read 6,463,630 times
Reputation: 18538
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Though I'm not quite a Libertarian, the OP's objection has merit. No one asked to be born (or refused it). And yet, here are. To kill oneself, from peeved feeling of violation, or despair of living to live, isn't the same, as to undo the reality of having been born. And none of this would matter, if on the whole we would be satisfied with the human-condition, or even if unsatisfied, if we laconically accepted the reality of being alive and of facing life's burdens.

Well, one solution is human extinction, through voluntary non-reproduction... if we come to espouse the idea, that creating any new sentient life is an affront against said life. That would neatly solve our various political squabbles and philosophical laments.

Another solution would be to just shut-up-and-color, accepting life's endemic unfairness and making the best of it. Neither option is, I think, of unalloyed appeal. We face a problem, don't we? I don't have a satisfactory answer.



We can all become Shakers


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers



Quote:
Celibacy and children

Shakers were celibate; procreation was forbidden after they joined the society (except for women who were already pregnant at admission). Children were added to their communities through indenture, adoption, or conversion. Occasionally a foundling was anonymously left on a Shaker doorstep.[42] They welcomed all, often taking in orphans and the homeless. For children, Shaker life was structured, safe and predictable, with no shortage of adults who cared about their young charges

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 04:15 PM
 
Location: SM
25,930 posts, read 10,001,595 times
Reputation: 9982
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_browser View Post
So we deal with this by declaring there are no consent violations unless the victims are able and willing to show up on City Data and complain. Got it.
You would have numerous options to seek a remedy in a free society if you should be victimized.

Now? Not so much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 04:28 PM
 
Location: SM
25,930 posts, read 10,001,595 times
Reputation: 9982
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_browser View Post
And I submit that it would be impossible to raise children to adulthood safely with such an absolute prohibition of consent violations without a great deal of rationalizing. Not corporal punishment, sure. Maximizing a childís options, sure. But there will be some force used or the infant/toddler wonít live.
I don't know what this means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2019, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
10,060 posts, read 2,818,325 times
Reputation: 2668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Are you being purposely obtuse?

Jeez I don't even have kids and can tell the difference between the "get your stinkin' hands off me" cry, and the I'm hungry cry, and the my diaper needs changing cry, and the I'm tired and want to sleep cry.
Babies don't like a lot of things. They don't like showers, they don't like being locked up in a crib. Are parents going to stop doing these things because the baby doesn't like it?

And this whole thing is even more flawed since if consent is assumed, then I can punch you in the face and not face in consequences since you never told me not to.
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