Child Abuse "On The Verge Of Torture" In The Name Of Christ

[Tee Kay]

No. Obviously, broadband Internet access is a fundamental right, and society will totally collapse if government doesn't ensure that everyone has it. The Dark Ages ended in the mid-1990s

Considering how our transactions, information gathering, education, participation in community or government organisations, etc are increasingly done partly or entirely over the internet, I think internet access lies somewhere between "access to a telephone" and "access to running water".

 

[Crezth]

If you're serious that philosophy of "rights" and how and to whom they are applied hasn't evolved since the 17th century then I don't know what.

 

[Chimera Kitty]

Considering how our transactions, information gathering, education, participation in community or government organisations, etc are increasingly done partly or entirely over the internet, I think internet access lies somewhere between "access to a telephone" and "access to running water".

...which are also things to which nobody is entitled.

If you're serious that philosophy of "rights" and how and to whom they are applied hasn't evolved since the 17th century then I don't know what.

Well, we have started making SOME improvements. For example, a few of us now recognize that humans who are not yet 18 years old are also people, and new knowledge about nonhuman intelligence has persuaded some of us of the idea that personhood, and therefore rights, are not limited to humans.

The basic ideas remain unchanged, however.

 

[Crezth]

You realize that your new position conflicts with your original premise that we had it all down pat, right?

 

[Tee Kay]

...which are also things to which nobody is entitled.

I think I'm entitled to running water. It's certainly something that governments should strive to ensure that everyone has. And we pay for it through tax.

Now if this was three hundred years ago, I would be unreasonable to expect clean, piped water. But I live here and now; we have the technology to cheaply and efficiently deliver this service to the vast majority of households.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, trust me, I've had discussions with more than a few of those people. They definitely exist and not in small numbers.

I think they're still a serious, serious minority. I think the number of people that would defend what happpened in that OP is really small.

Anyway, what are your exact thoughts about spanking? Is it only okay if you don't feel any anger when you do it? By the same token, would the abuses described in the OP be okay so long as the abusers don't feel any anger when they do it? Is it a matter of causing physical harm? If so, how much harm is acceptable? Do you draw the line at "a bit of shock and awe is okay, so long as it doesn't hurt"? Or at "pain is okay, but cuts and bruises are not"? How about "visible damage is okay, so long as it's not permanent"? All of these borders are completely arbitrary and equally valid... which, by necessity, means that they're equally invalid

I think small, insignificant amounts of pain are OK, in certain cases. And I think there is a line between "A little over a line" and "You're a child abuser who needs prison time" as well. There are maybe certain cases that cross my personal threshold but should not be legally interfered with. There are certainly times when CPS does need to intervene.

Anger is irrelevant to the law. It would affect my moral view on it, but its irrelevant to the law. You can't legislate emotion.

I generally take the parents side when it comes to they should be allowed to raise their children the way they want, if its a gray area. The OP, however, clearly isn't. Ruining lives is not discipline. Torture is not discipline (I don't pull the crap about waterboarding not technically being torture so I'm not going to do it here either, causing severe pain and suffering over long periods is torture and the OP fit.

Do you think it's okay for a ten-year-old to drink Coca-Cola? Probably. What if it was the ultra-old-school coke that still had cocaine in it? You'd probably say "no, that's against the rules"... even though cocaine and caffeine have the exact same effects on the brain (the difference being that caffeine lasts much longer). Where do you draw the line?

Cocaine and caffeine have the same effects? What? (I really don't know all that much about drugs.)

I think all drugs should be legal for adults (Even cocaine) but not children. The reason is that children are not adults and so are not yet considered to have sufficient wisdom and knowledge to make decisions that may ruin their lives.

Is eighteen a good age for adulthood? I have no idea. Its as arbitrary as any other line. Which is generally why I think of this as a bit of a curve rather than a hard and fast rule. 17 year olds can make far, far more decisions for themelves than 10 year olds.

I don't have any clear lines in the sand. Sorry.

As soon as you start saying "kids and adults alike have rights ABC, but only adults have rights XYZ", then that's no different from saying "I get to decide what rights another person has", which is, in turn, no different from "another person has no rights, only I do"

So if my 5 year old wants to drive on a public road, all well and good? Really?

I think I'm entitled to running water. It's certainly something that governments should strive to ensure that everyone has. And we pay for it through tax.

Now if this was three hundred years ago, I would be unreasonable to expect clean, piped water. But I live here and now; we have the technology to cheaply and efficiently deliver this service to the vast majority of households.

You don't have a right to anything off the backs of someone else's work.

If you could really "Pay through tax" you could just pay for it on the free market. Otherwise this is code word for "Someone else pays for it for me."

 

[Tee Kay]

You don't have a right to anything off the backs of someone else's work.

If you could really "Pay through tax" you could just pay for it on the free market. Otherwise this is code word for "Someone else pays for it for me."

I will not have you slander hard-working people who chipped in part of their well-earned income so that the necessary infrastructure and organisation exists to deliver fundamental services needed for people to live a decent life and for the economy to function.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I will not have you slander hard-working people who chipped in part of their well-earned income so that the necessary infrastructure and organisation exists to deliver fundamental services needed for people to live a decent life and for the economy to function.

I'm not slandering you so much as I'm debunking the entitlement "Rights" system of the left.

I see absolutely no reason those services couldn't be provided by the private sector. None.

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm not slandering you so much as I'm debunking the entitlement "Rights" system of the left.

Basically you are saying anyone who uses public services is a thief.

I see absolutely no reason those services couldn't be provided by the private sector. None.

Sure they can. The government still needs to ensure that services are delivered to an acceptable standard.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nah. The notions of what "rights" are, who has them, etc. got nailed down pretty well by those Enlightenment philosophers and hasn't really been improved upon since.

What does this, aside from being nonsense, have to do with my comment?

I'm not slandering you so much as I'm debunking the entitlement "Rights" system of the left.

"Debunk" doesn't just mean "reject".

 

[Ailedhoo]

I'm not slandering you so much as I'm debunking the entitlement "Rights" system of the left.

I see absolutely no reason those services couldn't be provided by the private sector. None.

You were slandering in a way and "the left" to your position includes most the ecomonic right.

Selfish greed should not be central to the ecomony. The public sector is not "ineffective" as you claim. If the private sector was this goldmine you keep claiming it to be then G4S would have done their job in London instead of failing and having have the (public sector) army come in to do the job of security.

 

[Domen]

First Amendment, formaldehyde. Take your anti-Christian commie nonsense elsewhere. USA #0.

No no. This is good reading. But now post something about Muslim Child Abuse and Communist Child Abuse in China and North Korea.

And perhaps about Atheist Child Abuse. Or maybe Atheist & Communist Abuse of Christians - if you find something.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Basically you are saying anyone who uses public services is a thief.



Sure they can. The government still needs to ensure that services are delivered to an acceptable standard.

To the first paragraph, YOU aren't stealing by using it, if anything, the state is the one stealing. They then use the money they stole from you to provide you something. You taking it isn't wrong. That they stole it in the first place is.

To the second part, you're right to some extent. You shouldn't be allowed to poison water, or whatever. We might disagree on the details but I don't disagree on principle.

My contention was that you aren't entitled to those things if you can't pay for them. To suggest otherwise is to suggest, again, that you are entitled to someone else's labor.

 

[Traitorfish]

My contention was that you aren't entitled to those things if you can't pay for them. To suggest otherwise is to suggest, again, that you are entitled to someone else's labor.

Of course you're entitled to somebody else's labour; how else do you expect investors to make profits?

 

[Tee Kay]

My contention was that you aren't entitled to those things if you can't pay for them.

Except that one does pay for running water.

And it's a dangerous principle to live by. Is a penniless person entitled to emergency health care to save their life? Or, are you entitled to property rights, freedom of speech and freedom of religion if you lack the money to pay for the security to protect those rights from those who would trample on them?

The principle that "you are not entitled to anything you can't pay for" is essentially a might-makes-right argument.

 

[Traitorfish]

The principle that "you are not entitled to anything you can't pay for" is essentially a might-makes-right argument.

GhostWriter is a libertarian, yes.

 

[Tee Kay]

Yes, but I don't think he realises that.

 

[Chimera Kitty]

You realize that your new position conflicts with your original premise that we had it all down pat, right?

Please point out the conflict. I see none.

Now if this was three hundred years ago, I would be unreasonable to expect clean, piped water. But I live here and now; we have the technology to cheaply and efficiently deliver this service to the vast majority of households.

We also have the technology to provide a free pony to every American. That doesn't make it a good idea.

I think they're still a serious, serious minority. I think the number of people that would defend what happpened in that OP is really small.

Of course. But how many of those same people would violate the same rights of the same victims for the same reasons, just so long as they do it "not as much"?

I think small, insignificant amounts of pain are OK, in certain cases...

Hey, Crezth! See this? THIS is a conflict: someone who claims to be a libertarian but says it's okay to inflict pain on another person against his/her will so long as it's for his/her alleged own good.

Cocaine and caffeine have the same effects? What? (I really don't know all that much about drugs.)

Yup. they're both CNS stimulants: they pump up your heart rate, accelerate your thoughts, make you feel "lighter" (I mean literally, it feels like Earth's gravity has decreased), improve mood, and in higher doses can cause psychosis and heart attacks.

I think all drugs should be legal for adults (Even cocaine) but not children. The reason is that children are not adults and so are not yet considered to have sufficient wisdom and knowledge to make decisions that may ruin their lives.

"I think certain rights belong to demographic group X but not demographic group Y because of generalization Z"

Welcome to the Third Reich.

So if my 5 year old wants to drive on a public road, all well and good? Really?

Can your 5-year-old take and pass the driver's test?

What does this, aside from being nonsense, have to do with my comment?

It's an explicit rejection of your "well, that's just, like, your opinion, man" argument.

Selfish greed should not be central to the ecomony.

It always has been and always will be - and it totally should be, because selfish greed drives people to seek the things that they think will improve their lives.

Of course you're entitled to somebody else's labour; how else do you expect investors to make profits?

That's a situation in which the title to someone's labor has been willingly handed over to the investor. So how about "you're not entitled to somebody else's labor unless you both have agreed otherwise"?

Is a penniless person entitled to emergency health care to save their life?

No.

The principle that "you are not entitled to anything you can't pay for" is essentially a might-makes-right argument.

How? I'd argue that those who force others to give to charity at gunpoint are the ones exercising MMR.

 

[Borachio]

"I think certain rights belong to demographic group X but not demographic group Y because of generalization Z"

Welcome to the Third Reich.

Hahaha. Priceless!

Yes. No. Really, no. This is a specious argument indeed. You're saying that children and adults should be treated equally. Have equal access to drugs? And sex, too? And sharp implements? And matches? Are you sure you want to stick with this line of thinking?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Hahaha. Priceless!

Yes. No. Really, no. This is a specious argument indeed. You're saying that children and adults should be treated equally. Have equal access to drugs? And sex, too? And sharp implements? And matches? Are you sure you want to stick with this line of thinking?

I was interested in the line of thought until he brought the third reich into it. That just proved his lack of intelligence. So I'm not going to bother now. Moderator Action: Flaming is not allowed here.