Quote:
Thirdly, you don't have any more right to make decisions for your child than anyone else does
And I was going to let this go, but the assertion is just too absurd ... Is this a logical assertion or a practical one?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Trickle Down?
Trickle Down?Follow
And I was going to let this go, but the assertion is just too absurd ... Is this a logical assertion or a practical one?
2. The Supreme Court of the United States says so: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (536 U.S. 639), Mueller v. Allen (463 U.S. 388), Wisconsin v. Yoder (406 U.S. 205) and two Dec 06 cases, Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 05-908, and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 05-915.
None of these are on point. Wrong forum to pull this shit in. There is no 1st Amendment protection involving your right to send your kid to whatever school you choose, nor to home school him. Think for two seconds before you post something this stupid again.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
And I was going to let this go, but the assertion is just too absurd ... Is this a logical assertion or a practical one?
It is an ethical one. You (should) have no more right to decide your child's life than anyone else. Children aren't supposed to be clones of you; they aren't supposed to be your lackeys or legacy. Children are people who are every bit as deserving of your precious liberty as you are. It's almost sickening to think that there are people who procreate with the aims of destroying the will of their progeny for the aim of raising a particular kind of child.
Hell if my child (hahaha my hypothetical child that will never exist) were to become a gun toting bible thumping stereotypical republican apologist I'd at least try to support his/her decision, even though I'd despise it personally. I don't have the right to make my child into an impractical radical socialist philosopher no matter how much I may want it, and you don't have the right to make your child into a god fearing christian who dismisses evolution, whether or not you want it. It ain't your life.
I don't have the right to make my child into an impractical radical socialist philosopher no matter how much I may want it,
I make Hannah stab a pinata of Adam Smith in the face and light it on fire every morning before serving her Marx shaped pancake.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
You don't get it, they are trying to counter-program their children so they aren't brought up being brainwashed by the gubberment.
You don't get it
I assure you this will never be the case.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
I don't have the right to make my child into an impractical radical socialist philosopher no matter how much I may want it,
I make Hannah stab a pinata of Adam Smith in the face and light it on fire every morning before serving her Marx shaped pancake.
Engels was always the delicious one.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Smasharoo wrote:
I make Hannah stab a pinata of Adam Smith in the face and light it on fire every morning before serving her Marx shaped pancake.
The funny thing with this is that Smith was in favor of progressive taxation.
Edited, Feb 10th 2009 4:43pm by BizzaroStormy
Pensive wrote:
Quote:
And I was going to let this go, but the assertion is just too absurd ... Is this a logical assertion or a practical one?
It is an ethical one. You (should) have no more right to decide your child's life than anyone else.
Why? What purpose does this serve?
Your statement flies in the face of centuries of court rulings. Parents have the primary rights to raise their children. Those rights can only be abridged if they have done something clearly harmful to said children. Freedom to practice your religion is a specifically enumerated right in the constitution, so teaching your child your religion cannot *ever* be defined as "harm" (otherwise we'd be in the awkward legal position of declaring a protected right "harm").
Why should the state have more say about how someone raises their child than the parents of said child?
Quote:
Children aren't supposed to be clones of you; they aren't supposed to be your lackeys or legacy. Children are people who are every bit as deserving of your precious liberty as you are. It's almost sickening to think that there are people who procreate with the aims of destroying the will of their progeny for the aim of raising a particular kind of child.
Where did the principle of diversity go? I thought it was good for a society to contain members with different viewpoints and ideas? Aren't you really just saying that parents should not be able to teach their children things you don't like? Isn't that in absolute opposition to the principles of a free society?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Why should the state have more say about how someone raises their child than the parents of said child?
Good point. I, too, agree that child torture should be perfectly legal.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Why should the state have more say about how someone raises their child than the parents of said child?
Good point. I, too, agree that child torture should be perfectly legal.
Missed the point about teaching religion not being defined as "harm", didn't you?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Why? What purpose does this serve?
Um.. how bout: respecting the child as a human being by recognizing their ability to make decisions? After all of the 18th century British enlightenment stuff you try to hearken back to I'd expect you of all people to understand that.
Quote:
Your statement flies in the face of centuries of court rulings.
Yeah, have you figured out by now that I don't care? It's in the interest of the state to enable parents to raise their children because it often serves as a way to control them; I'd venture that most parents in society are more
Quote:
Parents have the primary rights to raise their children.
After all of the **** you've pulled ******* around with the word "rights" in the past, I can assure you that you have no legs to stand on here to make this claim.
Quote:
Aren't you really just saying that parents should not be able to teach their children things you don't like?
No gbaji, it's not what I like or don't like. I don't think that parents should be able to teach their children things without involving the children as part of the decision. To state that parents have the ability to mold and shape their children however they see fit, that is what flies in the face of everything that liberty and freedom stand for.
Quote:
I make Hannah stab a pinata of Adam Smith in the face and light it on fire every morning before serving her Marx shaped pancake.
I should totally do this with my cat's bed. Could switch her food over to MeowMark or something.
Quote:
It is an ethical one. You (should) have no more right to decide your child's life than anyone else. Children aren't supposed to be clones of you; they aren't supposed to be your lackeys or legacy. Children are people who are every bit as deserving of your precious liberty as you are. It's almost sickening to think that there are people who procreate with the aims of destroying the will of their progeny for the aim of raising a particular kind of child.
Hell if my child (hahaha my hypothetical child that will never exist) were to become a gun toting bible thumping stereotypical republican apologist I'd at least try to support his/her decision, even though I'd despise it personally. I don't have the right to make my child into an impractical radical socialist philosopher no matter how much I may want it, and you don't have the right to make your child into a god fearing christian who dismisses evolution, whether or not you want it. It ain't your life.
Hell if my child (hahaha my hypothetical child that will never exist) were to become a gun toting bible thumping stereotypical republican apologist I'd at least try to support his/her decision, even though I'd despise it personally. I don't have the right to make my child into an impractical radical socialist philosopher no matter how much I may want it, and you don't have the right to make your child into a god fearing christian who dismisses evolution, whether or not you want it. It ain't your life.
Your argument is, then, that anyone has equal right to try and influence someone (a child) to a certain extent?
Quote:
Your argument is, then, that anyone has equal right to try and influence someone (a child) to a certain extent?
No
The argument is that if the ideal of liberty is to be preserved (as my opponents seem to want to do) then no one has a right to attempt to influence a child at all.
You can take that as a reductio, or as my personal beliefs concerning liberty, an attempt to demonstrate the double standard of libertarian thought, or all of the above.
***
Actually, after reading your comment again, yes, partially. A child isn't capable of making his own decisions in every case of course. I do believe that children should be given more credit than we give them now though. You shouldn't thrust a child into the world and expect himself to bootstrap himself into prosperity, but the function of a parent should be no more than to provide unqualified love and a nurturing environment that promotes questioning and inquisition on the part of the child.
Edited, Feb 10th 2009 9:00pm by Pensive
Pensive wrote:
Quote:
Your argument is, then, that anyone has equal right to try and influence someone (a child) to a certain extent?
No
The argument is that if the ideal of liberty is to be preserved (as my opponents seem to want to do) then no one has a right to attempt to influence a child at all.
You can take that as a reductio, or as my personal beliefs concerning liberty, an attempt to demonstrate the double standard of libertarian thought, or all of the above.
You understand how incredibly absurd that is, don't you?
Quote:
You understand how incredibly absurd that is, don't you?
Not really, though I understand why you think so.
Liberty and respect for human worth can't be something that we grow into.
Pensive wrote:
Quote:
You understand how incredibly absurd that is, don't you?
Not really, though I understand why you think so.
Liberty and respect for human worth can't be something that we grow into.
You are atempting to influence me right now. You realise this, I hope? You cannot make your argument because, haha, in doing so you invalidate it.
Quote:
You are atempting to influence me right now. You realise this, I hope? You cannot make your argument because, haha, in doing so you invalidate it.
Of course, but I'm respecting your will to reject or accept it. I'm not taking blatant advantage of your immaturity or impressionability. If I thought that you were a 4 year old then I would be attempting to explain in as clear a manner as possible how I might be wrong.
***
Just because all viewpoints are more or less equally absurd doesn't mean that some can't be more or less beneficial to human development and society. Relativism does not invalidate ethics, not ever.
Edited, Feb 10th 2009 9:07pm by Pensive
Pensive wrote:
Quote:
You understand how incredibly absurd that is, don't you?
Not really, though I understand why you think so.
It's absurd because the child has to learn everything it knows from *someone*. Children don't start out knowing how to speak, walk, read/write, etc. They don't know right from wrong. They don't know how to tie their shoes. Someone has to teach them these things.
If not the parents, then who?
And if it is the parents who have the responsibility of raising their child, then they also have the right to teach that child as they believe is best.
Quote:
Liberty and respect for human worth can't be something that we grow into.
But they have to be taught at some point. When is the child ever going to understand it's rights and liberties if no one teaches it those things? You want to treat a child as an adult, giving it the right to choose what it is taught. But it can't make that choice until after it has been taught. Hence, your argument is absurd...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Pensive wrote:
Of course, but I'm respecting your will to reject or accept it. I'm not taking blatant advantage of your immaturity or impressionability. If I thought that you were a 4 year old then I would be attempting to explain in as clear a manner as possible how I might be wrong.
You fall prey to your own trap.
Quote:
Not really, though I understand why you think so.
Liberty and respect for human worth can't be something that we grow into.
Liberty and respect for human worth can't be something that we grow into.
You accepted in the first quote that a child isn't able to reason and choose in the face of an opinion. Without reason and choice then liberty is impossible.
Quote:
It's absurd because the child has to learn everything it knows from *someone*
Humans have certain properties that are simply part of being a human; they are not innate or hardwired, but conditions of the possibility of how a uniquely human entity can exist. Every human being has the ability to accept or reject what it is taught. It is not taught how to do this.
Besides, if I'm wrong, then liberty is a fantasy. Do you see how silly you're being? If a human is incapable of choosing or thinking for itself until it is taught to do so, then we can never make choices. If you have to -grow- into your liberty, then you don't have any.
Quote:
But it can't make that choice until after it has been taught. Hence, your argument is absurd...
It is a logical extension of supposing that liberty exists in any robust sense. Are you prepared to ditch all of your freedom? No? Then you better be agreeing with me.
Quote:
Without reason and choice then liberty is impossible.
Entirely possible, hence why I suggested you take it as a reductio.
This is fun and all but I need to go take a shower and finish some achievements in lost odyssey. Peace.
Kavekk, you must realize by now that this is my thing right? Take a passionate but seemingly coherent position and argue it to such extremes that it becomes absurd? I've done that a lot... It's kinda funny really. I don't believe I've made a mistake in the logical progression though.
Edited, Feb 10th 2009 9:20pm by Pensive
Quote:
Entirely possible, hence why I suggested you take it as a reductio.
You also suggested I might take it as your opinion, and that sounded like more fun.
Quote:
You also suggested I might take it as your opinion, and that sounded like more fun.
Well that's cool too, but I'm comfortable with accepting absurd ethical arguments. It's a consequence of accepting all of value and morals as imagined and created by humans.
Recent Visitors: 314
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (314)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Trickle Down?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC