Adrian Peterson indicted after giving his son a 'whooping'

[William Tell]

Can you put other people's children in your car seat?

No, unless the parents give you permission. They are THEIR children, not yours, mine, or Hillary's.

[TheCount]

No, unless the parents give you permission.

Then children are property, and it's not 'parental rights.'

[moostraks]

Straw man again, this one even easier to dismantle.

Children lack the mental capacity to consent, which is why they cannot enter into contracts.

Next?

Well then since you seem to grasp the fact that children lack the "mental capacity" to consent then maybe you can grasp the concept that someone must be responsible for the child and is entrusted with the right to raise their progeny as they see fit imbuing them with the values of the family they are a part of until found guilty of a crime which causes them to surrender such parental rights. Even in the world you are arguing for children lack the right to consent to contracts and are thus only have some rights due to their "mental capacity".

[otherone]

Further, I'm not equating murder with spanking. In the post you quoted, even, I stated murder is a greater degree of violence than spanking.

Then why even mention murder?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Then why even mention murder?

You called people who condemn violence the following:

A bunch of know-it-all, self-righteous, judgmental busy-bodies?

Why does condemnation of one form of violence designate the condemner as self-righteous and judgmental, and why does this not apply to those who oppose murder or other forms of violence that are nearly universally viewed as objectionable?

[otherone]

Yes, they do. For example, trapping someone down in a car against his will is wrong, unless it is your putting your child in your car seat. How radical!

omg!
Not letting your child leave the house...IMPRISONMENT!
Making them do chores...SLAVERY!
Spanking...CHILD ABUSE!
Making them go to church...BRAINWASHING!

[William Tell]

omg!
Not letting your child leave the house...IMPRISONMENT!
Making them do chores...SLAVERY!
Spanking...CHILD ABUSE!
Making them go to church...BRAINWASHING!

Yeah, funny how making them go to school is NOT child abuse though, according to the gods of political correctness.

[otherone]

Why does condemnation of one form of violence designate the condemner as self-righteous and judgmental, and why does this not apply to those who oppose murder or other forms of violence that are nearly universally viewed as objectionable?

Do you want your neighbor to decide what constitutes abuse?

[moostraks]

You also strawman people as believing that the state is a friend of children, as if anyone has suggested that. It's like saying "oh, you think Dahmer should have been tried by the state in a sense of a private court system? Statist!", or "you think Obama should go to jail? You most LOVE Romney!"

You keep getting asked about murder and rape of children because that is where the logical conclusion of your argument takes someone. If stripping a 4 year old naked and hitting him in the balls until he bleeds should be legal, so should sexual assault.

I see you edited...It is NOT the logical conclusion but a dramatic argument for effect and if AP is guilty of assault then he would be then in jeopardy of losing his parental rights not before the fact such as you suggest for ALL parents. As for strawmaning re: the state is a friend of children whom do you think will be in charge of these parental privileges you are giving when you strip parental rights and make it a privilege? I said the state is no friend of children in regards to child rape because I have been the child that the state knew was being abused and they did nothing and these are the very people you will be granting the control over parental privileges. The foster care system is a perfect example of what happens when the state is in charge of childrens' welfare.You get a special group who can molest and abuse while stripping natural parents of their children.

[Snew]

Yeah, funny how making them go to school is NOT child abuse though, according to the gods of political correctness.

I don't see anyone here arguing that.

[William Tell]

You called people who condemn violence the following:



Why does condemnation of one form of violence designate the condemner as self-righteous and judgmental, and why does this not apply to those who oppose murder or other forms of violence that are nearly universally viewed as objectionable?

Someone on this thread said he would call the cops if he witnessed a spanking.

[ProIndividual]

The moment after birth, it is murder to kill a baby. The moment before birth, some people think it isn't murder. This is a lack of principles, and just an arbitrary degree.

The moment after the age of consent, it is assault to hit a person. The moment before the age of consent, some people think it's "parenting". This is a lack of principles, and just an arbitrary degree.

Either killing a person when it is isn't defense or accident is murder or it isn't.

Either hitting a person when it isn't defense or accident is assault or it isn't.

Stop rationalizing assault. This stupid, sick society is more outraged over two adults hitting each other than an adult hitting a child. The adults can break up, and choose to be together. Children can't just break up with an abusive parent, and they didn't ask to be here.

Stop perpetuating the cycle of abuse. Stop letting social norms think for you instead of using logic as a prism to arrive at ethics. I expect more of libertarians (and if you aren't a libertarian, no wonder you support this crap).

[Feeding the Abscess]

Do you want your neighbor to decide what constitutes abuse?

Interestingly, your solution, which is to allow certain forms of violence to be permitted against children but not others, allows for greater subjectivity and more influence from 'your neighbor' on what constitutes abuse than my position does - which is to reject all forms of violence against children.

Furthermore, society does, on many levels, decide what constitutes theft, murder, and any number of moral or immoral actions. This is the genius of spontaneous order and the rejection of statism. Ideas win out in such a scenario when freedom is allowed to flourish, rather than brute force and power dictating what morality is or isn't.

[tod evans]

Stop rationalizing assault.

I don't try to "rationalize" for even a moment, I'll punch an adult male much quicker than I'll spank my kid..

I expect lipping from a child.

[jmdrake]

You don't even understand the question, or you aren't answering it because you can't rationalize your position.

There's nothing to understand. Your question was just plain stupid. Saying that parents have rights is not the same as saying that those rights are unlimited to the point that it includes the right to rape.

[moostraks]

If they can treat their own child one way, but cannot treat someone else's child that same way, then what they are doing is treating that child as property.

Then children are property, and it's not 'parental rights.'

This is a pessimistic view point of what is more accurately a trust because as you yourself stated children lack the "mental capacity" of an adult. I would have said they lacked the experience and wisdom of an adult but will work with your pessimistic perspective on the matter. Until children have the wisdom and experience someone is going to be accountable and responsible for them and this is best left with the people who have a blood relation invested in the matter rather than those who stand to gain increased power through the destruction of familial relationships.

[jmdrake]

Stop rationalizing assault.

Assault is defined as any unwelcome contact that is harmful or offensive. If you grab someone's arm and drag them out of the store, unless you have just reason to arrest them, you have assaulted them. I hope you can see where I'm going with this. If anything that is legally an assault when done to an adult is an assault when done to a child then even the act of picking little Johnny up when he's on the floor kicking and screaming and carrying him out to your car without ever spanking him becomes illegal. So all that's left for the parents to do is to call the cops and let the cops assault them for real. That's why we have toddlers being taken away from kindergarten in handcuffs. The teachers can't do anything but call the cops. Soon parents won't be able to do anything but call the cops as well.

[moostraks]

Assault is defined as any unwelcome contact that is harmful or offensive. If you grab someone's arm and drag them out of the store, unless you have just reason to arrest them, you have assaulted them. I hope you can see where I'm going with this. If anything that is legally an assault when done to an adult is an assault when done to a child then even the act of picking little Johnny up when he's on the floor kicking and screaming and carrying him out to your car without ever spanking him becomes illegal. So all that's left for the parents to do is to call the cops and let the cops assault them for real. That's why we have toddlers being taken away from kindergarten in handcuffs. The teachers can't do anything but call the cops. Soon parents won't be able to do anything but call the cops as well.

Woe to society when those who want to strip parental rights have a group of narcissistic children running the show. People should be careful what they wish for...

[juleswin]

Assault is defined as any unwelcome contact that is harmful or offensive. If you grab someone's arm and drag them out of the store, unless you have just reason to arrest them, you have assaulted them. I hope you can see where I'm going with this. If anything that is legally an assault when done to an adult is an assault when done to a child then even the act of picking little Johnny up when he's on the floor kicking and screaming and carrying him out to your car without ever spanking him becomes illegal. So all that's left for the parents to do is to call the cops and let the cops assault them for real. That's why we have toddlers being taken away from kindergarten in handcuffs. The teachers can't do anything but call the cops. Soon parents won't be able to do anything but call the cops as well.

This is just physical assault, can only imagine how it would look if the same is applied to sexual assault. Just stripping your child and giving him/her a bath would be enough to land you in the sex offender registry. Sorry guys, but its different for children.

[otherone]

Interestingly, your solution, which is to allow certain forms of violence to be permitted against children but not others, allows for greater subjectivity and more influence from 'your neighbor' on what constitutes abuse than my position does - which is to reject all forms of violence against children.

No. Your solution allows non-violent acts to be interpreted as violence. Everyday we read news items about do-gooders w/ cell phones who misinterpret what they see, ending in tragedy.

[ProIndividual]

I don't try to "rationalize" for even a moment, I'll punch an adult male much quicker than I'll spank my kid..

I expect lipping from a child.

And you think this is appropriate and logically consistent (and therefore ethically consistent) when not in defense or by accident? Let me guess - you were hit as a child...

So was I, but I realized how $#@!ed up it was. I see you embraced the $#@!ed up.

[ProIndividual]

Assault is defined as any unwelcome contact that is harmful or offensive. If you grab someone's arm and drag them out of the store, unless you have just reason to arrest them, you have assaulted them. I hope you can see where I'm going with this. If anything that is legally an assault when done to an adult is an assault when done to a child then even the act of picking little Johnny up when he's on the floor kicking and screaming and carrying him out to your car without ever spanking him becomes illegal. So all that's left for the parents to do is to call the cops and let the cops assault them for real. That's why we have toddlers being taken away from kindergarten in handcuffs. The teachers can't do anything but call the cops. Soon parents won't be able to do anything but call the cops as well.

Parsing semantics isn't changing my point (we aren't talking about carrying a child gently out of a public place if they throw a fit - we're talking about striking them as a form of correction). Replace the word "assault" with "non-defensive and non-accidental force used to correct behavior" if you like. Point stands. You guys are still rationalizing the hell out of it. If you aren't defending your child by jerking them back from a street before they walk in front of a car, then it is wrong to be jerking them about by the arm (unless accidental, of course). That's why I said DEFENSE...and you can defend them from themselves if they are going to harm themselves via ignorance. Parents aren't tyrants for this...they are tyrants for striking children or humiliating them or threatening them when it isn't a defensive reasoning, and is instead trying to be used as a corrective measure (which just teaches them bullying and violent dispute resolution).

And last I checked, if a child is kicking and screaming, but is at the age of reason, then the parent failed in points before this via a lack of preparation. When not in public, I suggest hovering over them and waiting it out (do NOT taunt them). When in public, I suggest gently carrying them out of the place...and scolding yourself for something you've done to program them to think this is a good way to act when they want their way. I know too many parents using peaceful parenting techniques (or have previously, and now have raised their kids to adults) who faced this so rarely it isn't even worth discussing. Kids act that way based on how you programmed them. Do you yell in front of them at your wife? Do you throw fits of rage? Does your wife? Does some person you expose the child to, like a babysitter or family member? Just as empathy is a learned behavior, so is throwing a fit with any regularity.

And of course special needs kids require special attention and may do things we don't like, but striking them isn't the answer either.

[otherone]

Let me guess - you were hit as a child...

MUST this become personal?

[ProIndividual]

No. Your solution allows non-violent acts to be interpreted as violence. Everyday we read news items about do-gooders w/ cell phones who misinterpret what they see, ending in tragedy.

What non-violent acts are you referring to, I wonder? And violence isn't the only issue. $#@!ing Johns in front if your son while you make him wear a dress, because you're a hooker who hates your kid, is not violent, but is humiliation...and is something we're also against. (This is how the guy who likely cut Adam Walsh's head off became a serial killer...his hooker mother was a sick $#@!.)

[ProIndividual]

MUST this become personal?

Must you continue the cycle? Yes, it is personal, of course. Most people who were hit also hit their kids...it's part of Adrian Peterson's excuse/rationalization, and about half the people here as well. This isn't about a logical defense of your abuse, it's about a social norm you guys refuse to analyze in any logical way.

It wasn't an insult...it was not a replacement for a logical argument (ad hominem)...it is directly pertinent to the subject and part of why people support abuse like this. I'm hardly the first person in the thread to bring this up.

[tod evans]

And you think this is appropriate and logically consistent (and therefore ethically consistent) when not in defense or by accident? Let me guess - you were hit as a child...

So was I, but I realized how $#@!ed up it was. I see you embraced the $#@!ed up.

It's appropriate for me...

And I haven't had to change my position...

Enjoy your logically consistent moral superiority in your front room it doesn't hold water out here in the real world.

I'm willing to wager it won't even hold water through your first kid........

But it sure sounds good..

[kylejack]

Do you want your neighbor to decide what constitutes abuse?

Well, that is what we do in representative government, after all. I can't beat my wife because there are laws against it that were passed by our elected officials.

[69360]

Parsing semantics isn't changing my point (we aren't talking about carrying a child gently out of a public place if they throw a fit - we're talking about striking them as a form of correction). Replace the word "assault" with "non-defensive and non-accidental force used to correct behavior" if you like. Point stands. You guys are still rationalizing the hell out of it. If you aren't defending your child by jerking them back from a street before they walk in front of a car, then it is wrong to be jerking them about by the arm (unless accidental, of course). That's why I said DEFENSE...and you can defend them from themselves if they are going to harm themselves via ignorance. Parents aren't tyrants for this...they are tyrants for striking children or humiliating them or threatening them when it isn't a defensive reasoning, and is instead trying to be used as a corrective measure (which just teaches them bullying and violent dispute resolution).

And last I checked, if a child is kicking and screaming, but is at the age of reason, then the parent failed in points before this via a lack of preparation. When not in public, I suggest hovering over them and waiting it out (do NOT taunt them). When in public, I suggest gently carrying them out of the place...and scolding yourself for something you've done to program them to think this is a good way to act when they want their way. I know too many parents using peaceful parenting techniques (or have previously, and now have raised their kids to adults) who faced this so rarely it isn't even worth discussing. Kids act that way based on how you programmed them. Do you yell in front of them at your wife? Do you throw fits of rage? Does your wife? Does some person you expose the child to, like a babysitter or family member? Just as empathy is a learned behavior, so is throwing a fit with any regularity.

And of course special needs kids require special attention and may do things we don't like, but striking them isn't the answer either.

Guess how I know you don't have kids.

[otherone]

What non-violent acts are you referring to, I wonder?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?459693-Cops-Brutally-Beat-Terminally-Ill-Man-in-Front-of-His-Two-Young-Children


AD $#@!ING NAUSEAM

[otherone]

Well, that is what we do in representative government, after all. I can't beat my wife because there are laws against it that were passed by our elected officials.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Young-Children