Parents have no rights? Is that so? And all these so called "privileges" can be revoked then according to prevailing "wisdom" of state certified health care professionals? Whatever could go wrong with that idea, hmmm?Originally Posted by Cutlerzzz
We will be known forever by the tracks we leave. - Dakota
Go Forward With Courage
When you are in doubt, be still, and wait;
when doubt no longer exists for you, then go forward with courage.
So long as mists envelop you, be still;
be still until the sunlight pours through and dispels the mists
-- as it surely will.
Then act with courage.
Ponca Chief White Eagle
Your right. It should be legal to rape children.
Beaten to death with a switch or a straw man?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
pretty big leap to go from claiming parents have no rights to then claim if they do that legalizes child rape.
We will be known forever by the tracks we leave. - Dakota
Go Forward With Courage
When you are in doubt, be still, and wait;
when doubt no longer exists for you, then go forward with courage.
So long as mists envelop you, be still;
be still until the sunlight pours through and dispels the mists
-- as it surely will.
Then act with courage.
Ponca Chief White Eagle
It's odd that so many posters are resorting to hyperbole and straw man arguments in this thread.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
So do you think it should be illegal for a parent to rape his child then?
Have you given a logical connection as to how this is relevant to a parent surrendering their rights and being only given state endorsed privileges? Cause even with parents having rights sexual abuse of a minor has been an illegal act.
We will be known forever by the tracks we leave. - Dakota
Go Forward With Courage
When you are in doubt, be still, and wait;
when doubt no longer exists for you, then go forward with courage.
So long as mists envelop you, be still;
be still until the sunlight pours through and dispels the mists
-- as it surely will.
Then act with courage.
Ponca Chief White Eagle
You don't even understand the question, or you aren't answering it because you can't rationalize your position.
Indeed. Irony is someone arguing with a survivor of child sex abuse that all parents should lose rights based upon the fear this might occur. News flash Cutlerzzz when state officials knew what was happening to me they wouldn't touch the case with a ten foot pole because the person committing the abuse was one of their own employees with a modest amount of power. The state is no friend to abused children in my experience.
We will be known forever by the tracks we leave. - Dakota
Go Forward With Courage
When you are in doubt, be still, and wait;
when doubt no longer exists for you, then go forward with courage.
So long as mists envelop you, be still;
be still until the sunlight pours through and dispels the mists
-- as it surely will.
Then act with courage.
Ponca Chief White Eagle
No, I understand you are reaching for a reason to strip parents of rights and give them only state endorsed privileges. My rationale for my position is that the state is not to be trusted and why the hell would anyone think people are more moral when you give them power over their neighbor after all the examples of that abuse by those in government positions?
We will be known forever by the tracks we leave. - Dakota
Go Forward With Courage
When you are in doubt, be still, and wait;
when doubt no longer exists for you, then go forward with courage.
So long as mists envelop you, be still;
be still until the sunlight pours through and dispels the mists
-- as it surely will.
Then act with courage.
Ponca Chief White Eagle
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Young-Children
In this moment someone mistook my uncles actions to keep his kids safe as child abuse. The police were then called and approached him down the street and began to question him. Assuming because of his appearance he was high on narcotics with out reason they began to sub due him, macing and beating him in the head as he fell to his face were he was then held with a great amount of force by two officers double his size as a third one landed on his torso
SEE SOMETHING
SAY SOMETHING
...better safe than sorry when the wee ones are concerned. Cops will sort it out.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Your view is that if someone commits rape, assault, and murder then they should be arrested by the state, but beating children bloody is outside the states jurisdiction. You refuse to answer a simple 'yes or no' question on the subject because of how ludicrous your view is, as you say that laws against child abuse are statist, while laws against child rape handled by the state are legit.
You also have such a poor grasp of the opposing views in this thread that you believe that people see parenthood as a "state granted privilege", rather than a reflection of the fact that children are also individuals with individual rights. Rights that include "not being beat in the balls by a stick until they start bleeding for a week", "not being raped", and "not getting your head cut off".
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.
Last edited by Cutlerzzz; 09-14-2014 at 03:44 PM.
I haven't said anything about beating children bloody being either reasonable or not. I commented on your proposal that parents have NO rights only privileges, assumedly that which is authorized according to prevailing wisdom of state sanctioned health professionals, which I questioned the reasonableness of said proposal.
I don't think you should remove the rights of a class of people, in this case parents, and surrender them to the state in exchange for privileges, because the people who work for the state have already proven they are inept in my experience and abusive of whatever power is surrendered to them. It is already illegal to commit the offenses you are complaining about so why is it that parents should have no rights but be a class that has surrendered themselves to the state as only having state endorsed privileges?
We will be known forever by the tracks we leave. - Dakota
Go Forward With Courage
When you are in doubt, be still, and wait;
when doubt no longer exists for you, then go forward with courage.
So long as mists envelop you, be still;
be still until the sunlight pours through and dispels the mists
-- as it surely will.
Then act with courage.
Ponca Chief White Eagle
A straw-man no reasonable person person could make. You go ahead and make it, continuing from there without addressing a single thing I said.
Either children are property and parental rights are absolute, or else children are people and parents do not have the right to treat their children however they wish.
Which do you think it should be?
What straw man would you be referring to as it is your proposal I am questioning that you are getting your knickers in a twist about and becoming increasingly ridiculous in the statements you are attributing to me? You are the one that claimed parents have no rights only privileges. I addressed your complaints but you ignore the fact that the things you are complaining about are already illegal without stripping parents of their rights. It is illegal to rape a minor and assault is illegal. Balls in your court as to why parents should only have state endorsed privileges.
We will be known forever by the tracks we leave. - Dakota
Go Forward With Courage
When you are in doubt, be still, and wait;
when doubt no longer exists for you, then go forward with courage.
So long as mists envelop you, be still;
be still until the sunlight pours through and dispels the mists
-- as it surely will.
Then act with courage.
Ponca Chief White Eagle
They think children only have some rights, while parents possess some kind of collective right to do things no one else in society can do.
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.
Duh.
A mild uproar over children's rights arose during the 1992 U.S. presidential race between incumbent george h. w. bush (R) and challenger bill clinton (D). Scholarly articles written in the early 1970s by Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, were at the heart of the controversy. A former lawyer for the Children's Defense Fund, Clinton questioned the traditional legal presumption of Incompetency for children. She believed that children were capable of making many of their own decisions; thus she proposed the elimination of minority status for children and suggested a new presumption of legal competence. Clinton also favored granting children the same substantive and procedural rights enjoyed by adults. Further, because children's interests are not always the same as their parents', Clinton felt that minors should be allowed to hire their own lawyers.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...rent+and+Child
Last edited by otherone; 09-14-2014 at 04:42 PM.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Condemning murder is a moral judgment, is it not?
What Peterson did, and what millions of parents do - spanking - is violence. Murder is merely violence to a greater degree. What is the separation that makes one form of violence acceptable and barricaded from criticism, while the other is completely condemnable and open to criticism?
The epitome of libertarian populism
When I was 3 or 4 I wanted to marry the guy who installed the carpet in my parents house. He was a convict on a work release program but sure was nice to me. Wish I would have been granted all the rights an adult is entitled to so then I might have been able to have fulfilled my plans.
We will be known forever by the tracks we leave. - Dakota
Go Forward With Courage
When you are in doubt, be still, and wait;
when doubt no longer exists for you, then go forward with courage.
So long as mists envelop you, be still;
be still until the sunlight pours through and dispels the mists
-- as it surely will.
Then act with courage.
Ponca Chief White Eagle
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?
This thread is about where discipline becomes child abuse. Equate spanking to murder in a different thread.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Not getting involved in this thread. We are pro spanking parents.
But just stopped in to say that if AP had've just put on a costume with a little tin badge and tased his kid he wouldn't be facing the trouble he is facing.
Just sayin
I'm not qualified to make that determination, government and her minions damn sure aren't!
I actually do agree that AP crossed the line here. I'm not exactly sure how to deal with it and what would be best for the child. I don't think this is as serious as child rape. I also don't think this is as trivial as spanking per say. And I don't see how you could possibly derive from this that parents have no rights.
I agree.
Can you force other people's children to come in your car?
All violence directed towards children is child abuse. The line between what is abuse and what is not abuse becomes strikingly clear when proper definitions are used.
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.
The epitome of libertarian populism
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us