Viral video: Judge William Adams beating the h*ll out of his daughter

[georg jetson]

So until the parents give their child a right the parents have free rein over them?

If a parent does not relinquish the child's right to to life, it is the parents right to kill them? Or have them killed?

If you reference an earlier post, I asked what basic rights would a child have. I gave one... The right to life. Of course as a society we're a bit inconsistent on that because we can kill them in the womb, but not outside the womb... legally speaking.

Can you name another basic right?

 

[georg jetson]

But one can show a being to be a logical impossibility. A trait of omnipotence, for example, is logically impossible. You can redefine the trait until it's meaningless to the initial claim, but that doesn't change the nature of the ability to evaluate a possibility based on logical construction.

It is not necessary to show the logical possibility of something like omnipotence with respect to a creator because omnipotence is only logically impossible to those bound by the laws of space and time and not the creator of such laws.

You think no creator is silly, yet there are many people, including those of us here, who find the entire notion and necessity of such a being unnecessary and often illogical.

Well of course...

Could you rephrase this so I understand what point is trying to be made by this question prior to my answer?

No.

You are the one who conflated the wrongness of the act with the response from the get go. In other words, this should be immediately "WRONG" in any sane person's view, yet your immediate response was a defense based on the notion that the government shouldn't go after someone committing battery, because the battery was on a family member?!

I did mention that there were issues the father should address... IN a few posts later, I clarified the separation of points.

I mean, what the f' dude? A parent murders a kid, is that okay? Why should the courts, a government institution, be allowed input? I mean, by your standard it's a "family" matter and the government should stay out of it.

I've already addressed "right to life".

Can you see where I have a problem with this? Why I'm shocked I'd have to explain why it's wrong to spank?

Yes. You have incorrect information

I used to be on the pro-open-hand-no-instruments-spanking (to correct immediate issues) side. Someone challenged that view, and when looking for evidence in support of open-hand spanking, I found overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'm just broken enough that rather than try to handwave it away as pseudoscientific brainwashing I looked more into it, and found my previous view to be wrong. Worse than being non-effective, spanking is harmful.

I have given research like what you posted fair consideration long before I came to this site. I found the studies to be politically motivated. Rely on them if you like. I won't.

 

[Tawnos]

It is not necessary to show the logical possibility of something like omnipotence with respect to a creator because omnipotence is only logically impossible to those bound by the laws of space and time and not the creator of such laws.

Really, just really?
1) "Not bound by the laws of space and time" is logically incoherent
2) Can such a being create a situation where they are incapable of doing something? Based on the inputs to this question, the answer is obvious (no), that's the point of the thought experiment. Even when you start trying to play semantic games you end up with a meaningless construct.

 

[georg jetson]

Really, just really?
1) "Not bound by the laws of space and time" is logically incoherent
2) Can such a being create a situation where they are incapable of doing something? Based on the inputs to this question, the answer is obvious (no), that's the point of the thought experiment. Even when you start trying to play semantic games you end up with a meaningless construct.

1) No it's not. The creator created EVERYTHING. Why would it be bound by its own laws? That isn't logical.

2)Bringing up paradox that a creature can't solve doesn't show the existence of a creator to be illogical... only that the creature is incapable of comprehension. Perhaps you haven't thought this through sufficiently.

 

[Tawnos]

1) No it's not. The creator created EVERYTHING. Why would it be bound by its own laws? That isn't logical.

2)Bringing up paradox that a creature can't solve doesn't show the existence of a creator to be illogical... only that the creature is incapable of comprehension. Perhaps you haven't thought this through sufficiently.

On the contrary, I've read more apologetics than I care to recount, and can see this, again, will go nowhere with such an underwhelming counterpart in the discussion. You can start here, start reading, and get back to me when you're briefed on the boring irrationality of the "outside of space and time" thing: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/

 

[09jisaac]

Can you name another basic right?

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
—United States Declaration of Independence, 1776

 

[georg jetson]

On the contrary, I've read more apologetics than I care to recount, and can see this, again, will go nowhere with such an underwhelming counterpart in the discussion. You can start here, start reading, and get back to me when you're briefed on the boring irrationality of the "outside of space and time" thing: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/

Ahh... A bible for the atheist. There's no need to complicate things with your religion. This is simple enough...

When considering creator vs no creator, paradox can be illustrated in either case. However, what we really have as a hint to one "belief" or the other is our own observations. We observe that intelligence comes from intelligence. We OBSERVE no example that opposes this. "Believing" in no creator goes against our observations and can only gain a foothold in the intellect by confusion. Nice try though...

 

[georg jetson]

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
—United States Declaration of Independence, 1776

Well... yeah... those are the embodiment of rights in our first legal document. But a parent can restrict liberty and the pursuit of happiness for their children at will. What rights do CHILDREN have?

 

[slowfiveoh]

Well... yeah... those are the embodiment of rights in our first legal document. But a parent can restrict liberty and the pursuit of happiness for their children at will. What rights do CHILDREN have?

You are honestly the slowest kid I have ever met on the internet. I almost feel like purchasing your next foam helmet and a package of bubble gum.

Did you seriously just ask this question?

Again, don't you have some children to beat, then pray for forgiveness afterwards, making it all ok?

 

[09jisaac]

Well... yeah... those are the embodiment of rights in our first legal document. But a parent can restrict liberty and the pursuit of happiness for their children at will. What rights do CHILDREN have?

Not to quote the Bible or anything but:

"Life"
"Liberty"
"Happiness"
(I just figure those are in there somewhere)

I don't understand where you get your rights. Did your parents give them to you? Where did they get theirs?

 

[09jisaac]

No matter what I say our rights are, or when/where/how we get them you are going to shoot them down and feel like you won because we are arguing believes not facts.

Keep arguing what you'd like, you're not going to win anyone to your side.

But I do respect your opinion even though my believes are far from anything that you have said on this thread.

 

[DrakeZ07]

I was going to make a meaningful response, and pose a question of sorts to see how someone would react and/or opinionize on... but after reading the controversial posts/opinions involved... I've decided to say one word, just one word...

Trololololololol.

 

[Brass Magnet]

I had a beautiful, long and thoughtful reply that disappeared after my browser crashed, :banghead: so you'll get this instead........sorry

I can't think of a better standard, overall. It's by no means perfect, but the "reasonable man" doctrine is the basis of our legal system.

I'm hoping that as people get more educated, we move beyond the current view that any form of "swat on the rear" or similar is beneficial, when there are numerous studies, referenced in the links above, that show that corporal punishment is inherently inferior to other forms of discipline. Even so, I would agree that your definition is reasonable, even if I think there are better choices. As I think most people would. That type of near-consensus makes me think such a standard is the most workable, even if it's not perfect.

I hope that you aren't implying that I'm uneducated because our opinions differ, even after reading on the issue and based on experience? In any case, a "swat on the rear" is not always corporal punishment and in the context I used was not intended as such. Swatting a toddler on the rear as he attempts to grab something hot, or sharp, for example is designed to scare him from doing it again. Heck, I can scare toddlers sometimes just by looking at them funny LOL, and if that happened to work, I'd do that! The only time I personally would use corporal punishment is when the other avenues are exhausted and in the proper age group.

Where do we draw that line? I don't know, but I know from the research I've done that my personal line stops short of physical altercation. I try to convince others it's the best option, as well. However, some cases (such as the one in this video) are so blatantly obvious to me that anyone trying to defend the abusive actions therein become suspect.

I agree that the guy in the video lost it and went way over the top. It's the other cases I'm worried about though; say a child is just angry and wants to get his/her parents in trouble? We have to be very careful when inviting the government into our homes and proper deference must be given to the rights of the parents. I believe that there is a need for intervention in some cases but just as I subscribe to the belief that 100 guilty men going free is better than 1 innocent man going to prison I must follow that belief here. In other words, there is a need for substantive due process.

What basic human rights? I'll give you the right to life. Name others...

The right to life is based on the ultimate right to property in ones own body. Without that right, children can be subjected to any means of slavery or savage beatings. Think of parents as the government and the children as its citizens. A just government need only preclude those rights that aren't used responsibly. The only difference is that the parents are allowed prior restraint. As a tyrannical government should be relieved of it's power, so should abusive parents. But once again, as I wrote above, we need to be very careful here.

 

[John Pierce]

The second is easier to discuss because it is related to the number one topic here at OCDO, which is the dangers of too much government authority and the erosion of 2A "rights". It is the second question I wish to discuss. Parent's RIGHT of authority over their children is being eroded by the same intrusive government in the name of helping "the children".

Georg,

You can go ahead and debate over this all you want. But do NOT presume to speak for OCDO on this matter. The number one issue we advocate for is NOT too much government. The number one issue we advocate for is gun rights.

We believe that government goes too far when it intrudes upon basic rights. However, there are a number of areas where government IS the answer. For example, McDonald v. Chicago where the federal government is forcing the state to comply with minimum Second Amendment rights. Civil rights is another area where federal intervention is generally beneficial to the libertarian cause.

And certainly, state government is well within its power to stop citizens from BEATING THEIR FREAKING CHILDREN! If you are looking for an anti-government site, then pack up and go elsewhere! We are pro-gun, pro-civil rights, and pro-working within the system.


John

 

[georg jetson]

Georg,

You can go ahead and debate over this all you want.

Thanks you...

But do NOT presume to speak for OCDO on this matter. The number one issue we advocate for is NOT too much government. The number one issue we advocate for is gun rights.

Sorry for miss-stating...

We believe that government goes too far when it intrudes upon basic rights. However, there are a number of areas where government IS the answer. For example, McDonald v. Chicago where the federal government is forcing the state to comply with minimum Second Amendment rights. Civil rights is another area where federal intervention is generally beneficial to the libertarian cause.

I would respectfully disagree... and there are other threads here at OCDO that address why.

And certainly, state government is well within its power to stop citizens from BEATING THEIR FREAKING CHILDREN!

State's have assumed this authority, but I think it's because of the ignorance and complacency of it's citizens, much the same way gun rights are abrogated.

If you are looking for an anti-government site, then pack up and go elsewhere! We are pro-gun, pro-civil rights, and pro-working within the system.

John

I'm NOT anti-government. I'm pro "smallest necessary" government. I advocate working within the system and any of my posts in any of the state forums will back that up. Furthermore, you're more than welcome to include Laopencarry.org when researching my views on working "within" the system. I have the same screen name. You'll find that I'm a vehement adversary of anyone suggesting otherwise.

Thanks for addressing things the way you have.

georg

 

[georg jetson]

Not to quote the Bible or anything but:

"Life"
"Liberty"
"Happiness"
(I just figure those are in there somewhere)

I don't understand where you get your rights. Did your parents give them to you? Where did they get theirs?

Here is the beginning of our legal system...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I think you misunderstood my question. Let me attempt to clarify.

Speaking of the concept of "children's rights", what can be listed as an actual CHILD's right? Liberty CANNOT be a CHILD's right because every parent has a RIGHT to restrict the liberty of their children at will. A child has a "privilege" of liberty until the age of majority.

I agree a child has a right to life. A right that the parent has no legal authority over. What OTHER rights would a child have that is beyond the authority of the parent.

 

[georg jetson]

No matter what I say our rights are, or when/where/how we get them you are going to shoot them down and feel like you won because we are arguing believes not facts.

Well... I'm not here to WIN anything, I'm here for the civil exchange of ideas.

It is a fact that our founders declared that our rights come from a creator.

Keep arguing what you'd like, you're not going to win anyone to your side.[/QUOTE]

That's not necessarily my motivation for this discussion. OCDO has, IMHO a very educated and intelligent membership. I consider it on opportunity to learn... to consider things I haven't considered and to motivate others to do the same. At least that's my attitude here in the SOCIAL LOUNGE. Keep in mind that I don't start threads like this, but I see topics such as these as learning opportunities... for those with an ability to control their emotions.

But I do respect your opinion even though my believes are far from anything that you have said on this thread.

I respect yours as well.

 

[georg jetson]

SNIP

The right to life is based on the ultimate right to property in ones own body. Without that right, children can be subjected to any means of slavery or savage beatings. Think of parents as the government and the children as its citizens. A just government need only preclude those rights that aren't used responsibly. The only difference is that the parents are allowed prior restraint. As a tyrannical government should be relieved of it's power, so should abusive parents. But once again, as I wrote above, we need to be very careful here.

Now you're not answering the question...

A just government doesn't preclude rights. It protects them. If rights are abused then the right of due process is invoked... a right a child does not have when a parent decides to restrict their liberty or pursuit of happiness.

There are many things wrong with your analogy. A government knows NO love and, in fact, is the antithesis. Whereas, that is the (normal)parent's main motivation.

Answer my question.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Now you're not answering the question...

A just government doesn't preclude rights. It protects them. If rights are abused then the right of due process is invoked... a right a child does not have when a parent decides to restrict their liberty or pursuit of happiness.

There are many things wrong with your analogy. A government knows NO love and, in fact, is the antithesis. Whereas, that is the (normal)parent's main motivation.

Answer my question.

I did. I offered the right to ones own body as an answer to your question of what other rights children have. If a Child has a right to life, that child must also have a right to his/her own body. That is the quintessential answer as all other rights are derived from self-ownership.

A parents discipline need necessarily only keep a child from hurting him or herself or violating the rights of others. A child may want a tattoo, but a parent may believe that the child may think differently after the age of majority. So, the parent doesn't allow it and is keeping that child from harm. A child hit's another child so the parent disciplines him/her etc. However; when a parent takes out frustration on the child or beats them as the judge did in the video, it's far beyond what is necessary. Cruel and unusual punishment comes to mind. If you want to categorize, you can add that to the rights of children as well but it all stems from self-ownership.

A just government certainly precludes the exercise of certain rights, like liberty (throwing someone in jail), when they aren't exercised responsibly. Love is not part of the equation in my black and white analysis. I try to keep all emotions out and use liberty as my morality in discussions based on rights. So, I offered a difference in that Parents are allowed "prior restraint" over the rights of their children in most cases where government is not.

I'm not sure if you consider yourself libertarian or not, but that's the thought process I'm using and if you are trying to use the same one you definitely jumped the shark. Libertarian morality does not necessitate "feelings" as a way to decide right from wrong. It also uses the non-aggression principle.

 

[Tawnos]

Ahh... A bible for the atheist. There's no need to complicate things with your religion. This is simple enough...

When considering creator vs no creator, paradox can be illustrated in either case. However, what we really have as a hint to one "belief" or the other is our own observations. We observe that intelligence comes from intelligence. We OBSERVE no example that opposes this. "Believing" in no creator goes against our observations and can only gain a foothold in the intellect by confusion. Nice try though...

*yawn* Seen this line of thought before; it doesn't follow reality. A bible for atheists? Is that some attempt to make the arguments contained therein seem less valid and thus justify your irrational position? It's a series of responses to common claims of theists, as well as musings on theology in general. What's great is how thoroughly it addresses the boring (because they have been done to death) 'unmoved mover' arguments.

As for your second claim: show a paradox in claiming no belief in a creator. Do you really think you've done so by stating without support or citation that "no example opposes this"? You seem unable to cite, but I won't sink to that level:

People with mental disabilities can have 'normal' children. Every generation in recent history trends towards a higher IQ than the previous. That alone indicates that intelligence doesn't come solely from intelligence, but has a large genetic and social factor. However, one could go much further than that, investigating genomes and seeing that its sequence length encodes more information now than in the past, largely due to mutations, double copy,[/ and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer#Scientific_American_article_.282000.29]horizontal gene transfer. Obviously a large part of that lies in nonfunctional/noncoding DNA, but to imply that an intelligent process is necessary to beget further intelligence? Please, spare me. There is an undeniably huge body of work which shows that assertion to be just plain silly.

Of course, it is all a liberal conspiracy to deny you of your rights, and all of those studies are designed as such, right?