Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

HaloNoble6

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1097
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HaloNoble6

  1. I don't see what you have against mime shows.
  2. I don't recall there being two l's in my name, but that's ok. I'll have a look at this thread more carefully after thanksgiving break. I want to chew on this material for a while.
  3. I'm sorry, but in my rush to post I inadvertantly accepted the argumentation method of "validation-by-checking-with-Objectivist-position" as viable. I stand by my position that rights, which are moral principles in a social context derived by the nature of the entity in question, are not "rights to things." Perhaps it is acceptable to speak losely like that, but I prefer not to. If my position can be shown to be eroneous by reason, not by "checking with the official position," I will gladly accept it. Nonetheless, at present I view nothing wrong with my approach.
  4. Notice the wording: "the [basic] support is his by right." That is, he has the right to the basic conditions for his survival. The paragraph where he describes the essence of parental responsibility goes above and beyond the notion of rights: it describes a parent's moral responsibility.
  5. I thought it was the crushing of electronic devices, not unlike how a fax machine was destroyed in the movie "Office Space."
  6. OK, but when you say "a child has the right to take all the actions required to be a child" this leaves the door wide open for abandonment. After all, the act of abandonment isn't the stopping, per se, of a child's action from being a child, is it? That is, it's not like a child wills himself to be a child and that abandonment is the stopping of this will. Notice that I never said "anyone has the right to be a child." Nor did I ever advocate "blank has the right to be blank" or "you have the right to be blank." I've said that "man, the rational animal, has the right to be man," which mea
  7. Yes, the act in the case of the parent is the act of keeping the requirements for the child's survival from him. That is, just as in the credit card example, the person agreed to keep the car in exchange for paying for it, but kept it and didn't pay, so the parent agreed to keep the child in exchange for proving it with the conditions for its survival. Therefore, the parent is acting for the child's destruction. It is initiation of force. Just as with adults, however, the child has no right to something, it has a right to be a child. I want to be precise with my terminology. Rights are m
  8. Before I answer that, I think it necessary to essentialize in terms of principles the special nature of the parent-child contract. When it comes to the rights of adults, we understand that the only obligation the rights of others impose on us is a negative one. That is, we are obliged to let men be men. Since men are fully capable of using their free-will, this means let men be free. On the other hand, the right of a child to be a child imposes a positive obligation on a parent. That is, though, like with adult rights, parents are obliged to let children be children, the letting of
  9. No, I haven't. Or, I don't think in your terms. I don't see where the confusion is. A parent brings a volition-possessing entity into the world with special requirements given by its identity. As such, the parent has the moral and legal responsibility to treat this volition-possessing entity according to its identity. What that requires, is consequential. That the child has a special identity and that a parent is obliged to act accordingly is more important. Once this is understood, what those special requirements are follow from the identity of the child. What isn't clear about th
  10. As I said, I don't ascribe to the "right to (blank)" viewpoint. A child has a right to be a child, and a child is a helpless living entity at one point, an immature rational animal at other points. The answer lies in the identity of a child, which is different at different points of developement.
  11. Because they willingly brought the child into their home. Just as an adult who willingly stays in a free society is obligated to respect the rights of others, so a parent who willingly brings a child into their home is obligated to respect its rights.
  12. My premesis do not amount to the right to support. Rights are moral principles, they are statements of the freedom to act to live in accordance with one's identity--rights aren't "rights to objects". That is, there ain't no right to a meal ticket. A child is a volitional being of a specific identity, and when a parent chooses to bring him into his home, they agree to treat the child in accordance with its identity. This is the foundation of all rights, whether for adults or children: the obligation of treating others in accordance with their identity, that is, the obligation of not atte
  13. What is it with the obsession with "the line?" Why does knowing "the line" help with determining whether a child has rights?! Can someone please tell me how "the line" is at all relevant?
  14. You make it seem like "choosing not to abort" is some instantaneous moment, some flip of a switch--some inconsequential decision. Do you think that choosing to live in this society constitutes an obligation on your part to respect the rights of others? Did you ever sign a contract for that? Oh wait, is that what you sign up for when they take your baby foot prints at birth? I can't make you see it, it's self-evident. Just as choosing to live here requires that you respect the rights of others, choosing to carry the fetus to full term requires that you respect its rights by caring fo
  15. And when does anyone "explicitly" sign on to the idea of "respecting the rights of others?" Do you also object to that "implicit" contract?
  16. That's a good point, and the root of why it's experienced as a dichotomy is because emotions go unexamined.
  17. Actually, this discussion is pointless: hardly no abortions are carried out in the third trimester, far less at the end of it. I mean, who would want to go through the incredibly taxing process of carrying a fetus to full term only to abort it? Think about it, damn it! Anyway, this ain't the abortion thread. The question is whether children have rights; stick to it.
  18. The long, arduous process of carrying a child to full term constitutes a legal commitment to the care of the child. It's not like having a child can be accidental or something that "just hits you." The choice to have child, a living entity with a specific identity, constitutes your commitment, morally and legally, to not attempt violate its identity.
  19. Every time a mother takes an action that is for her fetus is a point at which she decides to make her fetus into a child; the sum of all these actions leads to the maturation of the fetus and is based on the motivation: "I want my fetus to come to full term." Figuring out at what point a fetus is full term, or a "child," depends on how one defines "full term" or "child." Is identifying this point of much significance? No, because so long as the fetus or child or whatever is in its mother's stomach, it is part of her mother's body and can be done with as she pleases. I could speak like
  20. Alright, this is tiring, and is off topic, but I can't let this fly. A fetus would certainly turn into a child without conscious input? This ranks as one of the most ingorant statements I've ever heard. So, it doesn't matter whether the mother carrying the fetus stops feeding herself, stops eating, stops breathing, kills herself--the fetus will still develop into a child? I'm tired of this random pontification, what are the essentials of this discussion and can we please stick to them?
  21. Huh? What precisely isn't the Objectivist position? And who are you speaking to? Perhaps you can be more direct.
  22. Kills All Known John Kerry - Dead. Only John Kerry Can Prevent Forest Fires. Sweet as the Moment When the Howard Dean Went "Pop" I Think, Therefore Howard Dean. Feel The Raw Naked George Bush Of The Road. Make It A George Bush Night. You're in Good Hands with Ralph Nader. Ralph Nader Tested, Mother Approved.
  23. "Can't Do It In Real Life? Do It On Felipe." "Got Felipe?" "Now with 50% more Felipe!" "He Who Thinks Felipe Drinks Felipe." "Stop. Go. Felipe." "Felipe - Australian for Beer." "I Bet He Drinks Felipe." "Absolut Felipe." Apparently I'm quite the drink.
×
×
  • Create New...