A is A

Unfortunately, she's not around to ask her. Not that I know of. It follows by implication and application of her ideas to concrete situations. Parenting is not a philosophic issue.

What context is "judgment of their own minds" placed in, and what context is "the right to live" exercised? Children don't have the knowledge necessary to make certain political choices pertaining to these issues, but within their level of knowledge, they certainly should have the right to use their judgment. The rudimentary use of reason and the full development of one's ability to use it in certain contexts are two different issues. An adult who chooses not to work suffers the consequences of being homeless. A child cannot be held to the same standard since it doesn't have the knowledge or capability to make such choices. A child's rights expands as its ability to exercise its reason develops.

I'm not questioning whether they had the concept of property, but they had no justification of the concept of rights as it relates to property. After all, the 10 Commandments says: do not steal. The Hammurabi Code is basically a list of do's and don'ts. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

אני לא מבין

Chicken or horse?

These examples should indicate that she thought children possessed the rudiments of reason and rapidly learned to use words and concepts. In other words, I believe she held they possess reason once they are able to learn words and talk. All Quotes from ITOE (The Obj. Research CD).

The concept of rights was not understood for thousands of years after this event. It is anachronistic to apply the concept as understood today to the actions of how people behaved back then. Various tribes and societies occupied and controlled land by the force of killing one's enemies. If some group who was able to kick you off the land, you were out and they were in: might made right. Thus, the Israelites may have thought that their god promised them the land, but, as history has demonstrated, when some group with greater might came along, they were kicked out.

No country owns land. A proper government protects the rights of the citizens to own land.

Under capitalism, all property is privately owned. So the answer depends upon whose property is being "ruined".

Your formulation of the problem is not correct. The logical issue is not one of proving a negative statement false, but of proving false a positive statement for which no evidence is given. The archtypical example is "God exists" say the religionists. "If you don't believe God exists, prove he doesn't" they say. "Well," you say, "where is the evidence he exists?" There is none. The issue is that one cannot prove the nonexistence of a positive assertion for which no evidence exists. As you demonstrate, it is quite easy to prove "the computer you're using doesn't exist" is false by pointing to evidence. But that is not the issue of the impossibility of proving a negative. How would you prove the negative if there was no evidence for the positive statement that "you are using a computer"?

Now that we know what the concept means, how do your quotes provide evidence that they fit the definition and the referent involved in the disagreement? Your quotes are statements of opinion about a specific idea expressed by an individual. How are they vicious attacks on a person? Please explain.

She most certainly did do something. She formulated a new policy for posting on her blog, the standards of her associating with people, and to those with whom she wants to talk.

What is "false knowledge?" If an idea is false, it is not knowledge. How can you define "knowledge" as that which doesn't correspond to reality? It is possible to deduce a true premise from false premises: Dogs are men, men walk with 4 legs, therefore, dogs walk with 4 legs. The issue with the deductive syllogism is not the truth of the conclusion, but wether the conclusion follows from the premises. This shows that you that in order to insure that your deductive process coressponds to reality, one must first establish the truth of one's premises by induction. Paul

The essential error that Hume is making is his failure to grasp why sequential events of the past repeat themselves and what would prevent those events from recurring. The concept of causality and the interaction of entities is neglected by Hume's explanation. According to Hume, it is humans who assume the repetitive nature of actions; humans form customs for observed events. Clearly, it is not a custom or an an arbitrary assumption that the sun will rise tomorrow. Given the nature of the entities, there is no other action possible. Unless another external causal event were to intervene (the sun going nova, a massive meteor), the sun will always rise. Humans simple observe and form conceptual generalizations. The generalization can either explicitly state or implicitly assume causality as the factor that validates the regularity of events of nature.