Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Should it be illegal to butt slap your kid?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Do you have any opinion on the subject? If so, what are they?

I think government should protect minors' rights to not be beaten by parents. At the same time, I think the parents should be in control of their childs' education.

Edited by JacobGalt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think government should protect minors' rights to not be beaten by parents. At the same time, I think the parents should be in control of their childs' education.
By "in control" do you mean that the parent decides what school, if any, to send the child to? What if the child refuses to go? Or, do you mean that the child is in control of his own education, which the parent is required to pay for?

I assume that you agree that parents should have no legal responsibility for the acts of their children: children should take responsibility for their actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "in control" do you mean that the parent decides what school, if any, to send the child to? What if the child refuses to go? Or, do you mean that the child is in control of his own education, which the parent is required to pay for?

I assume that you agree that parents should have no legal responsibility for the acts of their children: children should take responsibility for their actions.

I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking. What's your opinion on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh God... Can you PLEASE use the search button instead of making a ton of these completely unnecessary done-to-death threads?

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=17362&st=0&p=179995&hl

And how about at least making a try yourself to answer your questions first, or merely expressing your own thoughts about them, or at least giving whatever context instead of making these "Is Objectivism ___? yes or no?" threads? If you want to keep on asking questions posed like that then you can use the chatroom.

Edited by 0096 2251 2110 8105
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking. What's your opinion on it?
You should start with the "core" contexts, and try to understand the logic of Objectivism there, before you move to marginal cases where the answer is much more complex. Treating a child like an adult is an exercise in rationalism, because a child is not an adult. A child is, ab initio, incapable of making rational decisions and taking responsibility for their actions. It is desirable to use reason with a child, when doing so is effective, but nevertheless a child cannot be allowed to freely act on its whims. The parent, then, must judge what course of action is proper, since it is the parent that acts as the custodian for the child's right. It is not the function of the government to decide how parents are to raise their children. They establish limits on what acts are excessive, such as breaking bones, electrocution, boiling and hitting with a baseball bat -- doing physical damage. Spanking is not inflicting physical damage, and therefore it is not appropriate to prohibit it by law

Now: I would like to see serious evidence that the questions that you ask are legitimate, and not trolling. If you're interesting, asserting "I'm serious, I'm not trolling" is not evidence that your questions are legitimate. Demonstrate some grasp of the most elementary aspects of Objectivism, and show that you understand and can apply the knowledge that you're being provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should start with the "core" contexts, and try to understand the logic of Objectivism there, before you move to marginal cases where the answer is much more complex. Treating a child like an adult is an exercise in rationalism, because a child is not an adult. A child is, ab initio, incapable of making rational decisions and taking responsibility for their actions. It is desirable to use reason with a child, when doing so is effective, but nevertheless a child cannot be allowed to freely act on its whims. The parent, then, must judge what course of action is proper, since it is the parent that acts as the custodian for the child's right. It is not the function of the government to decide how parents are to raise their children. They establish limits on what acts are excessive, such as breaking bones, electrocution, boiling and hitting with a baseball bat -- doing physical damage. Spanking is not inflicting physical damage, and therefore it is not appropriate to prohibit it by law

Now: I would like to see serious evidence that the questions that you ask are legitimate, and not trolling. If you're interesting, asserting "I'm serious, I'm not trolling" is not evidence that your questions are legitimate. Demonstrate some grasp of the most elementary aspects of Objectivism, and show that you understand and can apply the knowledge that you're being provided.

I'm rereading OPAR and trying to understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacob, try a little harder.

This inspires images in my mind of you as some poor teacher whose spent the last 6 hours listening to kids whine and make a pain of themselves, and you've finally run out of patience. :P

Anyway...

The title of this thread does seem a bit troll-ish... "Butt slap"...

I mean, you could, if you wanted, read that pseudo-sexually... In which case butt-slapping = molesting = bad. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emanon, you make a point that eluded me. This Jacobgalt is the same guy that wrote about having sex with animals and incest. Yeah - there are some real weird sexual overtones. (Actually, I felt like pointing out that the proper term for "butt slap" is spank, but I didn't want to be rude. Now I wish I'd said it.

Creeped out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

For sure: a child is not his parents property. But since:

a. his parents have made him

b. he cannot get alone as he is a child. It is his metaphysical nature.

c. he has rights because his rational faculty exists - but can become a real rationality only after growing up a bip

d. death is not the negative of living, but the stop of living, bound in anti life thoughts. Death ahead is worse than unliving ahead.

=> Parents who do not care for their child to be alive as they are normally and metaphysically able to.

T.R.

Edited by Tomer Ravid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...