JacobGalt Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Why or why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 What is the proper function of government; and what is the best method of raising a child? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claire Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Do you have any opinion on the subject? If so, what are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacobGalt Posted July 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 (edited) 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 July 18, 2010 by JacobGalt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musenji Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Do you equate beating with a spanking? I think a punch in the eye is qualitatively different from a slap on the rear. (It's certainly QUANTitatively different.) At any rate, you're speaking of legality, rather than morality, but you may still find this thread worth a read: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=17362 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacobGalt Posted July 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 (edited) 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 July 18, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacobGalt Posted July 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claire Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Jacob, try a little harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 Jacob, try a little harder. LOL! Not one to make fun of legitimate knowledge quests, but that was too funny given all of these threads he's created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emanon Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claire Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomer Ravid Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 (edited) 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 August 24, 2010 by Tomer Ravid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.