Feminism vs Truth

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2015 19:45:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 9, 2015 19:44:42 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Either a child has a right to the support of his parents or he does not have that right.  And no, my understanding of what a right is is very different from yours. 

A child has no such right. That's a preference.

If the child has no such right, can the parents just put him to the curb and leave? 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 9, 2015 19:53:40 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Aug 9, 2015 19:45:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

A child has no such right. That's a preference.

If the child has no such right, can the parents just put him to the curb and leave? 

if the parents go to jail for it, will the child go with them?

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2015 19:50:21 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Aug 9, 2015 19:45:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

A child has no such right. That's a preference.

Can a parent, at any time in the life of the child,  end his parental obligations?  Say during the terrible twos? Or if the child get a terrible illness, can the parent end his/ her obligations?

"Governmental imposed responsibility" or "moral obligation" is also different from "right".

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2015 19:53:40 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Aug 9, 2015 19:45:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

A child has no such right. That's a preference.

If the child has no such right, can the parents just put him to the curb and leave? 

No. But that's not based on the child's "rights". That's based on "Governmental imposed responsibility" and/or "moral obligation".

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2015 19:59:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 9, 2015 19:50:21 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Can a parent, at any time in the life of the child,  end his parental obligations?  Say during the terrible twos? Or if the child get a terrible illness, can the parent end his/ her obligations?

"Governmental imposed responsibility" or "moral obligation" is also different from "right".

Fathers now have governmental imposed responsibility to support children they do not want.

How does saying a parent has an obligation to the child differ from saying the child has a right?

I think you are arguing semantics.  I am going to call it and say I won the argument.

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2015 20:02:36 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Aug 9, 2015 19:59:15 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

"Governmental imposed responsibility" or "moral obligation" is also different from "right".

Fathers now have governmental imposed responsibility to support children they do not want.

I think you are arguing semantics.  I am going to call it and say I won the argument.

You can say that (the bolded) if you like... won't make it true though. 



(by the way, you thinking is wrong... I wasn't arguing semantics. "Rights", "Preferences", "Governmental imposed responsibilities", and "moral obligations" are all completely separate things. Sometimes they share some commonalities, but when they do it's only by coincidence... not because they mean the same thing)

[Deleted]

Your view of rights and your argument is not coherent.  The different parts do  not hold together.

In my opinion, it is because you start from what you want and go back to try and justify why that should be.  You should, again in my opinion, start from the other end.  Figure out the fundamentals and see where they go.  It would be less contradictory.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 9, 2015 20:10:14 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Your view of rights and your argument is not coherent.  The different parts do  not hold together.

In my opinion, it is because you start from what you want and go back to try and justify why that should be.  You should, again in my opinion, start from the other end.  Figure out the fundamentals and see where they go.  It would be less contradictory.

it would also be less real, less practical, and less true.

i think you two are arguing about two separate things.  you are arguing "natural rights", and Richard is arguing "legal rights".  as he correctly stated, they overlap, and where they overlap, you two "agree".  but you are really arguing about two different things.

i am not even sure that a child has natural rights to parents.  in the wild, abandonment is common.  rats will eat their own children if food is scarce.  the relationship between parent and child is not that simple- either in nature, or in human society. 

i think that there is a general tendency in human beings to boil things down to rules that govern any situation, and it is just not that simple.  even my principle of De-legislating private morality has it's limits.  but i would be wont to admit them. 

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2015 20:10:14 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Your view of rights and your argument is not coherent.  The different parts do  not hold together.

In my opinion, it is because you start from what you want and go back to try and justify why that should be.  You should, again in my opinion, start from the other end.  Figure out the fundamentals and see where they go.  It would be less contradictory.

There's no contradiction in what I said though.

I don't "start from what I want", I start from the beginning... I carry it out to it's conclusion... then, if the conclusion is flawed, I backtrack to see what fixes (if any) can be applied and where.

Any good engineer or logician would do the same.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 9, 2015 20:37:23 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 9, 2015 20:10:14 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Your view of rights and your argument is not coherent.  The different parts do  not hold together.

In my opinion, it is because you start from what you want and go back to try and justify why that should be.  You should, again in my opinion, start from the other end.  Figure out the fundamentals and see where they go.  It would be less contradictory.

There's no contradiction in what I said though.

I don't "start from what I want", I start from the beginning... I carry it out to it's conclusion... then, if the conclusion is flawed, I backtrack to see what fixes (if any) can be applied and where.

Any good engineer or logician would do the same.

for the record, i think both of you are pretty consistent.  you just argue from "different places".

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2015 20:37:23 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 9, 2015 20:10:14 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Your view of rights and your argument is not coherent.  The different parts do  not hold together.

In my opinion, it is because you start from what you want and go back to try and justify why that should be.  You should, again in my opinion, start from the other end.  Figure out the fundamentals and see where they go.  It would be less contradictory.

There's no contradiction in what I said though.

I don't "start from what I want", I start from the beginning... I carry it out to it's conclusion... then, if the conclusion is flawed, I backtrack to see what fixes (if any) can be applied and where.

Any good engineer or logician would do the same.

The parent has an obligation to the child but the child has no rights, but only preferences.  That is a contradiction. You demand equality while acknowledging different starting points. That is less evident as contradictory, but still a contradiction.  Your argument is not coherent.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 9, 2015 20:52:25 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Aug 9, 2015 20:37:23 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

There's no contradiction in what I said though.

I don't "start from what I want", I start from the beginning... I carry it out to it's conclusion... then, if the conclusion is flawed, I backtrack to see what fixes (if any) can be applied and where.

Any good engineer or logician would do the same.

The parent has an obligation to the child but the child has no rights, but only preferences.  That is a contradiction. You demand equality while acknowledging different starting points. That is less evident as contradictory, but still a contradiction.  Your argument is not coherent.

i don't think this is Richard's position, but i am sure he will tell you that himself.

children have rights.  but the right to parents is not among them.  they have the right to adequate care by whomever is their guardian.  if their guardian is their natural parents, and their parents abandon them, the state will intervene on their behalf in an attempt to remedy that.  but if their natural parents are no longer part of the equation- which, sadly, is true a fair amount of the time- the child has no right to those parents whatsoever.

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2015 20:52:25 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Aug 9, 2015 20:37:23 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

There's no contradiction in what I said though.

I don't "start from what I want", I start from the beginning... I carry it out to it's conclusion... then, if the conclusion is flawed, I backtrack to see what fixes (if any) can be applied and where.

Any good engineer or logician would do the same.

The parent has an obligation to the child but the child has no rights, but only preferences.  That is a contradiction. You demand equality while acknowledging different starting points. That is less evident as contradictory, but still a contradiction.  Your argument is not coherent.

There's no contradiction at all... unless you confuse "rights" with "moral obligations", "governmental imposed responsibilities", and "preferences".

The fact that you see a contradiction proves that you don't understand the differences.

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2015 21:22:24 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 9, 2015 20:52:25 GMT -5 @hickle said:

The parent has an obligation to the child but the child has no rights, but only preferences.  That is a contradiction. You demand equality while acknowledging different starting points. That is less evident as contradictory, but still a contradiction.  Your argument is not coherent.

There's no contradiction at all... unless you confuse "rights" with "moral obligations", "governmental imposed responsibilities", and "preferences".

The fact that you see a contradiction proves that you don't understand the differences.

you are just making up distinctions because you are  in a corner and don't know how to get out.  There is no shame in saying your argument fell apart.  I see contradictions because you argument is full of them.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2015 4:58:20 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Aug 9, 2015 21:22:24 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

There's no contradiction at all... unless you confuse "rights" with "moral obligations", "governmental imposed responsibilities", and "preferences".

The fact that you see a contradiction proves that you don't understand the differences.

you are just making up distinctions because you are  in a corner and don't know how to get out.  There is no shame in saying your argument fell apart.  I see contradictions because you argument is full of them.

LOL...

I'm not "in a corner". Those actually are four separate categories of things that affect how we operate in the world and how the world interacts with us and we interact with it. I can give you non-child related examples of all of them.

Right:
Life - Everyone has the right to their own life.

Moral Obligation:
If you see someone drop a $50 bill you have the moral obligation to point it out to them.

Governmental Imposed Responsibility:
You must have insurance in order to drive a car, otherwise a penalty will be imposed upon discovery that you do not have it.

Preference: Wearing clothing that is all black (a personal preference of mine, actually).




And... again... my argument has no contradictions. If you are seeing contradictions, then you don't understand the difference between "rights" and the other three categories ("moral obligations", "governmental imposed responsibilities", and "preferences").

[Virgil Showlion]

"Are you asserting that he has the right?"
"Yes, the legal right."
"To what?"
"To be right about rights."
"Is that morally right, though?"
"To be obligated to right moral rights? Yes."
"No, to distinguish between obligatory rights and discretionary responsibilities that are right."
"You mean the right to right obligations and discriminate between morals."
"Right."
"No, legal right."
"I meant right we have the right to right obligations."
"A moral right or a legal right?"
"The moral right to discriminate between laws and obligations imposed by rights and not contradictions."
"Legally, I think you're right, but I'm obliged to write that your legally obligated rights are rightly contradicting your preferences, which are not rights unless they're obliged to discriminate between responsibilities and right-leaning rights about rights, like rites of passage, right?"
...
...

This conversation continued until the Earth, crippled by the sheer volume of rhetoric, imploded into a singularity. And mankind was never heard from again.

ETA: Did you guys honestly manage to turn this into Oregon bakery thread 5.0?

[Deleted]

There was a meme yesterday that had Ruth Bader Ginsburg, didn't check authenticity, but the quote was about someone asking her how many women serving at the same time in the supreme court would be enough. She said nine, and people were shocked... But it happens with nine men and no one questions it...

Is equality about 50/50? Or equal opportunities?

[Deleted]

Moral Obligation:
If you see someone drop a $50 bill you have the moral obligation to point it out to them.

Who is that obligation owed to?  How is that person having someone obliged to do something different then him having a right that it be done?

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2015 15:27:46 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Moral Obligation:
If you see someone drop a $50 bill you have the moral obligation to point it out to them.

Who is that obligation owed to?  How is that person having someone obliged to do something different then him having a right that it be done?

Moral obligation isn't a right of the other person... it's an obligation to do the proper/fair/good thing for others.

A Moral obligation isn't another person't right... it's YOUR obligation, to yourself, and to society in general, to be a good person (that's why it's called a "moral" obligation... because it's based on morality)

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2015 13:12:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

"Are you asserting that he has the right?"
"Yes, the legal right."
"To what?"
"To be right about rights."
"Is that morally right, though?"
"To be obligated to right moral rights? Yes."
"No, to distinguish between obligatory rights and discretionary responsibilities that are right."
"You mean the right to right obligations and discriminate between morals."
"Right."
"No, legal right."
"I meant right we have the right to right obligations."
"A moral right or a legal right?"
"The moral right to discriminate between laws and obligations imposed by rights and not contradictions."
"Legally, I think you're right, but I'm obliged to write that your legally obligated rights are rightly contradicting your preferences, which are not rights unless they're obliged to discriminate between responsibilities and right-leaning rights about rights, like rites of passage, right?"
...
...

This conversation continued until the Earth, crippled by the sheer volume of rhetoric, imploded into a singularity. And mankind was never heard from again.

ETA: Did you guys honestly manage to turn this into Oregon bakery thread 5.0?

Didn't want to... but some people have difficulty with simple concepts.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2015 17:10:06 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 10, 2015 15:27:46 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Who is that obligation owed to?  How is that person having someone obliged to do something different then him having a right that it be done?

Moral obligation isn't a right of the other person... it's an obligation to do the proper/fair/good thing for others.

A Moral obligation isn't another person't right... it's YOUR obligation, to yourself, and to society in general, to be a good person (that's why it's called a "moral" obligation... because it's based on morality)

So you are obliged to society in general  and to yourself not to put a baby out on the curb, but have no obligations to the child?  Sounds odd to me.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2015 17:17:23 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Aug 10, 2015 17:10:06 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Moral obligation isn't a right of the other person... it's an obligation to do the proper/fair/good thing for others.

A Moral obligation isn't another person't right... it's YOUR obligation, to yourself, and to society in general, to be a good person (that's why it's called a "moral" obligation... because it's based on morality)

So you are obliged to society in general  and to yourself not to put a baby out on the curb, but have no obligations to the child?  Sounds odd to me.

There's nothing "odd" about it.

If you saw a starving child abandoned in the wilderness... I doubt you'd just walk on by it, and let it fend for itself.

You wouldn't make yourself responsible for it for the rest of it's natural life... but you'd at least contact the police/forest ranger... or someone (at least I HOPE you would).

Plus, in the "the father should have the same right to opt out that the mother has" debate... we aren't talking about a child when the "opt out" option exists. We are talking about a fetus. At that point only one person can "have obligations" to the fetus... and that's the mother. The father is just "along for the ride" until birth (if there is one).

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2015 18:28:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 10, 2015 17:17:23 GMT -5 @hickle said:

So you are obliged to society in general  and to yourself not to put a baby out on the curb, but have no obligations to the child?  Sounds odd to me.

There's nothing "odd" about it.

If you saw a starving child abandoned in the wilderness... I doubt you'd just walk on by it, and let it fend for itself.

You wouldn't make yourself responsible for it for the rest of it's natural life... but you'd at least contact the police/forest ranger... or someone (at least I HOPE you would).

Plus, in the "the father should have the same right to opt out that the mother has" debate... we aren't talking about a child when the "opt out" option exists. We are talking about a fetus. At that point only one person can "have obligations" to the fetus... and that's the mother. The father is just "along for the ride" until birth (if there is one).

The opt out option exists when 'it' is a fetus.  So does that mean the opt out option does not exist when "it" becomes a child? Because we are talking about it becoming a child, otherwise there is no debate.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2015 19:22:52 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Aug 10, 2015 18:28:26 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

There's nothing "odd" about it.

If you saw a starving child abandoned in the wilderness... I doubt you'd just walk on by it, and let it fend for itself.

You wouldn't make yourself responsible for it for the rest of it's natural life... but you'd at least contact the police/forest ranger... or someone (at least I HOPE you would).

Plus, in the "the father should have the same right to opt out that the mother has" debate... we aren't talking about a child when the "opt out" option exists. We are talking about a fetus. At that point only one person can "have obligations" to the fetus... and that's the mother. The father is just "along for the ride" until birth (if there is one).

The opt out option exists when 'it' is a fetus.  So does that mean the opt out option does not exist when "it" becomes a child? Because we are talking about it becoming a child, otherwise there is no debate.

Yes... and no. The mother still has the "adopt out" or "abandon at a 'safe harbor' location" for a short time after the birth.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2015 20:02:17 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 10, 2015 19:22:52 GMT -5 @hickle said:

The opt out option exists when 'it' is a fetus.  So does that mean the opt out option does not exist when "it" becomes a child? Because we are talking about it becoming a child, otherwise there is no debate.

Yes... and no. The mother still has the "adopt out" or "abandon at a 'safe harbor' location" for a short time after the birth.

so the father cannot opt out once the child is born, and must accept his responsibilities,  i am glad you finally see reason.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2015 20:06:09 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Aug 10, 2015 20:02:17 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Yes... and no. The mother still has the "adopt out" or "abandon at a 'safe harbor' location" for a short time after the birth.

so the father cannot opt out once the child is born, and must accept his responsibilities,  i am glad you finally see reason.

I've always seen reason. I never said the fathers right to opt out should be indefinite. I've maintained it should be based on the same time limit as a woman can abort.

(for that to work though, he must be notified of the pregnancy within a reasonable amount of time... because some women like to trap men via pregnancy though... maybe it would be better if he was required to "opt IN" instead. That way it's guaranteed she would notify him in time for him to make his choice known.)

[tallguy]

ETA: Did you guys honestly manage to turn this into Oregon bakery thread 5.0?

I called it first!

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2015 20:11:07 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 10, 2015 20:06:09 GMT -5 @hickle said:

so the father cannot opt out once the child is born, and must accept his responsibilities,  i am glad you finally see reason.

I've always seen reason. I never said the fathers right to opt out should be indefinite. I've maintained it should be based on the same time limit as a woman can abort.

(for that to work though, he must be notified of the pregnancy within a reasonable amount of time... because some women like to trap men via pregnancy though... maybe it would be better if he was required to "opt IN" instead. That way it's guaranteed she would notify him in time for him to make his choice known.)

well I never argued the father had any obligations to the fetus, just the child, so I guess this has all been a misunderstanding.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2015 20:12:39 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Aug 10, 2015 20:11:07 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I've always seen reason. I never said the fathers right to opt out should be indefinite. I've maintained it should be based on the same time limit as a woman can abort.

(for that to work though, he must be notified of the pregnancy within a reasonable amount of time... because some women like to trap men via pregnancy though... maybe it would be better if he was required to "opt IN" instead. That way it's guaranteed she would notify him in time for him to make his choice known.)

well I never argued the father had any obligations to the fetus, just the child, so I guess this has all been a misunderstanding.

He thinks that opting out of responsibility to the fetus opts him out of responsibility to the child.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2015 20:21:22 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Aug 10, 2015 20:12:39 GMT -5 @hickle said:

well I never argued the father had any obligations to the fetus, just the child, so I guess this has all been a misunderstanding.

He thinks that opting out of responsibility to the fetus opts him out of responsibility to the child.

No, that would be crazy. How could a person think he can opt out of responsibility and make the mother the sole provider for the child of both?