Babies stricken with HERPES after ritual oral blood sucking circumcision in NYC

[phill4paul]

Great thread. Getting to relevant questions of the limits of liberty.

Yes. It is. Far more than I would have thought from the get-go.

 

[torchbearer]

Do you see the problems in your proposed system? (and lmao, at 'every what if hitler' Sorry for another one.. ) Maybe she's beaten and the father has sole authority in that relationship. Should she have no legal recourse if the father wanted and were to sacrifice the child? And if not, why does she have any legal recourse for being hit?

I'm not trying to portray hitlers or whatever. These are very obvious concerns to a system you proposed. I'm six sheets in the wind and I can knock holes all through it. (though I may have to edit a majority of my posts for simple spelling errors, lmao )

You are proposing to open a can of worms. There has to be limits.

well, if there is a government, you can make laws against abuse of children. in a mad max anarch world, the situation would be different. the family would be the governing unit. each family/tribe with its own rules.

 

[torchbearer]

And?

it would be probable that people in this thread could understand I wasn't advocating a position, but making an example.

 

[phill4paul]

it would be probable that people in this thread could understand I wasn't advocating a position, but making an example.

See, that's the problem with you "college" boys. You can't fucking talk straight. Can't take a po-si-ti-on. Gotta edumacate. Round about and wippy wirl. Just like our beloved politicians. School trained you well.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

mi familia

"mi" doesn't correspond directly to "my". (http://users.ipfw.edu/jehle/courses/pronoun1.htm) It corresponds to "me". It's the prepositional case, not genitive. (therefore, doesn't connote possession) Among the Indo-European languages, I'm pretty sure English is the only one that has such a "possessive" feeling to its genitive.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

"mi" doesn't correspond directly to "my". (http://users.ipfw.edu/jehle/courses/pronoun1.htm) It corresponds to "me". It's the prepositional case, not genitive. (therefore, doesn't connote possession) Among the Indo-European languages, I'm pretty sure English is the only one that has such a "possessive" feeling to its genitive.

'Mi familia' means my family.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

'Mi familia' means my family.

Yes, but the connotation is different. It doesn't feel so possessive in Spanish (at least, that's the impression I get from Spanish speakers). As I said, the inflections make a big difference. We native English speakers have some difficulty relating to this because case forms/inflections aren't a big part of English grammar anymore, but it's true.

It's pretty interesting because these 2 languages are from the same family (Indo-European).

Here's another example: Сколько вам лет? means "How old are you?" in proper translation, but it literally means "how many to you summers?" The "flavor" gets somewhat lost in translation.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes, but the connotation is different. It doesn't feel so possessive in Spanish (at least, that's the impression I get from Spanish speakers). As I said, the inflections make a big difference. We native English speakers have some difficulty relating to this because case forms/inflections aren't a big part of English grammar anymore, but it's true.

Ahh. I see the point of your earlier post. Lo siento o Прости

ETA: My 'mi familia' post was actually pretty damn dumb. Not a student of language, in a sense. I missed that one by a mile. :o

 

[Anti Federalist]

Don't clink on thread...don't click on thread...don't click on thread...don't click on thread.

*click*

God damn it.

 

[GOP]

"mi" doesn't correspond directly to "my". (http://users.ipfw.edu/jehle/courses/pronoun1.htm) It corresponds to "me". It's the prepositional case, not genitive. (therefore, doesn't connote possession) Among the Indo-European languages, I'm pretty sure English is the only one that has such a "possessive" feeling to its genitive.

"Mi" directly corresponds "my" in this case.

 

[RockEnds]

Law doesn't necessarily come from a state. There's voluminous literature on private law, in fact. I don't know of any significant "civilized" society that didn't develop some sort of law. Ditto with adoption. People have been abandoning and adopting in stateless societies for millenia.

People have been committing aggressive murder, lying, stealing, cheating, raping, pillaging, and plundering for millennia. Does that make it right? Modern adoption did indeed come from a state and didn't take its current form until after the invention of the birth certificate in the 20th century.

 

[RockEnds]

There are big problems with the concept of ownership over others. First and foremost, if parents can own children, that ownership can be transferred. The children could be voluntarily sold. They could also be confiscated in the same manner other property can be confiscated through taxation. I'm not sure how to value a child for one's net worth. Would they be an asset or a liability? What kind of figure would you put on a kid's head? I guess you would need to have him appraised or put him on the open market and see what kind of offers you receive.

I'll have to stay with Locke on this one. Everyone is born free and with the rights of ownership over his or her own body. Parents are naturally in the position to exert authority or governance over their own children, but children are not possessions. Like all government, the authority of parents over a child is and should be limited. Because parental authority is a natural state into which everyone is born, outside intervention in the family should be rare and only take place under extremely egregious circumstances. That intervention is best left to the extended family. But all people are necessarily born into a state of self-ownership or no one ever exists in that state.

 

[Danan]

"mi" doesn't correspond directly to "my". (http://users.ipfw.edu/jehle/courses/pronoun1.htm) It corresponds to "me". It's the prepositional case, not genitive. (therefore, doesn't connote possession) Among the Indo-European languages, I'm pretty sure English is the only one that has such a "possessive" feeling to its genitive.

Meine Familie.

It's exactly the same word as "my" in this context. It still doesn't necessarily imply ownership, just like "my culture" or "my sociology class" doesn't imply ownership, but rather belonging.

 

[RockEnds]

at what point does the mother and father lose ownership of their egg and sperm is the question.

Do they ever have ownership? If children are born into a state of being owned, then what is stopping their owner from taking possession of their reproductive cells before they reach maturity?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-186802/Should-eggs-aborted-babies.html

Scientists are ready to plunder the ovaries of aborted babies for eggs to use in IVF treatment. Experiments have taken the process almost to completion, it emerged yesterday.

They raise the nightmare prospect of a child whose biological mother has never been born. The news, from a scientific conference in Madrid, was greeted with widespread revulsion at how far science is testing ethical frontiers.

(continued at link)

 

[Danan]

well, if there is a government, you can make laws against abuse of children. in a mad max anarch world, the situation would be different. the family would be the governing unit. each family/tribe with its own rules.

What happens in your anarch world when somebody kills you? It seems to me that you imply that you only have recourse if you survive what is done to you and can sue for compensation.

In other words, why is it any different if my father kills me now, when I'm an adault from when my father would have killed me when I was five years old? In both cases the victim could not be compensated or even sue. I do believe it's possible to convict the murderer even in an anarchic society, but I don't see the difference in both theoretical cases.

How would your anarchic society resolve a case where a grown up is killed by somebody but doesn't leave a family?

 

[torchbearer]

What happens in your anarch world when somebody kills you? It seems to me that you imply that you only have recourse if you survive what is done to you and can sue for compensation.

In other words, why is it any different if my father kills me now, when I'm an adault from when my father would have killed me when I was five years old? In both cases the victim could not be compensated or even sue. I do believe it's possible to convict the murderer even in an anarchic society, but I don't see the difference in both theoretical cases.

How would your anarchic society resolve a case where a grown up is killed by somebody but doesn't leave a family?

I don't advocate for a anarch society. though I will intellectually explore its boundaries. heavenlyboy can testify that I've always advocated the minarchist position as a personal belief.

 

[torchbearer]

Do they ever have ownership? If children are born into a state of being owned, then what is stopping their owner from taking possession of their reproductive cells before they reach maturity?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-186802/Should-eggs-aborted-babies.html

when the state claims ownership over you, it takes ownership of your reproductive cells, and any life your body may spawn.

 

[torchbearer]

I'll have to stay with Locke on this one. Everyone is born free and with the rights of ownership over his or her own body.

this mean's a child, even at the fetus level, has no right to the resources of its mother. it can be evicted at any time. why? because everyone owns themselves at all times and the child cannot force anyone to take care of it.
and now you have the real problem of people evicting babies from wombs- to a sentence of death with malnourishment. the baby is a self-owning independent being. it can no make no demands from any other entity, and no other entity is liable for it. the baby is its own property.

 

[Danan]

I don't advocate for a anarch society. though I will intellectually explore its boundaries. heavenlyboy can testify that I've always advocated the minarchist position as a personal belief.

I meant the "mad max anarch society" you were envisioning.

 

[Danan]

this mean's a child, even at the fetus level, has no right to the resources of its mother. it can be evicted at any time. why? because everyone owns themselves at all times and the child cannot force anyone to take care of it.
and now you have the real problem of people evicting babies from wombs- to a sentence of death with malnourishment. the baby is a self-owning independent being. it can no make no demands from any other entity, and no other entity is liable for it. the baby is its own property.

If the baby is the property of its parents it would be even worse for it. Not only would the parents have the right to evict it, but also to kill it. And that at every point in time until it is considered to be an adault (by whom?). If you don't have the right to destroy something, it's not really your property.