DescentBB

Bet, simple question:

When do I get to justifiably point a gun at your head?

Answer that question honestly and fully, and you might begin to see why people *should* object, and violently so, to government mandated *anything*.

shaktazuki wrote:Bet, simple question:

When do I get to justifiably point a gun at your head?

When I begin to believe that doing something for the common good is for other people, and any requirement should be violently objected to, then you can pull the trigger.

Answer that question honestly and fully, and you might begin to see why people *should* object, and violently so, to government mandated *anything*.

I'm biased so my answer wasn't really fair to you.

Bee

No, you didn't answer the question; it's ok - I rarely get a straight answer to it from those who honestly think it is acceptable to coerce others to do their will.

shaktazuki wrote:When do I get to justifiably point a gun at your head?

Answer that question honestly and fully, and you might begin to see why people *should* object, and violently so, to government mandated *anything*.

Let me take a shot at this. The answer is, "when I'm about to shoot someone else".

An example of a government mandate that I would be ok with would be, for instance, mandating that a corporation cannot poison a public water source.

That's the line between liberty and anarchy.

Guys, come on. Bet is talking about education here, not forced labor.

Our nation mandates that children should be educated in subjects from mathematics to social studies. As a former teacher, I have no problem whatsoever with adding community service to that list. In fact, I remember a class where we spent a day working to clean up a local park, part of a lesson in civics; it was not even remotely near forced labor.

In general, I would agree that government should not be mandating our work lives... but shaktazuki, you're crossing a line. \"When can I hold a gun to your head?\"... seriously? You could have easily come up with a better (and less threatening) example.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:When do I get to justifiably point a gun at your head?

Answer that question honestly and fully, and you might begin to see why people *should* object, and violently so, to government mandated *anything*.

Let me take a shot at this. The answer is, "when I'm about to shoot someone else".

An example of a government mandate that I would be ok with would be, for instance, mandating that a corporation cannot poison a public water source.

That's the line between liberty and anarchy.

Bingo.

Foil wrote:"When can I hold a gun to your head?"... seriously? You could have easily come up with a better (and less threatening) example.

Government mandates are executed by lethal force or the threat thereof.

If Bet, or you, are unwilling to personally hold the gun to my child's head and compel her to learn CPR, then you have some explaining to do about why you are willing for someone else to so do.

shaktazuki wrote:... unwilling to personally hold the gun to my child's head and compel her to learn CPR, then you have some explaining to do about why you are willing for someone else to so do.

Tell me, does that same logic apply to compelling your child to learn math? Or history?

Your argument is apparently that "government should not force my child to take CPR". So, I'm curious to see if you apply that same logic to other subjects mandated by government boards of education. Do you have the same objection to students being forced to take courses in English? Or science?

The notion and accepted belief that children should be given equal rights and put on par with adults would lead to the distruction of any society.

Children need structure.

Foil wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:... unwilling to personally hold the gun to my child's head and compel her to learn CPR, then you have some explaining to do about why you are willing for someone else to so do.

Tell me, does that same logic apply to compelling your child to learn math? Or history?

Yes.

Your argument is apparently that "government should not force my child to take CPR". So, I'm curious to see if you apply that same logic to other subjects mandated by government boards of education. Do you have the same objection to students being forced to take courses in English? Or science?

Yes.

Gooberman wrote:The notion and accepted belief that children should be given equal rights and put on par with adults would lead to the distruction of any society.

Children need structure.

The only notion I am applying here is "Thou shalt NOT initiate the use of force against non-aggressors."

If you saw a parent physically punishing a child to the point where it could maim them and do irreparable harm would you intervene? I would, I bet you would too. Would you use force? If necessary.

And to me this is on par with denying a child an education. That child will have almost no chance at success in life. A parent who doesn’t care if his child can read is just a big of a scumbag in my book as one that beats them to a pulp. That child will be mocked, ridiculed, and working the worst jobs in our society for his entire life.

That is why society, at the long end of other techniques and measures, must eventually result to force.

There are some values, that are simply worth forcing our fellow man to comply with.

Gooberman wrote:If you saw a parent physically punishing a child to the point where it could maim them and do irreparable harm would you intervene?

Not necessarily. Too many assumptions, caveats, and such are lurking in your hypothetical.

That is why society, at the long end of other techniques and measures, must eventually result to force.

I applaud you for admitting that you think you are justified in using force to compel people to obey your notions of the way things should be. I wish that all would-be Führers were so forthright.

shaktazuki wrote: I applaud you for admitting that you think you are justified in using force to compel people to obey your notions of the way things should be. I wish that all would-be Führers were so forthright.

It isn't the way things should be, it is the way things are. Reading and basic math is a survival skill in this world. If you don't have the heart to provide it to your children then I hope someone makes you.

It was very clear growing up that neither of my parents viewed the household as a democracy. So naturally it is something that I agree with, again, lets stay honest, when discussing children.

Now if we are discussing things of the nature of forcing a man to mow his lawn, then that I couldn't care less about. But a parent has a duty and responsiblity to their child that is crimminal to neglect.

And I see no caveats when it comes to a child being maimed. But I wish that all would-be Mengele's were so forthright.

The bicycle helmet mandates part of this thread that communities are trying to pass got my attention.

It's well known that helmets save lives and prevent more serious injuries. Now what's weird is that a lot of communities mandate that children under a certain age wear a helmet while riding a bike. However, adults don't usually have that constraint. Why is that?

What difference does it make whether an adult or a child is injured in a accident. Children may be less skilled and more clumsy and thus more prone to have an accident, so that makes sense for children, but an adult will cost society just as much if he/she has an accident and with the way drivers don't see bicyclists most of the time, accidents WILL happen.

This 'free will' that adults seen to think that they are entitled to in the U.S. when it comes to bike (or motorcycle) helmet use is bizarre. We as a society are paying the high health care price for idiots who are severely injured while not wearing helmets, when they clearly reduce head injuries.

When doing something will be a direct benefit to society as a whole, in reduced costs or injuries, why not mandate it for the self-centered idiots among us? We all end up paying for it anyway.

Gooberman wrote:And I see no caveats when it comes to a child being maimed. But I wish that all would-be Mengele's were so forthright.

I can come up with a few situations in which I think you would agree a child *can* be justifiably maimed.

Did you circumcise your kids, by the way?

shaktazuki wrote: I can come up with a few situations in which I think you would agree a child *can* be justifiably maimed.

Did you circumcise your kids, by the way?

The quote said "physically punishing."

shaktazuki wrote:Did you circumcise your kids, by the way?

A good example of medical/societal approved maiming of children!

Gooberman wrote:

shaktazuki wrote: I can come up with a few situations in which I think you would agree a child *can* be justifiably maimed.

Did you circumcise your kids, by the way?

The quote said "physically punishing."

Then I would still have to say "not necessarily," because I cannot read minds.

Do you have a mind-reading device that you can tell the intent of the person?

tunnelcat wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:Did you circumcise your kids, by the way?

A good example of medical/societal approved maiming of children!

Punishment, even, for being born male!

shaktazuki wrote:Then I would still have to say "not necessarily," because I cannot read minds.

Do you have a mind-reading device that you can tell the intent of the person?

For a man who in previous threads only wanted to "argue the point" you sure enjoy these tangential journies. Thats ok, I don't mind walking with you, but it is an admission of defeat.

Not nessesarily means that you can imagine a scenario in which you would. If you can't, invision a man a clearly drunken man cleaving his childs legs off with a butcher knife in the park. Does that work for you? Or do you need more clarity?

Now insert your scenario, or my scenario, (which ever one works best for you,) into the initial thread that started this journey of ours, and then proceed to argue the point.

Gooberman wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:Then I would still have to say "not necessarily," because I cannot read minds.

Do you have a mind-reading device that you can tell the intent of the person?

For a man who in previous threads only wanted to "argue the point" you sure enjoy these tangential journies. Thats ok, I don't mind walking with you, but it is an admission of defeat.

It is an admission of a malformed hypothetical by my interlocutor.

Not nessesarily means that you can imagine a scenario in which you would. If you can't, invision a man a clearly drunken man cleaving his childs legs off with a butcher knife in the park. Does that work for you? Or do you need more clarity?

I envision a sober man cutting his child's genitals with a knife. The child is unquestionably irrevocably harmed, and is certainly maimed. Yet, somehow, nobody does anything about it; actually, maybe the man is paid to do it, and maybe the child isn't his.

So, apparently, your answer would also be "not necessarily." Does this not constitute an admission of defeat on your part? If not, then why is it supposed to be one on mine?

I cannot give an all-encompassing, black-or-white answer to the question, and apparently you cannot either.

I do not grant that it is automatically justified to apply force against someone who is not applying force against me.

It is an admission of a malformed hypothetical by my interlocutor.

This from the man of \"That wasn't what I meant try again.\" Oh the hypocrisy is damn near painful!

So, apparently, your answer would also be \"not necessarily.\"

No, we have been talking about harm and punishment, both of which your example ignores. There are studies that show that it is helpful to your child to have them circumcisized. Your inclination to ignore those crucial points is an admittance to nothing on my part.

I cannot give an all-encompassing, black-or-white answer to the question, and apparently you cannot either.

I can, did, and do.

I do not grant that it is automatically justified to apply force against someone who is not applying force against me.

I wish that all would-be Mengele's observers were so forthright. (observer is probably more accurate).

So, which way do we turn now? The point is towards the 2nd post on this page. Not that that matters.

Edit: Hey Foil gave you a short-cut, the point can now also be found:

|
|
V

Gooberman wrote:There are some values, that are simply worth forcing our fellow man to comply with.

Specifically, the ones which affect society as a whole... and in my book, that includes education.

Sure, there may be parents who believe that math is useless, or that history is propaganda, or that science is deceptive... or that CPR is non-essential. But for the good of society (including my own good), I want the next generation to be educated in those areas.

Again, the subject at hand is education. We're not talking about government intrusion into the home or the adult workplace.

------------

Note: Maybe the discussion of circumcision should be made a separate thread?

Gooberman wrote:

So, apparently, your answer would also be "not necessarily."

No, we have been talking about harm and punishment, both of which your example ignores. There are studies that show that it is helpful to your child to have them circumcisized. Your inclination to ignore those crucial points is an admittance to nothing on my part.

There are studies which show that it is harmful to your child to have them circumsized - indeed, it is on its face harmful to have a healthy body part excised. There is always a supposed "beneficial" effect to any undertaking, even punishment. That's why the motivations of the actor are irrelevant, on top of being undiscernable.

I cannot give an all-encompassing, black-or-white answer to the question, and apparently you cannot either.

I can, did, and do.

You have, indeed: as long as there's a "beneficial" effect, no matter how theoretical, you're at least in favor of sexually mutilating kids; now we just have to figure out how far you're willing to take that principle. Lobotomies, forced drugging, perhaps interesting things which the Kinsey "studies" showed weren't harmful to children...

That's why the motivations of the actor are irrelevant, on top of being undiscernable.

They are not irrelevant or indiscernible. If a child is swimming in the ocean, and his leg gets pinned under a fallen rock. If the father cannot remove it, and no other actions can be done, people would not interrupt the father removing the child’s legs by same act I mentioned previously. Why? Because they would all understand that the intent was to save the child’s life. We are not as robotic as your ideology suggests.

Intent is not irrelevant, it is (almost) everything. I cannot walk down that path with you. Choose another.

Gooberman wrote:If you don't have the heart to provide it to your children then I hope someone makes you.

X2

People who lack critical thinking skills are their own worst enemy and have become the exact reason that government laws to protect children were written. Some of the comments here have fortified my views on government intervention.

Bicycle helmet laws, child restraints in automobiles, education, and CPR are all good in my book no matter who says their not.

Bee

Brother, has this thread taken a strange tack, circumcision, maiming, etc?????????????

Children are not adults and cannot make their own informed decisions, period. The age at which children become adults is a societal construct, so there's some age variation depending on what society you live in.

If society values the protection of certain members that cannot make their own informed consent, then more senior members do it for them with the blessing of the whole of the society. On a whole, even in the animal kingdom, the youngest are protected by the adults, parents or even the group. That protection in hard wired in.

So when we see a child being hurt or in a life threatening position, the natural instinct is to protect, AS IT SHOULD BE. But can someone go too far in protecting a child if they don't know the full circumstances surrounding what's happening? Sometimes things aren't always clear to a casual observer in public.

Bee, concerning children and learning CPR, it's a good idea, but it should be applied carefully depending on the maturity of the child. Not all children in an age group would be good candidates for training and thus a mandate would be too all encompassing and poorly targeted.

“There are some values, that are simply worth forcing our fellow man to comply with.”

That statement is just sooo wrong on sooo many levels. I would hope to at least form a consensus to say the least, before we go around forcing values on anybody.

That’s just plain scary, and I don’t scare easily.

That's the problem with forcing something on everyone, there are to many variables. One size doesn't fit all. How about incentives?

Spidey wrote:“There are some values, that are simply worth forcing our fellow man to comply with.”

That statement is just sooo wrong on sooo many levels. I would hope to at least form a consensus to say the least, before we go around forcing values on anybody.

So you don't believe there are any values government should enforce? None?

Education and law are two, off the top of my head.

[Note that Goob simply said there exist some values worth enforcing. You're reacting to the statement as if he said "we should enforce all our values on others", which is not the case.]

Spidey wrote:“There are some values, that are simply worth forcing our fellow man to comply with.”

That statement is just sooo wrong on sooo many levels. I would hope to at least form a consensus to say the least, before we go around forcing values on anybody.

That’s just plain scary, and I don’t scare easily.

Because your adding too much to it . We live in a nation of laws, those laws are based on values. These values are enforced.

“So you don't believe there are any values government should enforce? None?”

Did I say that? Read what I said again.

Spidey, you did say \"some\" not \"all\". I agree with your point.

Spidey wrote:“So you don't believe there are any values government should enforce? None?”

Did I say that? Read what I said again.

You objected to Goob saying that there were some. It follows that you believe there are none.

If you believe that there are indeed some values which should be enforced, then you are agreeing with Gooberman's statement.

So what did I miss?

I didn’t object to the “some” part, it’s mostly the “forcing” part.

I think we should tread very lightly when it comes to “forcing” values on anybody, and it begs the age old question “who’s values”. The things we choose to “force” on others need to be an organic type of thing that has its grounds in consensus, not mandating things from the top down.

EDIT:

So if I don’t wear a helmet while cycling, will you beat me in the head and force me to?

Where does a lack of consensus exist in my quote? Or not treading lightly for those \"some values.\" I think you agree in part

True, it’s just too open ended…

The top down comes from the topic of this thread.

Ok…edit war….bring it on ★■◆●…..

I put it back best I could remember after I saw you posted. I was like, *sigh* here we go again....I better put it back and hope no one notices..

You would do me a huge service to turn off dbb notification. Not that I'm not also guilty...

Gooberman wrote:

That's why the motivations of the actor are irrelevant, on top of being undiscernable.

They are not irrelevant or indiscernible. Intent is not irrelevant, it is (almost) everything. I cannot walk down that path with you.

A. Your position depends critically upon being able to discern and judge someone else's motivations.

B. That ability to discern motivations requires a mind-reading device.

C. You don't have such a device.

D. Nobody does.

E. Your position is unsupported at the critical point.