DescentBB

Requiring a license for a normal biological function you are genetically programmed to do is more than a little different from requiring one for driving a car.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:If it doesn't affect anyone, by all means, be as idiotic as you like. But dear god, don't do it at the expense of your children's safety and well-being. Individual sovereignty includes children as well as adults, man. They are individuals.

See, there it is again--America is about not needing anyone's permission to be whatever you will be, because we're all on equal footing. You need to take a good hard look at the implications of the idea that it can be otherwise without a fundamental change in who we are. "All men are created EQUAL". You cannot accept the imposition of another man's (or men's) will over your own without accepting the end-result, which is oppression and tyranny. If you believe that oppression and tyranny are a preferable choice to people making wrong choices which result in suffering and death, I would say that historically-speaking you have chosen poorly, but not only that, you have condemned the responsible as well as the irresponsible to oppression.

You say sovereignty includes children. Maybe your thought got lost in incorrect wording, here, because that's just not so. Children are individuals (individuals in development), but what exactly is it that makes them sovereign? Children are not sovereign, they are responsible to, and the responsibility of their parents. Sovereignty implies that they stand equals with their peers, without owing anything to a higher authority.

equal

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Children are sovereign as children, amongst their peers... which are other children. All children have rights. Those rights are not identical to the rights of an adult, because as you said they are still in development. They still have basic inalienable human rights, however, and one of those rights is the right to not have their health or wellbeing imposed upon. And that is exactly what you are going against when you claim that protecting the child's rights to health and wellbeing is oppressing the right of the parent to live as they choose.

Seriously...

Well Krom there are restrictions to your "normal biological function" and as such these restrictions are akin to a license. Restrictions such as:

Having sex with a minor
Rape
Having HIV and not telling not telling your partner
Having mental retardation
Incest

In short you do not have free license to partake in your biological function in all cases.

MD-1118 wrote:... when you claim that protecting the child's rights to health and wellbeing is oppressing the right of the parent to live as they choose.

Actually I was only really dealing with part of your argument. I never claimed that. I claimed that the state cannot have authority over a man or woman's right to determine their own life without throwing out their individual sovereignty. Having said that, I would add that we all have certain understood responsibilities, and it is within a society's rights to demand that the individual's responsibilities be met. I think it's hugely important to understand that there is a big difference between the two concepts, though--I'm not just changing words in your argument and labeling it kosher. And beyond making an individuals responsibilities clear (like Christianity does, by the way), which society very well could, you can't address an unfulfilled responsibility before it both exists and has not been fulfilled.

To reiterate, in case it isn't clear, I'm not making an argument about protecting children. I feel that the more important element in this part of the topic, so far, is sovereignty, and until we get past that and determine who has a right and why to protect the children, it really is useless trying to go much further, I think.

Damnit, Krom, shorten your location!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:... when you claim that protecting the child's rights to health and wellbeing is oppressing the right of the parent to live as they choose.

Actually I was only really dealing with part of your argument. I never claimed that. I claimed that the state cannot have authority over a man or woman's right to determine their own life without throwing out their individual sovereignty. Having said that, I would add that we all have certain understood responsibilities, and it is within a society's rights to demand that the individual's responsibilities be met. I think it's hugely important to understand that there is a big difference between the two concepts, though--I'm not just changing words in your argument and labeling it kosher. And beyond making an individuals responsibilities clear (like Christianity does, by the way), which society very well could, you can't address an unfulfilled responsibility before it both exists and has not been fulfilled.

To reiterate, in case it isn't clear, I'm not making an argument about protecting children. I feel that the more important element in this part of the topic, so far, is sovereignty, and until we get past that and determine who has a right and why to protect the children, it really is useless trying to go much further, I think.

Damnit, Krom, shorten your location!

Okay, so you're saying that it is the parents' - and not the government's - responsibility to see to it that their children are taken care of properly... but how far do you take that? At what point do you finally say "Okay, these parents are not fulfilling their responsibility, so they forfeit it"? Because you can't realistically say "never" without inequality. That's like saying parents have the sovereign right to oppress their children, which is no better than saying the government - or the general populace - has the sovereign right to oppress the parents. Also, you said

I claimed that the state cannot have authority over a man or woman's right to determine their own life without throwing out their individual sovereignty

but the children's health and wellbeing isn't their parents' lives. Basically I see the government stepping in not as "Parents are not entitled to this", but rather "Children are entitled to this".

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:So while many of you are thinking how much death is caused by firearms, perhaps we should look at the latest Pugh research pole:

"Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware "

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/ ... c-unaware/

how does that timing coincide with the last major gun legislation overhaul.....which, IIRC was early in Clintons first term?

After looking into those laws…I can’t really see anything that would account for the decrease in crime…I believe what we have here is, the more narrow stats following the larger trend.

The problem we need to address here…IMHO…is why youth violence is on the rise while violence on the whole is in decline.

.................................................................................

I often make the suggestion of having a parenting license…but never seriously. It sounds like an awesome idea on the surface, but the type of tyrannical government it would take to impose it…scares the living bajeebies out of me.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:So while many of you are thinking how much death is caused by firearms, perhaps we should look at the latest Pugh research pole:

"Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware "

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/ ... c-unaware/

how does that timing coincide with the last major gun legislation overhaul.....which, IIRC was early in Clintons first term?

After looking into those laws…I can’t really see anything that would account for the decrease in crime…I believe what we have here is, the more narrow stats following the larger trend.

The problem we need to address here…IMHO…is why youth violence is on the rise while violence on the whole is in decline.

Because you gotta fight... for your right... to PAAARTAAY!

Seriously though, it's probably just one of those social ebb-and-flow things. All the popular kids are stickin' it to The Man, you know?

And as for the decrease in crime, a little bird told me it was desaturation via immigration. Seems fairly legit.

Nope, if you are emancipated you should be treated as an adult. If you are homeless because you got kicked out then the responsibility should still fall upon the parents.

An emancipated minor is a minor who is allowed to conduct a business or any other occupation on his or her own behalf or for their own account outside the influence of a parent or guardian. The minor will then have full contractual capacity to conclude contract with regard to the business. Whether parental consent is needed to achieve the "emancipated" status varies from case to case. In some cases, court permission is necessary. Protocols vary by jurisdiction.

your not entirely correct. in several states INC my state emancipation is a legal term and must be approved by the courts, not all teenagers are kicked out or are runaways at 17. I wasn't when I joined the Navy at 17, and I wasn't legally emancipated either. but by your rules if I had committed a crime my parents would be responsible,

CUDA wrote:

Nope, if you are emancipated you should be treated as an adult. If you are homeless because you got kicked out then the responsibility should still fall upon the parents.

An emancipated minor is a minor who is allowed to conduct a business or any other occupation on his or her own behalf or for their own account outside the influence of a parent or guardian. The minor will then have full contractual capacity to conclude contract with regard to the business. Whether parental consent is needed to achieve the "emancipated" status varies from case to case. In some cases, court permission is necessary. Protocols vary by jurisdiction.

your not entirely correct. in several states INC my state emancipation is a legal term and must be approved by the courts, not all teenagers are kicked out or are runaways at 17. I wasn't when I joined the Navy at 17, and I wasn't legally emancipated either. but by your rules if I had committed a crime my parents would be responsible,

MD-1118 wrote:case by case basis

To be fair though, once you join the military, they own you, body and soul.

MD-1118 wrote:Okay, so you're saying that it is the parents' - and not the government's - responsibility to see to it that their children are taken care of properly... but how far do you take that? At what point do you finally say "Okay, these parents are not fulfilling their responsibility, so they forfeit it"? Because you can't realistically say "never" without inequality. That's like saying parents have the sovereign right to oppress their children, which is no better than saying the government - or the general populace - has the sovereign right to oppress the parents. Also, you said

I claimed that the state cannot have authority over a man or woman's right to determine their own life without throwing out their individual sovereignty

but the children's health and wellbeing isn't their parents' lives. Basically I see the government stepping in not as "Parents are not entitled to this", but rather "Children are entitled to this".

Actually, I would argue that a parent has more right to oppress their children than the state does to oppress the parents. You might draw the wrong conclusion about my motives in saying that, but it's like the old saying goes, "I brought you into this world"... The state, in our case, is just an office of representatives, representing "we the people"--individuals. So for that reason the relationship between a child and a parent is actually quite different. If you want to take it deep enough to really answer all questions, you would have to answer the question, "what is it that requires responsibility for the child of the parent?" What is it? Is it God? I think so. What are your other options? Is it merely that fact that the fulfillment of various duties toward the child is positive? Does outcome determine responsibility? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I don't know that I have the answer when it comes to when it's time to step in and relieve someone of their parental responsibilities, or whether that's even right. Maybe it would be more right to punish the parent while temporarily delegating responsibility to another party for the duration, without ever having truly taken them. Not that I couldn't arrive at the right answer, but I'm still dealing with more foundational questions. I think, legally speaking, you could bring someone before the court on the testimony of a witness, or first obtain a warrant to determine the validity of the claims/concerns, and have the validity of the accusations determined by a jury of your peers, after a defense, and the judgements meted out based on the infraction. I don't know that we have many laws based on common-sense. Maybe it has always been too uncommon to ever take hold in that way.

You have to realize something about this instance in the OP. The family lost a 2-year-old girl in this incident. It's going to stick in people's minds. Do you realize that there will be a whole lot of people thinking twice about making the same mistake? The assumption seems to be that the situation is a total loss, or that such incidents may even be gathering momentum. Absurd. Any remotely responsible parent who hears about it will be thinking, "what an unimaginably tragic thing", and realize that they themselves don't handle firearms and ammo as carefully as they might. People will be talking about it, parents will warn their children about it... Life goes on, to a great degree. If you ask me such occurrences have a largely self-healing effect on society, and the only reason to be unnecessarily alarmed is if something is obviously contributing to the detriment of society in such a manner as to swing the balance significantly in the favor of destruction (think my relatively recent posts about "ideas").

MD-1118 wrote:case by case basis

To be fair though, once you join the military, they own you, body and soul.

To be fair they are not my legal guardian. I am under a contractual obligation. nothing more

CUDA wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:case by case basis

To be fair though, once you join the military, they own you, body and soul.

To be fair they are not my legal guardian. I am under a contractual obligation. nothing more

A contract that is legally binding. Also you become their responsibility.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

MD-1118 wrote:Okay, so you're saying that it is the parents' - and not the government's - responsibility to see to it that their children are taken care of properly... but how far do you take that? At what point do you finally say "Okay, these parents are not fulfilling their responsibility, so they forfeit it"? Because you can't realistically say "never" without inequality. That's like saying parents have the sovereign right to oppress their children, which is no better than saying the government - or the general populace - has the sovereign right to oppress the parents. Also, you said

I claimed that the state cannot have authority over a man or woman's right to determine their own life without throwing out their individual sovereignty

but the children's health and wellbeing isn't their parents' lives. Basically I see the government stepping in not as "Parents are not entitled to this", but rather "Children are entitled to this".

Actually, I would argue that a parent has more right to oppress their children than the state does to oppress the parents. You might draw the wrong conclusion about my motives in saying that, but it's like the old saying goes, "I brought you into this world"... The state, in our case, is just an office of representatives, representing "we the people"--individuals. So for that reason the relationship between a child and a parent is actually quite different. If you want to take it deep enough to really answer all questions, you would have to answer the question, "what is it that requires responsibility for the child of the parent?" What is it? Is it God? I think so. What are your other options? Is it merely that fact that the fulfillment of various duties toward the child is positive? Does outcome determine responsibility? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I don't know that I have the answer when it comes to when it's time to step in and relieve someone of their parental responsibilities, or whether that's even right. Maybe it would be more right to punish the parent while temporarily delegating responsibility to another party for the duration, without ever having truly taken them. Not that I couldn't arrive at the right answer, but I'm still dealing with more foundational questions. I think, legally speaking, you could bring someone before the court on the testimony of a witness, or first obtain a warrant to determine the validity of the claims/concerns, and have the validity of the accusations determined by a jury of your peers, after a defense, and the judgements meted out based on the infraction. I don't know that we have many laws based on common-sense. Maybe it has always been too uncommon to ever take hold in that way.

You have to realize something about this instance in the OP. The family lost a 2-year-old girl in this incident. It's going to stick in people's minds. Do you realize that there will be a whole lot of people thinking twice about making the same mistake? The assumption seems to be that the situation is a total loss, or that such incidents may even be gathering momentum. Absurd. Any remotely responsible parent who hears about it will be thinking, "what an unimaginably tragic thing", and realize that they themselves don't handle firearms and ammo as carefully as they might. People will be talking about it, parents will warn their children about it... Life goes on, to a great degree. If you ask me such occurrences have a largely self-healing effect on society, and the only reason to be unnecessarily alarmed is if something is obviously contributing to the detriment of society in such a manner as to swing the balance significantly in the favor of destruction (think my relatively recent posts about "ideas").

The parents who aren't remotely responsible are the ones who will, and do, perpetuate such tragedies. It's not like this is the first time a minor has died as a result of firearms not being properly secured (or as a result of irresponsible parenting period, for that matter). Again, there seems to be a very lassez-faire attitude about this. "Oh, they'll learn from this." "That's life for you." "People aren't as bad as you make them out to be." And so it continues as bad parents perpetuate the cycle.