Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kordeza Zhelyazkova.

crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 4:53:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/21/2009 4:25:57 PM, Puck wrote:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au...

I particularly liked: ""I'm not going to play with toys any more - I have a new toy now,"

I see a bright future for the child.

Where exactly did this happen?
AND
WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THAT GUY!
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 4:57:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Holy crap thats messed up and hilarious. Especially the quote about not playing with toys anymore.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 4:57:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
She got laid when she was 10...wow.

What stinks is that the government considers it rape and will send the father to jail.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 4:59:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/21/2009 4:57:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
She got laid when she was 10...wow.

What stinks is that the government considers it rape and will send the father to jail.

Well, it could be rape. We don't know the circumstances of conception.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 5:00:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/21/2009 4:59:51 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
At 11/21/2009 4:57:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
She got laid when she was 10...wow.

What stinks is that the government considers it rape and will send the father to jail.

Well, it could be rape. We don't know the circumstances of conception.

They didn't abort and they married...
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 5:02:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/21/2009 5:00:23 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 11/21/2009 4:59:51 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
At 11/21/2009 4:57:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
She got laid when she was 10...wow.

What stinks is that the government considers it rape and will send the father to jail.

Well, it could be rape. We don't know the circumstances of conception.

They didn't abort and they married...

1) Abortion due to religious or moral reasons, not consenual sex
2) They could've easily been pressured by their society to get married. He could've forced her to have sex and now she's too scared to say anything or he pressured her into it and now she's too ashamed to say she "was raped" vs. consenual sex.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 8:03:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/21/2009 4:57:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
What stinks is that the government considers it rape and will send the father to jail.

You don't see anything wrong with 18 year-olds having sex with 10 year-olds? It's called consent, and 10 year-olds can't even grasp their idea around that concept. The girl said she never had a boyfriend before or never kissed a boy. I highly, highly doubt that the sex was consensual. Even if it was, 10 year-olds shoudn't be having sex with 18 year-olds, they are still in elementary school, and don't even know what sex is anyway - if statutory rape was done away with, I'm sure we would start seeing a lot more "consensual" sex between adults and minors.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 9:31:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 8:03:23 AM, Nags wrote:
At 11/21/2009 4:57:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
What stinks is that the government considers it rape and will send the father to jail.

You don't see anything wrong with 18 year-olds having sex with 10 year-olds?
I don't.

It's called consent, and 10 year-olds can't even grasp their idea around that concept.
It's not a hard concept. If you don't like it say no. Furthermore, rights derive from rationality-- it is rationality, not its lack, that deserves legal protection.

The girl said she never had a boyfriend before or never kissed a boy.
And?

I highly, highly doubt that the sex was consensual.
I highly doubt someone would look on the product of a rape as a "toy."

Even if it was, 10 year-olds shoudn't be having sex with 18 year-olds, they are still in elementary school
And?

and don't even know what sex is anyway
I'm sure she knows now!

if statutory rape was done away with, I'm sure we would start seeing a lot more "consensual" sex between adults and minors.
Well, yeah, there would be no reason to hide it. No need for the quotes though.

If there are signs of coercion, that's for the courts to find-- there weren't any in the article, and the automatic presumption of guilt you lot seem to practice is incompatible with civilization.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 9:33:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Granted, I do see something wrong with carrying the child to term. But that's not for me to determine. A decision being ill-advised does not strip someone of their right to live their life AS their life, and nor does having come into recent possession of that life.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 10:40:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Kordeza admitted: "I haven't had sex education classes and I didn't know how to get pregnant. I'd never had a boyfriend and I'd never heard of condoms.

Right... So knowone told her where babies come from. I mean, srsly? Epic BS! Even when they had sex? She didn't ask questions. More BS!

"I didn't know I was pregnant until my grandmother saw I had put on weight. I just thought I'd eaten too many burgers."

Lol...

The pair had a traditional Roma wedding - but now Jeliazko is facing up to six years behind bars for having sex with a minor.
"I'm scared. I want to look after my wife and child. Instead I may be going to prison," he said.
"I made a mistake but I am not going to apologise for that because now I have beautiful Violeta."

I wish someone threw them onto the streets. Now that they've been on the News they'll probalby live a normal roma life, it's such a shame. If this was in real Eastern Europe they would be so screwed.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 11:02:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 9:31:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Furthermore, rights derive from rationality-- it is rationality, not its lack, that deserves legal protection.

That's more or less garbage, especially in such a scenario. What's your basis for that claim, anyway?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 11:09:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Egoism. Those in the class rational beings have no reasonable interest in protecting those outside it aside from "as their property."

Also, without rationality there is no evaluative capacity, and hence no value to protect even if one doesn't assume egoism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 11:10:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Have anything to say about it other than "Garbage" which is not a rational response? :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 11:22:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 9:31:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I don't.

I didn't think you would, lol.

It's not a hard concept. If you don't like it say no. Furthermore, rights derive from rationality-- it is rationality, not its lack, that deserves legal protection.

That's easy for you to say. You're an adult. 10 year olds are easily corrupted and influenced by authority. I'm sure the 10 year old understood their were consequences if she ever says no to authority, especially from an adult male - who I'm sure are dominant in Eastern Europe. Furthermore, even if the 10 year old did say no, she would have probably had sex anyway, it's not too hard to force a 10 year old into doing something - and then brainwashing them as to what happened afterwards.

And?

She is ignorant of the whole male anatomy. I'd be suprised if she had ever seen a penis before, or even knew what an erection was. One has to know what something is before they can possibly consent to it.

I highly doubt someone would look on the product of a rape as a "toy."

I don't understand.

And?

Small children should deserve their right to innocence. I'm sure if you look at the statistics - children that have have sex in their pre-teen years lead much more destructive lives, with a higher death rate, drug usage rate, and criminal rate.

I'm sure she knows now!

That's good. Let's torture her too. I bet she doesn't know what torture is. She'll know afterwards!

Well, yeah, there would be no reason to hide it. No need for the quotes though.

That's not my point. I'm making the point that more adults would have sex with children. Whenever they would be charged with rape, they would claim that the sex was consensual, or statutory. It would be a pretty easy case to defend. And yes, the quotes were needed, looking back at it though, I probably should have used italics.

If there are signs of coercion, that's for the courts to find-- there weren't any in the article, and the automatic presumption of guilt you lot seem to practice is incompatible with civilization.

There may not have been physical coercion. However, I am sure there was mental coercion, or brainwashing that occured - and it is impossible to prove this. It is all too easy to trick children into doing your personal bidding, and most, if not all children will do anything to appease authority.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 11:31:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago

It's not a hard concept. If you don't like it say no. Furthermore, rights derive from rationality-- it is rationality, not its lack, that deserves legal protection.

That's easy for you to say. You're an adult. 10 year olds are easily corrupted and influenced by authority
I've been 10 years old before.
I wouldn't have consented to sex at that time, I'll tell you that much, but I'm not everyone :)

I'm sure the 10 year old understood their were consequences if she ever says no to authority, especially from an adult male - who I'm sure are dominant in Eastern Europe.
In which case THAT, not the age of consent, is what needs tweaking.

Furthermore, even if the 10 year old did say no, she would have probably had sex anyway, it's not too hard to force a 10 year old into doing something - and then brainwashing them as to what happened afterwards.
"Brainwashing" isn't a magic trick. It's unreliable at best.


And?

She is ignorant of the whole male anatomy. I'd be suprised if she had ever seen a penis before, or even knew what an erection was. One has to know what something is before they can possibly consent to it.
Nonsense, I consent to eat foods with artificial additives everyday without having any idea what those additives are.


I highly doubt someone would look on the product of a rape as a "toy."

I don't understand.
Would you?


And?

Small children should deserve their right to innocence.
A "Right" to be forced not to do something? That's a contradiction in terms. The nearest thing to a right to innocence that would be meaningful-- is a right to choose whether or not to be innocent.

I'm sure if you look at the statistics - children that have have sex in their pre-teen years lead much more destructive lives, with a higher death rate, drug usage rate, and criminal rate.
This is an excellent thing to point out when advising them. It is irrelevant to whether they have the right to engage in some activity.


I'm sure she knows now!

That's good. Let's torture her too. I bet she doesn't know what torture is.
I don't think she'll consent to that.


Well, yeah, there would be no reason to hide it. No need for the quotes though.

That's not my point. I'm making the point that more adults would have sex with children.
And?

Whenever they would be charged with rape, they would claim that the sex was consensual, or statutory. It would be a pretty easy case to defend.
In other words, you are dissatisfied with evidentiary procedures so your answer is to bypass them by attacking those innocent of the problem you're attacking.


If there are signs of coercion, that's for the courts to find-- there weren't any in the article, and the automatic presumption of guilt you lot seem to practice is incompatible with civilization.

There may not have been physical coercion. However, I am sure there was mental coercion, or brainwashing that occured - and it is impossible to prove this.
Then it is no business of the law. Better to let a thousand guilty men go free then convict one innocent, better anarchy than totalitarianism if those are our options.

It is all too easy to trick children into doing your personal bidding
Do you have a younger sibling?

and most, if not all children will do anything to appease authority.
See above. Lol.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 12:06:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 11:31:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I've been 10 years old before.
I wouldn't have consented to sex at that time, I'll tell you that much, but I'm not everyone :)

Indeed. You are not everyone. At least you point out our own fallacy.

In which case THAT, not the age of consent, is what needs tweaking.

So, let me get this straight - you are for the government changing societal roles of men and women so that they are more equal, but you are against the age of consent? Well, that isn't extremely relevant anyway. I don't see how you're going to change the general ignorance of children everywhere. And I don't know how you're going to enact gender and age equality everywhere either. Until then - I think an age of consent is more logical.

"Brainwashing" isn't a magic trick. It's unreliable at best.

Brainwashing is extremely reliable - especially if done on small, uneducated children who will listen to anything you tell them.

Nonsense, I consent to eat foods with artificial additives everyday without having any idea what those additives are.

This might be the worst analogy I've ever heard, ever. I'd say the penis is much more noticeable in sex, compared to artificial additives when eating food. Also, you know the main composition of said food, the girl had no idea what sex is composed of. Terrible analogy.

Would you?

I guess not.

A "Right" to be forced not to do something? That's a contradiction in terms. The nearest thing to a right to innocence that would be meaningful-- is a right to choose whether or not to be innocent.

And children can not choose whether or not to be innocent - they are dumb, uneducated, and ignorant.

This is an excellent thing to point out when advising them. It is irrelevant to whether they have the right to engage in some activity.

I beg to differ. First off, who is advising this child, no parent in their right mind would allow this. Second, the laws are advising and helping people - if only negative affects come from an action, then why allow it to be legal.

I don't think she'll consent to that.

- Child A doesn't know what Object A (sex) is. Child A has sex, Child A never consented.
- Child A doesn't know what Object B (torture) is. Child A gets tortured, Child A never consented.

And?

Selective cutting much? See below.

In other words, you are dissatisfied with evidentiary procedures so your answer is to bypass them by attacking those innocent of the problem you're attacking.

Basically. If statuotory sex can never be proven to be rape, and in actuality, statuotory sex is more often than not, rape - then yes, that is what I mean in other words. However, the part about attacking innocents is some kind of appeal to emotion, which isn't cool man.

Then it is no business of the law. Better to let a thousand guilty men go free then convict one innocent, better anarchy than totalitarianism if those are our options.

Well, first off, I disagree that it is better to let a thousand guilty men go free then convict one innocent. The justice system is not perfect, innocent men will be convicted in any justice system that is not anarchy. I really don't see how this refutes my point either, a red herring imo. I said that it is impossible to prove mental coercion, and therefore countless guilty men will be innocent - I don't see where innocents come into play.

Do you have a younger sibling?

Yes - and they don't listen to me. However, your example does not represent actuality. Older siblings in Western civilization do not represent authority, which I'm sure you are aware of. An adult male, who is a family friend, is absolutely respected and thought of as infallible by small children. And I'm sure in Eastern Europe, this goes to a further extreme - which goes along the lines of men are always right, respect authority, and never question your elders. If the child gets statisfaction out of knowing authority is satisfied and happy with said child, then the child will do anything for the most part.

See above. Lol.

See above. Lol.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 12:55:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 12:06:07 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/22/2009 11:31:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I've been 10 years old before.
I wouldn't have consented to sex at that time, I'll tell you that much, but I'm not everyone :)

Indeed. You are not everyone. At least you point out our own fallacy.
What fallacy? You're attempting to ascribe a universal characteristic of submission.


In which case THAT, not the age of consent, is what needs tweaking.

So, let me get this straight - you are for the government changing societal roles of men and women so that they are more equal, but you are against the age of consent?
I am for the government attacking those who seek to enslave someone. "Equality" is not at issue, simply preventing such commands from having any force to back them.
\

"Brainwashing" isn't a magic trick. It's unreliable at best.

Brainwashing is extremely reliable - especially if done on small, uneducated children who will listen to anything you tell them.
I go back to the younger siblings. Lol.


Nonsense, I consent to eat foods with artificial additives everyday without having any idea what those additives are.

This might be the worst analogy I've ever heard, ever. I'd say the penis is much more noticeable in sex, compared to artificial additives when eating food.
That's against your case-- you are aware of what it is significantly more. Indeed, it's visible!


A "Right" to be forced not to do something? That's a contradiction in terms. The nearest thing to a right to innocence that would be meaningful-- is a right to choose whether or not to be innocent.

And children can not choose whether or not to be innocent - they are dumb, uneducated, and ignorant.
That's a case for not giving a damn, if you can prove it to be universal. It is not a case for protection by any premises I accept. :).


This is an excellent thing to point out when advising them. It is irrelevant to whether they have the right to engage in some activity.

I beg to differ. First off, who is advising this child, no parent in their right mind would allow this.
Remember, I'm against parental authority.

Second, the laws are advising and helping people
Laws are assault, not advice.
if only negative affects come from an action, then why allow it to be legal.
Because negative effects come from outlawing it? A government big enough to protect people from their own stupidity is big enough to destroy the mind of those who have one.


I don't think she'll consent to that.

- Child A doesn't know what Object A (sex) is. Child A has sex, Child A never consented.
Child A did consent.

- Child A doesn't know what Object B (torture) is. Child A gets tortured, Child A never consented.
Child A says "NO. STOP" After the first feel of the brand. Clearly doesn't consent, not comparable to above unless ChildA says the same at the first feel of the ****.

In other words, you are dissatisfied with evidentiary procedures so your answer is to bypass them by attacking those innocent of the problem you're attacking.

Basically. If statuotory sex can never be proven to be rape, and in actuality, statuotory sex is more often than not, rape - then yes, that is what I mean in other words.
In other words, you oppress the minority to protect the stupid majority from the just result of their stupidity.

However, the part about attacking innocents is some kind of appeal to emotion, which isn't cool man.
What emotion am I appealing to? Are you saying that it is reasonable to assault innocents?


Then it is no business of the law. Better to let a thousand guilty men go free then convict one innocent, better anarchy than totalitarianism if those are our options.

Well, first off, I disagree that it is better to let a thousand guilty men go free then convict one innocent. The justice system is not perfect, innocent men will be convicted in any justice system that is not anarchy.
You have condemned any justice system you advocate by those words. Of course, you can't speak for other justice systems :).

I really don't see how this refutes my point either, a red herring imo. I said that it is impossible to prove mental coercion, and therefore countless guilty men will be innocent - I don't see where innocents come into play.
You said "It is impossible to prove" to justify not having to.


Do you have a younger sibling?

Yes - and they don't listen to me. However, your example does not represent actuality. Older siblings in Western civilization do not represent authority
They do when specifically imbued with it.

which I'm sure you are aware of. An adult male, who is a family friend, is absolutely respected and thought of as infallible by small children.
Haven't tested the male part, but with my younger siblings the rest of that is definitely false. And I doubt male would make that big a difference.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2009 1:09:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ditto to Nags.
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 9:20:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/22/2009 9:31:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

It's not a hard concept. If you don't like it say no. Furthermore, rights derive from rationality-- it is rationality, not its lack, that deserves legal protection.

How about the guy's committing an offense against her rational future self who'll have to deal with having been taken advantage of as a sex toy.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 11:33:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/23/2009 9:20:59 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/22/2009 9:31:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

It's not a hard concept. If you don't like it say no. Furthermore, rights derive from rationality-- it is rationality, not its lack, that deserves legal protection.

How about the guy's committing an offense against her rational future self who'll have to deal with having been taken advantage of as a sex toy.

Who'll have to deal with the consequences of her own earlier decision?

The notion that potentials have rights in practice has no meaning but totalitarianism. Her possibly more rational (not just "Rational," children do possess the trait "Rationality") future self may have to suffer from obesity, should we ban candy for kids?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 3:12:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/23/2009 11:33:25 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

should we ban candy for kids?

Perhaps not, but we also shouldn't allow older individuals to shove it down their throat, or other orifices.

For example what about crack cocaine?? Should we let the dealer give the kid a free sample, telling her it's good stuff when she's never heard about the bad??
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 3:50:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/23/2009 3:12:21 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/23/2009 11:33:25 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

should we ban candy for kids?

Perhaps not, but we also shouldn't allow older individuals to shove it down their throat, or other orifices.
Nothing is being shoved without permission, as the shove analogy tends to imply. You're focusing on the visceral in a common expression while ignoring the essence of it :)


For example what about crack cocaine?? Should we let the dealer give the kid a free sample, telling her it's good stuff when she's never heard about the bad??
Well, it's an abstract advocacy, so there's no fraud. Yes. If they made specific false claims about how it was good there might be a problem.

If you wish to advise the child that drug dealers are big bad fellows with distorted valuation schemes, feel free.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 3:55:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ragnar, I understand what you're saying, but surely you must realize that children do not have enough reasoning capabilities that you or I would. To put in their hands the power of outright decision, without consequence to those that have directly influenced them, is pushing on for a situation to occur that is not beneficial for anyone, except the pedophile, the drug dealer, or the slave owner, plus any other number of people with negative intentions.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 4:10:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/23/2009 3:55:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
Ragnar, I understand what you're saying, but surely you must realize that children do not have enough reasoning capabilities that you or I would.
That's for the child to decide. If they wish to obey someone's orders, fine by me, if they are confident in their reasoning, they may test it. In either case, only they receive the consequences-- and again, claiming a lack of reasoning is not something that causes me to care one way or another as such what happens to the entity lacking it.
To put in their hands the power of outright decision, without consequence to those that have directly influenced them, is pushing on for a situation to occur that is not beneficial for anyone, except the pedophile, the drug dealer, or the slave owner, plus any other number of people with negative intentions.
It's not "Pushing" for any situation whatsoever. In fact, it is specifically preventing from pushing for any situation. Besides, putting matters in state hands GUARANTEES negative intentions that the subject can do absolutely nothing about-- the subject who can reason-- and the fact that a thousand numbskulls fall off a cliff has not a thousandth of the importance of one person freed to use their reasoning to learn how to fly.

(The slave owner? How does that one work anyway? A few hours labor from poor judgment aren't going to cause any long term consequences except being tired and realizing one does not wish to consent to this sort of thing).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 4:22:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/23/2009 4:10:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's for the child to decide. If they wish to obey someone's orders, fine by me, if they are confident in their reasoning, they may test it. In either case, only they receive the consequences-- and again, claiming a lack of reasoning is not something that causes me to care one way or another as such what happens to the entity lacking it.

There is an inherent issue with such a position; if the child does not have the proper capacity to reason, giving it the power of decision - which is based on reason - makes no sense. It is like allowing a kettle to heat up water without a source of heat.

It's not "Pushing" for any situation whatsoever. In fact, it is specifically preventing from pushing for any situation.

I disagree; inaction causes just as much reaction as action does. By refusing to step in to a situation, you are allowing for the situation to worsen. Maybe you are not literally "pushing" for it to happen, but I know you're not stupid, so I have no idea why you take such wording so seriously.

Besides, putting matters in state hands GUARANTEES negative intentions that the subject can do absolutely nothing about-- the subject who can reason-- and the fact that a thousand numbskulls fall off a cliff has not a thousandth of the importance of one person freed to use their reasoning to learn how to fly.

This is an opinion, and a faulty one at that. Deeming that the importance of a person being "freed to use their reasoning" is over the importance of a thousand that die will only lead us to a society that values not life, but whether or not you're worthy, which is a disgusting prospect in my mind.

(The slave owner? How does that one work anyway? A few hours labor from poor judgment aren't going to cause any long term consequences except being tired and realizing one does not wish to consent to this sort of thing).

I suppose you've never watched those documentaries on the sex slave industry. Owners and prospectors lure children who don't know any better into their arms, or whatever, and they're scurried off and even if they do wish to escape, they're wholly unable.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 4:30:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/23/2009 4:22:01 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/23/2009 4:10:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's for the child to decide. If they wish to obey someone's orders, fine by me, if they are confident in their reasoning, they may test it. In either case, only they receive the consequences-- and again, claiming a lack of reasoning is not something that causes me to care one way or another as such what happens to the entity lacking it.

There is an inherent issue with such a position; if the child does not have the proper capacity to reason
Which is inherently outside your or the state's proper capacity to decide.

giving it the power of decision - which is based on reason - makes no sense. It is like allowing a kettle to heat up water without a source of heat.
It's rather harmless, as the kettle and water are of no other value if they happen to be lacking te fire.


It's not "Pushing" for any situation whatsoever. In fact, it is specifically preventing from pushing for any situation.

I disagree; inaction causes just as much reaction as action does.
It causes nothing-- it permits other things to cause.

By refusing to step in to a situation, you are allowing for the situation to worsen. Maybe you are not literally "pushing" for it to happen, but I know you're not stupid, so I have no idea why you take such wording so seriously.
Because it is important who is the specific cause of an action, and the confusion of the terms cause and allow serves no purpose save to quietly conscript slaves.


Besides, putting matters in state hands GUARANTEES negative intentions that the subject can do absolutely nothing about-- the subject who can reason-- and the fact that a thousand numbskulls fall off a cliff has not a thousandth of the importance of one person freed to use their reasoning to learn how to fly.

This is an opinion, and a faulty one at that. Deeming that the importance of a person being "freed to use their reasoning" is over the importance of a thousand that die will only lead us to a society that values not life, but whether or not you're worthy
Uniqueness criterion. How in the hell are you "Valuing someone's life" in any sense helpful to them by stealing it from them?


(The slave owner? How does that one work anyway? A few hours labor from poor judgment aren't going to cause any long term consequences except being tired and realizing one does not wish to consent to this sort of thing).

I suppose you've never watched those documentaries on the sex slave industry. Owners and prospectors lure children who don't know any better into their arms, or whatever, and they're scurried off and even if they do wish to escape, they're wholly unable.
That's called kidnapping-- and should be dealt with accordingly regardless of whether the person is a minor. If you consent to be in my living room for an evening, you do not consent for me to lock you in for years. In other words, the policy I advocate forbids it just as much as yours-- more, really, since the state is forbidden from the nonsexual equivalent.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2009 4:44:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Wow.

Ragnar, at what age to do believe human beings become rational beings?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5