Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

A challenge

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 6:04:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would like to see a compelling argument for why parents must feed and educate their children and/or why people should not be allowed to be nude in public, because I've been having a lot of trouble with these. Especially from libertarians.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 6:07:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 6:04:32 PM, seraine wrote:
I would like to see a compelling argument for why parents must feed and educate their children and/or why people should not be allowed to be nude in public, because I've been having a lot of trouble with these. Especially from libertarians.

So libertarian parents must feed, but not clothe their children?

I don't get it...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 6:09:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 6:04:32 PM, seraine wrote:
I would like to see a compelling argument for why parents must feed and educate their children and/or why people should not be allowed to be nude in public, because I've been having a lot of trouble with these. Especially from libertarians.

That depends on one's moral code. To claim that parents "should" do something is to say that they have a moral responsibility to it. As there are no universal objective morals, one set of morals is not "more correct" or "more accurate" than another.

However, you can argue that within a society, there is a socially universal moral code (which is about as close to "objective" that you'll ever find), i.e. a moral code that is established by a society for those within the society. So under that pretext, you can argue that within that society, parents have a moral responsibility to feed their children if that is one of the society's established morals.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 6:57:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 6:04:32 PM, seraine wrote:
I would like to see a compelling argument for why parents must feed and educate their children and/or why people should not be allowed to be nude in public, because I've been having a lot of trouble with these. Especially from libertarians.:

Is/ought fallacy.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 7:01:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 6:04:32 PM, seraine wrote:
I would like to see a compelling argument for why parents must feed and educate their children and/or why people should not be allowed to be nude in public, because I've been having a lot of trouble with these. Especially from libertarians.

It's higher utility; if you don't feed or educate your children they suffer needlessly which is bad. Public nudity is a little different because it may work in some societies, but certainly in ours in ours it would be outrageous not to mention the spectre of sexual harassment.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 9:21:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 7:01:50 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 11/16/2011 6:04:32 PM, seraine wrote:
I would like to see a compelling argument for why parents must feed and educate their children and/or why people should not be allowed to be nude in public, because I've been having a lot of trouble with these. Especially from libertarians.

It's higher utility; if you don't feed or educate your children they suffer needlessly which is bad. Public nudity is a little different because it may work in some societies, but certainly in ours in ours it would be outrageous not to mention the spectre of sexual harassment.

That's basically the argument I made for justifying why parents must feed, educate, clothe, etc their children. I'm looking to see if there is any moral justifications. Also, why exactly wouldn't public nudity "work" in our society? And even if there is sexual harassment, they made their own choice.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 9:22:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 6:57:44 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/16/2011 6:04:32 PM, seraine wrote:
I would like to see a compelling argument for why parents must feed and educate their children and/or why people should not be allowed to be nude in public, because I've been having a lot of trouble with these. Especially from libertarians.:

Is/ought fallacy.

Eh? Isn't the is/ought fallacy when someone says you ought to do something because that is the way it is?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 7:29:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
No reason what so ever. If they don't want to, they are under no obligation. However, even I can see it would be odd to let a baby starve.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:57:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 6:04:32 PM, seraine wrote:
I would like to see a compelling argument for why parents must feed and educate their children and/or why people should not be allowed to be nude in public, because I've been having a lot of trouble with these. Especially from libertarians.

Well, it's easy to provide an argument. The hard part is the "compelling." I don't know what compels you, and I'm not about to take a shot in the dark.

Do you believe you have a purpose or goal in life? Do you enjoy your life? What "should" or "must" be done only makes sense with regards to means that bring about an end. So what end do you wish to bring about?

If, for example, you enjoy being able to come on to the internet and ask such questions, then one argument would be that, without a general directive to feed and educate children, your parents would not have done so to you, and you would not be able to be here to ask such questions.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:02:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 6:04:32 PM, seraine wrote:
I would like to see a compelling argument for why parents must feed and educate their children and/or why people should not be allowed to be nude in public, because I've been having a lot of trouble with these. Especially from libertarians.

Did the parents have a contract with the child?
If not, there is no obligation.
Do they care about the child?
If so, that's why they SHOULD feed and educate their children, not must.

Nude in public?
Go for it.
Why would you want such arguments? Those are silly positions.
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.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:09:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 6:04:32 PM, seraine wrote:
I would like to see a compelling argument for why parents must feed and educate their children and/or why people should not be allowed to be nude in public, because I've been having a lot of trouble with these. Especially from libertarians.

feed vs. educate - two completely different things. The case for feed is stronger.

Utilitarianism - if all parents abandoned their children, that would be bad for society.

Contingent lives - since a baby is still dependent on its parents for survival, abandoning it is akin to murder.

public nudity

The case for this isn't as strong as people think. I would personally argue for it based on utilitarianism, or more specifically efficiency. Sex is a constant distraction, at least to most males, and public nudity only makes that worse. Can you imagine: your boss' hot secretary walks by (naked) and you pop a boner in the middle of the conference room?

The other common argument is "protecting children," but the argument here is pretty weak. Children will accept whatever society finds acceptable, without complaint.

The last potential argument is sanitation. People's butts are really dirty, even if they wipe. Direct contact with trace amounts of fecal matter can cause pinkeye and other diseases.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:10:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 9:22:46 PM, seraine wrote:
At 11/16/2011 6:57:44 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/16/2011 6:04:32 PM, seraine wrote:
I would like to see a compelling argument for why parents must feed and educate their children and/or why people should not be allowed to be nude in public, because I've been having a lot of trouble with these. Especially from libertarians.:

Is/ought fallacy.

Eh? Isn't the is/ought fallacy when someone says you ought to do something because that is the way it is?:

Yeah, that's what I mean. These are socially constructed morals. The only reason a parent feels it *must* feed their child stems from their own sense of morality, be it biological, sociological, or a mix of both.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:15:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Did the parents have a contract with the child?
If not, there is no obligation.:

Did the parents gain the consent of the child to conceive it long before it was conceived? Obviously not, therefore it seems immaterial to invoke contracts as a measure of rightness in any given situation. I'm curious why contracts would be the grand arbiter of moral codes. If morality was an altogether vacuous abstraction, why would anyone feel compelled to "honor" a contract?

Seems like it's placing the cart before the horse.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:16:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:10:57 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

Yeah, that's what I mean. These are socially constructed morals. The only reason a parent feels it *must* feed their child stems from their own sense of morality, be it biological, sociological, or a mix of both.

Most mothers' bodies (in all mammals) release crazy amounts of hormones to ensure that mothers form a strong bond with their child(ren). If mothers abandoned their children routinely, in nature, their genes wouldn't get passed on very well.

That's why nearly 100% of single-parent families are matriarchal. Only daddy abandons the kids.

So there's a social aspect, but I think the genetic aspect is equally, if not more, strong.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:19:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:16:20 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/17/2011 9:10:57 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

Yeah, that's what I mean. These are socially constructed morals. The only reason a parent feels it *must* feed their child stems from their own sense of morality, be it biological, sociological, or a mix of both.

Most mothers' bodies (in all mammals) release crazy amounts of hormones to ensure that mothers form a strong bond with their child(ren). If mothers abandoned their children routinely, in nature, their genes wouldn't get passed on very well.

That's why nearly 100% of single-parent families are matriarchal. Only daddy abandons the kids.

So there's a social aspect, but I think the genetic aspect is equally, if not more, strong.:

There's always the nature/nurture dichotomy at work, but certainly nature plays a very large role.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:23:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah. It kind of renders the debate a m00t point if mothers would feed their children regardless of an obligation.

I think the fact that many women undergo serious psychological problems from miscarriage, abortion, and adoption even further proves how hard it would be for them to starve their child to death because in those 3, they didn't even have time to really bond with the baby first.

Although there was that one case in NY recently where the mom tied her 3 year old to a bed and starved her to death. And Casey Anthony... So there's always the exception.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 11:28:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I had a debate on nudity:

http://www.debate.org...

I thought my most compelling argument is that simply "bumping" into someone can cause accidental sex and even an accidental child.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
marcuscato
Posts: 738
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 11:34:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:09:07 AM, bluesteel wrote:
The case for this isn't as strong as people think. I would personally argue for it based on utilitarianism, or more specifically efficiency. Sex is a constant distraction, at least to most males, and public nudity only makes that worse. Can you imagine: your boss' hot secretary walks by (naked) and you pop a boner in the middle of the conference room?

eh, wouldnt one have a problem if you didnt get a boner?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 11:37:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:09:07 AM, bluesteel wrote:
The case for this isn't as strong as people think. I would personally argue for it based on utilitarianism, or more specifically efficiency. Sex is a constant distraction, at least to most males, and public nudity only makes that worse. Can you imagine: your boss' hot secretary walks by (naked) and you pop a boner in the middle of the conference room?

You know, is this even a serious consideration. You really think an office, in which there is usually a dress code, will then allow nudity because nude legislation was passed. Oh, and the office would really allow that considering its just a sexual harassment lawsuits just waiting to happen.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 11:46:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 6:04:32 PM, seraine wrote:
I would like to see a compelling argument for why parents must feed and educate their children and/or why people should not be allowed to be nude in public, because I've been having a lot of trouble with these. Especially from libertarians.

The initial question is an incomplete thought. "Must" is an indication of a requirement to achieve an end. Without that end, "must" is meaningless.

So, why parent's must feed and education their children to achieve what?

The public decency law is an ordinance. Ordinances are minor misdemeanors that exist because the public prefers they do. Other examples include restrictions against selling alcohol after a certain time or on Sundays, or a curfew for minors. Therefore, public nudity is illegal literally because people prefer it that way. It wouldn't require a new legislation to "legalize" public nudity; rather, it would simply require a repeal of the ordinance by local courts or governmental bodies due to public outcry.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 12:34:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 6:04:32 PM, seraine wrote:
I would like to see a compelling argument for why parents must feed and educate their children and/or why people should not be allowed to be nude in public, because I've been having a lot of trouble with these. Especially from libertarians.

Why is murder immoral? Isn't it just a social convention that authoritarian society forces upon people? If you argue that murder violates the individual rights of the person killed, thats just calling upon another social convention that decides people have rights.

The root of morality lies in the genetic evolution of the species. Humans are programmed to protect themselves, their families, and their society. Parents must feed and educate their children because humans have evolved with a morality that demands it in order for the species to prosper. Humans who don't wish to conform to norms have the option not to have children, but they cannot be allowed to have them and then let them die due to neglect. Genetic programming is not absolute, of course; we have murderers and child abusers. Society has the right to preserve itself through rules that keep it reasonably in accord with the way the species functions.

Public nudity is more culturally dependent. I read of a case of some women in the Peace Corps who were harassed by locals for refusing to go topless, as was the local custom in their tropical environment. In our society, nudity is associated with sexual signaling, but also with mental derangement. When police are called to deal with a naked person, they expect to deal with a nutcase. Hence one use of nudity laws is to get insane people of the streets.

You can find on the Internet the story of The Naked Guy. He roamed the Berkeley campus for some time, before even ultra-liberal Berkeley couldn't take it. The guy had serious mental illness and killed himself.

San Francisco is on the verge of banning nudity in restaurants. Again, it's an ultra liberal place, but health issues and the general disruption are finally overcoming their liberalness. I think it's a matter of dealing with the mentally ill.

The general ban on public nudity can make exceptions for nude beaches and the like.