• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure[W:208]

Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

You do not think there should be laws against fake child porn? What if it is very realistic?

You cannot hold your absolutist, personally defined, position without condoning such things.

I love it when the libertarian delusions causes libertarians to take positions that every reasonable person knows are unrealistic

It helps explain why libertarianism has been rejected by mankind throughout history.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

That's what I am trying to get it. How does Ikari's philosophy consider such examples?
I believe he follows the pick-up basketball rule, no harm no foul (no law).
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Thank you for helping to demonstrate how utterly foolish libertarianism is
How so? What Ikari wrote is correct. A child 'of age or legally emancipated' is an adult and can, therefore, be forced to do almost nothing by his/her parents.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

More of your ideology I see. Okay, we'll pretend that the real world doesn't exist.

For the sake of argument, based upon your "Harm" theory, could I open a child brothel if the parents sold their children to me and the children wanted to do the work and didn't feel that they were being harmed?

Parents cannot sell their children to you. While on many fronts we seemingly treat children as property, they're not actually property.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

That's what I am trying to get it. How does Ikari's philosophy consider such examples?

I have answered your question directly.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Parents cannot sell their children to you. While on many fronts we seemingly treat children as property, they're not actually property.
Okay, so I don't buy them I just use them as small employees and the parents and children approve. Am I good now?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

That's not morality, it's comments to proper use of government force.

LOL! So when you said it was not "just", it had nothing to do with morality!! :roll:


Government is inherently an amoral institution and cannot (or rather should not) be used to endorse personal morality.

Yes, that would be morally wrong! :lamo

The rights of the individual are what matter, and that is what government is created to protect.

Public accommodations are not individuals.

Then perhaps you can lay out this demonstration, yes?

See Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Okay, so I don't buy them I just use them as small employees and the parents and children approve. Am I good now?

In many cases you could be. In the case of child prostitution, likely not as a child has no understanding of what they are giving away and child prostitution only serves to harm the child's life, liberty, AND property; so you hit all three. Unless there is medical reason to believe that the child will die less a prostitute. If you can prove that, we may have reason for debate.

But it's also arbitrary since we allow people to kill their children for religious beliefs. With that one still active, there's not really any moral grounds for what you're trying to propose here.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Not at all, right to life is fundamental and needs to be upheld. Acting counter to that is acting against the rights on a human.

And you'd have to do more than make the claim. Making claims is essentially all that your arguments come down to. They would have to prove the claim.

You are moving the goalposts now. That is not what you said. Here is what you said

If it's to the detriment of the child, it should be disallowed.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

That's how it works even now. I think you are writing things but don't quite understand how disconnected what you are writing is. An individual of age can consent to his own will and a parent cannot force action. One who has legally emancipated himself from his parents is equally free of their direct control. You wish to contend this point?

6yo's can't legally emancipate themselves.

But again, I thank you for demonstrating how irrational libertarianism is by explaining how it doesn't allow parents to force their children to get an education
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

LOL! So when you said it was not "just", it had nothing to do with morality!! :roll:

It's more related to the proper use of government force than personal morality. Many times I am morally opposed to what people do, yet I do not believe that entitles me to use government force against their act. My sense of morality and justice are separated.

Yes, that would be morally wrong! :lamo

No, it's just impractical and dangerous given the competing moralities.



Public accommodations are not individuals.

Private business is private property

See Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States

Corporations and publicly traded companies are not quite private, not quite public; and were not the subject of consideration. What is the subject of consideration is a local bakery refusing to make a cake for a same sex couple. In this case, they should be free to do so as it is their business and it's only a cake.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

How so? What Ikari wrote is correct. A child 'of age or legally emancipated' is an adult and can, therefore, be forced to do almost nothing by his/her parents.

No, he said that no child can be forced to go to school.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

In many cases you could be. In the case of child prostitution, likely not as a child has no understanding of what they are giving away and child prostitution only serves to harm the child's life, liberty, AND property; so you hit all three. Unless there is medical reason to believe that the child will die less a prostitute. If you can prove that, we may have reason for debate.

But it's also arbitrary since we allow people to kill their children for religious beliefs. With that one still active, there's not really any moral grounds for what you're trying to propose here.
Define "harm"? They are making money and it's not like kids don't have sex. What's the problem? Sounds rather Big Brother Morality Police State to me? After all, do you know better than the parents and the children? Does society? It sounds like a private and freely made business arrangement to me? Why all the push-back?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

6yo's can't legally emancipate themselves.

But again, I thank you for demonstrating how irrational libertarianism is by explaining how it doesn't allow parents to force their children to get an education

I didn't say anything to that point. Please read because your outbursts are starting to grow increasingly irrational. I said an individual of age can consent to his own will and a parent cannot force action. One who has legally emancipated himself from his parents is equally free of their direct control.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

No, he said that no child can be forced to go to school.

After becoming an adult or legally the same thing he meant to say.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

In many cases you could be. In the case of child prostitution, likely not as a child has no understanding of what they are giving away and child prostitution only serves to harm the child's life, liberty, AND property; so you hit all three. Unless there is medical reason to believe that the child will die less a prostitute. If you can prove that, we may have reason for debate.

But it's also arbitrary since we allow people to kill their children for religious beliefs. With that one still active, there's not really any moral grounds for what you're trying to propose here.

How does prostitution harm the child's property?
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Define "harm"? They are making money and it's not like kids don't have sex. What's the problem? Sounds rather Big Brother Morality Police State to me? After all, do you know better than the parents and the children? Does society? It sounds like a private and freely made business arrangement to me? Why all the push-back?

Because kids do not fully understand the ramifications of action and psychological and physical damage can run deep. It takes awhile for humans to develop and in those early stages their rights are protected by others by necessity of biology.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

How does prostitution harm the child's property?

A child cannot cede their own body away, and thus it's innately an act against an non-consenting party. That's infringement upon property.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

It's more related to the proper use of government force than personal morality. Many times I am morally opposed to what people do, yet I do not believe that entitles me to use government force against their act. My sense of morality and justice are separated.

Using the words "proper" and "justice" in place of the word "right" does not hide the fact that you are using a moral argument.

Justice - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



No, it's just impractical and dangerous given the competing moralities.

No, it is impractical and dangerous to do otherwise, as your belief that parents should be able to force their children to go to school demonstrates





Private business is private property

But it's not an individual.


Corporations and publicly traded companies are not quite private, not quite public; and were not the subject of consideration. What is the subject of consideration is a local bakery refusing to make a cake for a same sex couple. In this case, they should be free to do so as it is their business and it's only a cake.

They are both public accommodations as is that local bakery
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Define "harm"? They are making money and it's not like kids don't have sex. What's the problem? Sounds rather Big Brother Morality Police State to me? After all, do you know better than the parents and the children? Does society? It sounds like a private and freely made business arrangement to me? Why all the push-back?

Ikari believes the govt should not use force to stop individuals from doing what they want as long as they are not infringing on anyone else's right (or making Ikari feel icky)
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

A child cannot cede their own body away, and thus it's innately an act against an non-consenting party. That's infringement upon property.
Is it an infringement when we make them take a bath, or get a shot? How about when we spank them? My bet is the child would not consent to that but we don't ask them now do we? In that respect, they are property, our property and that we are responsible and pay the bills for.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

I didn't say anything to that point. Please read because your outbursts are starting to grow increasingly irrational. I said an individual of age can consent to his own will and a parent cannot force action. One who has legally emancipated himself from his parents is equally free of their direct control.

So you're sticking to the claim that parents can't force their children to go to school.

I thank you for demonstrating how irrational libertarianism is by explaining how it doesn't allow parents to force their children to get an education
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Ikari believes the govt should not use force to stop individuals from doing what they want as long as they are not infringing on anyone else's right (or making Ikari feel icky)

The last part is what I'm interested in. His ideology does seem to have some funny limitations on it.
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

After becoming an adult or legally the same thing he meant to say.

SO you think Ikari is saying that parents can force their minor children to go to school?

Well, there goes the libertarian "the use of force against another person who is not infringing on anyone rights is wrong" argument. It gets thrown under the bus where it belongs
 
Re: San Antonio Adopts Disputed Gay Rights Measure

Because kids do not fully understand the ramifications of action and psychological and physical damage can run deep. It takes awhile for humans to develop and in those early stages their rights are protected by others by necessity of biology.

So you do know better then? Even if the parents and child consent you won't allow it?
 
Back
Top Bottom