3 ms·

Ah, the familiar pseudo-libertarian argument: the Rights of the Individual Trump All…also, my child is not an Individual but parental chattel to do to as I will

• Melting_Harps 7y ago
  > Ah, the familiar pseudo-libertarian argument... First, I'm an anarchist and reject the very notion or the construct of the State; I'm not a Libertarian, who I will agree are nothing more than closet-Statists masking their intent in order to gain the ability to to use State power for their own ends. Its disgusting. I'm not going to engage with the ego/narcissist aspect, as you made that clear in your meandering diatribe above; but what I can and will say is I personally accept the things my parents did that I felt negatively afflicted me as a child now as an adult because of this--I was forced to go to private Catholic school, I was physically punished for my mistakes, subjected to teachings I found abhorrent and was humiliated when I refused to accept them in front of my peers. I was punished in such a way that I now value my time and mental as well as physical health as a priority and staunchly oppose that which robs me of any of them. I now understand that it is because this was who/how they wanted me, their child they brought into the World, and to accept and adhere to a certain value system that would shape my morals, ethics and general World view in the way they saw best. But in that difficult process, you as a child learn more of yourself and who you are and as in my case: reject and evolve past that phase to be in a position to question and then later surpass your parents ability and understanding of the World--in that way I see it as a success, albeit a very troublesome and painful process, but its so prevalent in Nature I cannot deny its utility. You can call that narcissistic or ego-manical all you want, but that is how Natural, Biological systems improve in the Wild: I've just outlined how immunology functions and applied it to parenthood. (I can go on to say how we stand in a unique time in History where we can target this with gene-editing and Cell Therapy, but I already know how that ends, too.) At no point in time does that alone or directly lead to pedophilia, and to be honest; I'm struck by your statement(s) and I fear you may have been a victim of that and you're projecting anything that resembles an attack on you as a person or your ideas as perceivable threat. If so, I'm sorry. Just so its clear: I find the sexual molestation of children one of the most vile things a person can do to a Human being, unlike death the victim has to continue live with a sense of shame and guilt that always afflicts their psyche and development toward the World; I've met a female lawyer who was molested several times as a child and it turned out positively in the end, but... it came at too high a cost. On the surface she is a lovely person who defends the under-represented minorities in her community pro-bono all while holding a career as a civil defense and immigration lawyer. But underneath all of that is a psychological mess.
  • hhas01 7y ago
    As this needs clarified: You’re the one who brought up the state’s overriding “interference” in parental decisions that impact their sick children. You’re the one bringing black-white thinking to a complex and difficult problem space that is every shade of gray. The pseudo-libertarian argument against this—that parents have absolute rights over their own children and no-one else (e.g. the state) has no right to override that, hands carte blanche to all misguided and abusive parents, including those who rape and murder their kids—not just the ones you seek to excuse. It is a warped argument from authority, where the only authority recognized is the parent’s own. You dug that hole for yourself when you used Prince Rehan and Daniel Hauser as body shields in your own defense. If the state was torturing them for profit or glory, you’d have a point. You don’t: the state was protecting those children’s right to life in response to misguided or delusional parents who believe they know better, and act on those beliefs without even considering the harm they will cause if those beliefs are wrong. .. Yeah, chemo for blood cancers is tough as hell. (Though still better than it used to be.) Makes patients feel sick as a dog. Oncologists use it not because they enjoy it, but because it is the best treatment available right now. Fingers crossed that CAR-T renders it obsolete over the next decade or two, and children who develop leukemia 20 years from now will enjoy that new improved standard of care. But nothing is simple, straightforward, or easy in dealing with cancer; and its history is thick with great hopes, smashed on hard reality. As you ought to know already. Because—ironically enough—cancer is a civil war within an organized cooperative society (a multicellular organism) and evangelical anarchist rebels out for nothing and no-one but themselves. So what’s the anarchist’s position on parents who deny their own children the medical standard of care? We both agree parents who abuse their kids sexually are wrong and must be stopped, regardless of those parents’ beliefs and justifications. So what about parents who kill? -- For those who appreciate finer distinctions such as “parents are not always right” and wish to explore further, the following blog post by an oncological research surgeon discusses one particular recent case and links to several more: https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/05/10/noah-mcadams-another-story-of-parental-rights-to-choose-quackery-versus-the-rights-of-a-child-with-cancer/ https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/05/10/noah-mcadams-anot... Unlike Mr Harps up there in his bloodless ivory tower, that’s a man down on the ground working in the ichor and guts of hard daily reality working to make things better, both for those sick now and all those who get sick in future. .. Now maybe Mr Harps will man up and do the damn legwork, and 20 years from now he’ll be getting his much deserved Nobel. If he does that, I will applaud him, and so will every other man, woman, and child on the planet. (Except, natch, the cancer quacks down in Tijuana who he just put out of business for good.) Or maybe he’ll be down in a Tijuana clinic of his own, still raving about how HE has all the answers and it’s everyone else who is lazy and corrupt—just one more malignant quack amongst all the other fabulists and frauds, ushering his own abused victims to their poor and painful death. The Belmont Report. Read it. And remember why it had to be written in the first place. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-repo...