4 ms·

Either parents should be allowed to kill their children on a whim without consequence, or parents are not the ultimate authority over their children. They are m

by usea 4y ago

Either parents should be allowed to kill their children on a whim without consequence, or parents are not the ultimate authority over their children. They are mutually exclusive beliefs. Children aren't property. They're human beings that deserve the protection of the state. Sometimes that means protection FROM their parents.

generalizations 4y ago
> Either parents should be allowed to kill their children on a whim without consequence, or parents are not the ultimate authority over their children. They are mutually exclusive beliefs. That's either a weird strawman, or you missed the point of what "ultimate authority" means here. The question is who gets the final say in how the child is cared for - if the parent thinks that something is harmful to the child, and the state says it's mandatory, who gets final say? You're right. Children aren't property. They're human beings that deserve protection. Sometimes that means protection from the state.
- usea 4y ago
  > The question is who gets the final say in how the child is cared for - if the parent thinks that something is harmful to the child, and the state says it's mandatory, who gets final say? The state gets final say. On most parenting matters the state has no opinion, or at least has the opinion "let the parent decide." But that delegation of authority does not mean the state has given it up. We the people have authority in the matter in how you parent your child. We will go to such lengths as taking the child away and raising it elsewhere if that is what's best for them. People don't get to murder their children and get away with it.
  - generalizations 4y ago
    > We will go to such lengths as taking the child away and raising it elsewhere if that is what's best for them Correction. "if we think that is what's best for them." Maybe it is, maybe it's not. It's kinda like the death penalty - the state can totally get it wrong, and mistakes have lifelong reprecussions. > People don't get to murder their children and get away with it. Again, this seems like a weird strawman. And like I implied before, balance that possibilty with the liklihood it's the state doing the murdering. I'd rather have a distributed system of parents putting a majority of their time and attention into figuring out what's best for their own kid -- rather than a bureaucratic state that's playing politics and influenced by lobbyists, deciding what's probably best for the majority of the kids.
    - usea 4y ago
      It's not a strawman. If the state disallows you from murdering your child, they have authority over you. There are court cases every year where parents who kill their kids get convicted and sent to jail. Who had authority? The people who went to jail, or the people who sent them there? > I'd rather have a distributed system of parents putting a majority of their time and attention into figuring out what's best for their own kid -- rather than a bureaucratic state that's playing politics and influenced by lobbyists, deciding what's probably best for the majority of the kids. I would rather have the state disallow murdering children rather than each parent deciding for themselves if they should be able to murder their kid. Maybe you had great parents, but not everyone is so lucky. Sometimes parents don't do what's best for their kid. In those cases, it's better for the state to use their Ultimate Authority to intervene in the interests of the child. Stopping people from killing their children should be uncontroversial.
      - generalizations 4y ago
        > I would rather have the state disallow murdering children rather than each parent deciding for themselves if they should be able to murder their kid. You're the only one here who has said anything about parental authority overriding the murdering-is-bad laws that most countries seem to have. The state disallows murdering children in the same way it disallows murdering anyone else - via general laws that are nonspecific to parents and their authority over their children. If you were talking about some other kind of crime where the state was claiming specific authority over the special case of parents' authority over their kids, then I'd understand why you brought it up. Like I said earlier. That's either a weird strawman, or you missed the point of what "ultimate authority" means here. > Sometimes parents don't do what's best for their kid. In those cases, it's better for the state to use their Ultimate Authority to intervene in the interests of the child. Except that what you're advocating for isn't intervention in just those cases. You're also advocating that the state intervene in cases where: the treatment is harmful to the child, and the well-educated parent knows it, but the state thinks it's for the best, and causes harm to the child. And you're justifying it by saying the parents shouldn't be allowed to murder their kid. Which is really weird logic.
- rysertio 4y ago
  [dead]
yucky 4y ago
> Sometimes that means protection FROM their parents. And based on history, sometimes that means protection FROM the state.

by usea 4y ago

generalizations 4y ago

> Either parents should be allowed to kill their children on a whim without consequence, or parents are not the ultimate authority over their children. They are mutually exclusive beliefs. That's either a weird strawman, or you missed the point of what "ultimate authority" means here. The question is who gets the final say in how the child is cared for - if the parent thinks that something is harmful to the child, and the state says it's mandatory, who gets final say? You're right. Children aren't property. They're human beings that deserve protection. Sometimes that means protection from the state.

usea 4y ago
> The question is who gets the final say in how the child is cared for - if the parent thinks that something is harmful to the child, and the state says it's mandatory, who gets final say? The state gets final say. On most parenting matters the state has no opinion, or at least has the opinion "let the parent decide." But that delegation of authority does not mean the state has given it up. We the people have authority in the matter in how you parent your child. We will go to such lengths as taking the child away and raising it elsewhere if that is what's best for them. People don't get to murder their children and get away with it.
- generalizations 4y ago
  > We will go to such lengths as taking the child away and raising it elsewhere if that is what's best for them Correction. "if we think that is what's best for them." Maybe it is, maybe it's not. It's kinda like the death penalty - the state can totally get it wrong, and mistakes have lifelong reprecussions. > People don't get to murder their children and get away with it. Again, this seems like a weird strawman. And like I implied before, balance that possibilty with the liklihood it's the state doing the murdering. I'd rather have a distributed system of parents putting a majority of their time and attention into figuring out what's best for their own kid -- rather than a bureaucratic state that's playing politics and influenced by lobbyists, deciding what's probably best for the majority of the kids.
  - usea 4y ago
    It's not a strawman. If the state disallows you from murdering your child, they have authority over you. There are court cases every year where parents who kill their kids get convicted and sent to jail. Who had authority? The people who went to jail, or the people who sent them there? > I'd rather have a distributed system of parents putting a majority of their time and attention into figuring out what's best for their own kid -- rather than a bureaucratic state that's playing politics and influenced by lobbyists, deciding what's probably best for the majority of the kids. I would rather have the state disallow murdering children rather than each parent deciding for themselves if they should be able to murder their kid. Maybe you had great parents, but not everyone is so lucky. Sometimes parents don't do what's best for their kid. In those cases, it's better for the state to use their Ultimate Authority to intervene in the interests of the child. Stopping people from killing their children should be uncontroversial.
    - generalizations 4y ago
      > I would rather have the state disallow murdering children rather than each parent deciding for themselves if they should be able to murder their kid. You're the only one here who has said anything about parental authority overriding the murdering-is-bad laws that most countries seem to have. The state disallows murdering children in the same way it disallows murdering anyone else - via general laws that are nonspecific to parents and their authority over their children. If you were talking about some other kind of crime where the state was claiming specific authority over the special case of parents' authority over their kids, then I'd understand why you brought it up. Like I said earlier. That's either a weird strawman, or you missed the point of what "ultimate authority" means here. > Sometimes parents don't do what's best for their kid. In those cases, it's better for the state to use their Ultimate Authority to intervene in the interests of the child. Except that what you're advocating for isn't intervention in just those cases. You're also advocating that the state intervene in cases where: the treatment is harmful to the child, and the well-educated parent knows it, but the state thinks it's for the best, and causes harm to the child. And you're justifying it by saying the parents shouldn't be allowed to murder their kid. Which is really weird logic.
rysertio 4y ago
[dead]

yucky 4y ago

> Sometimes that means protection FROM their parents. And based on history, sometimes that means protection FROM the state.