5 ms·

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

by 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.
- usea 4y ago
  I'm talking about whether or not parents have ultimate authority over their children. Why do you think murder is a special case that isn't included in "ultimate?" Many parents truly believe it is their right to kill their child if they so choose, and that the state should not be able to intervene or punish them in such situations. "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it." You seem really optimistic about the kinds of behaviors and beliefs parents have. Parents are often abusive and -definitely- believe their children are their property to do with as they please. For real. This is the exact kind of thing the original comment was talking about. If you want to replace "murder" with "beat" or "starve" or "sexually molest" or whatever else, feel free. Murder is not a special case. Parents do not have ultimate authority over their children. It can be easily seen through example in the real world. > 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. I am not trying to advocate for, nor justify anything. I'm simply saying that the state does not allow parents free reign to do whatever they want to their children, simply because they're parents. Murder is an obvious example, but the state also disallows lots of other things. If parents had ultimate authority over their children, the state could not allow or disallow anything, because they would have no say in the matter.
  - generalizations 4y ago
    > Why do you think murder is a special case that isn't included in "ultimate?" Because that's completely outside the context of what we're discussing here. Because we were talking about who gets final say on medical treatments, and because I clarified with OP [0]. Sure, there's evil people out there. Though usually "I brought you in...I can take you out" seems like hyperbole. But child abuse is wrong for the same reason the same abuse towards adults is wrong. I'm creating a distinction, because the principle involved matters: is the state exerting authority over the bad action done to the child, or over the child itself? > I am not trying to advocate for, nor justify anything. You are explicitly advocating for that, and explicitly justifying it. "The state gets final say." "It's better for the state to use their Ultimate Authority to intervene." "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." "People don't get to murder their children and get away with it." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34379462 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34379462

by usea 4y ago

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.

usea 4y ago
I'm talking about whether or not parents have ultimate authority over their children. Why do you think murder is a special case that isn't included in "ultimate?" Many parents truly believe it is their right to kill their child if they so choose, and that the state should not be able to intervene or punish them in such situations. "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it." You seem really optimistic about the kinds of behaviors and beliefs parents have. Parents are often abusive and -definitely- believe their children are their property to do with as they please. For real. This is the exact kind of thing the original comment was talking about. If you want to replace "murder" with "beat" or "starve" or "sexually molest" or whatever else, feel free. Murder is not a special case. Parents do not have ultimate authority over their children. It can be easily seen through example in the real world. > 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. I am not trying to advocate for, nor justify anything. I'm simply saying that the state does not allow parents free reign to do whatever they want to their children, simply because they're parents. Murder is an obvious example, but the state also disallows lots of other things. If parents had ultimate authority over their children, the state could not allow or disallow anything, because they would have no say in the matter.
- generalizations 4y ago
  > Why do you think murder is a special case that isn't included in "ultimate?" Because that's completely outside the context of what we're discussing here. Because we were talking about who gets final say on medical treatments, and because I clarified with OP [0]. Sure, there's evil people out there. Though usually "I brought you in...I can take you out" seems like hyperbole. But child abuse is wrong for the same reason the same abuse towards adults is wrong. I'm creating a distinction, because the principle involved matters: is the state exerting authority over the bad action done to the child, or over the child itself? > I am not trying to advocate for, nor justify anything. You are explicitly advocating for that, and explicitly justifying it. "The state gets final say." "It's better for the state to use their Ultimate Authority to intervene." "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." "People don't get to murder their children and get away with it." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34379462 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34379462