Text 5084, 117 rader
Skriven 2007-09-06 07:33:02 av John Massey (1:123/789.0)
     Kommentar till en text av BOB KLAHN (1:123/140)
Ärende: Parents and Government
==============================
BOB KLAHN -> JOHN MASSEY wrote:

 BK> ..

 JM>>>> I never said society did not have the power to intervene.

 BK>>>  And I didn't mention the *power* to intervene. I said the right.

 JM>> Ok, So you think the government right to and should use
 JM>> power to make someone treat their offspring as YOU think
 JM>> they should.

 BK>  So, you think they should be allowed to do anything you find
 BK>  acceptable, no matter how horrible in the eyes of the general
 BK>  public?
I never said that.


 JM>>>> I just want to know WHY. Naturally you and Dan think of the
 JM>>>> worse case, murder. If you were to think in less than
 JM>>>> drastic extremes, then we could explore where the line of
 JM>>>> parental control and societies, AKA GOVERNMENTS, place in
 JM>>>> raising the biological product of two animals should be
 JM>>>> placed.

 BK>>>  You didn't ask that. If you had such a discussion would be
 BK>>>  possible. You set it as an absolute. Does the right exist.

 JM>> I did not set anything actually, Dan did.

 BK>  You did in what I read. As I said before.

You read a lot into things that is not there.

 BK>>>  Define life threatening. Instant death? Death within a few
 BK>>>  weeks? Ten years. Certain death? High probability of death? 90%
 BK>>>  probability of death? 25% probability of death?

 JM>> You pick one

 BK>  You have to tell us what your limits are.

No Bob, I don't actually.


 BK>>>  See, you are coming up with all sorts of implications and
 BK>>>  inferences, but not saying one thing about where you stand, or
 BK>>>  where you want to start.
 JM>> And that just bugs the hell out of you doesn't it.

 JM>> I want to start with what you think gives you the right to
 JM>> use government power to interfere between an parent and
 JM>> their offspring.

 BK>  The same thing that gives the government the right to intervene
 BK>  in any harm between a perpetrator and a victim.

And what is that "THING?"


 BK>>>  Child abuse is a clear limit.

 JM>> It is? I don't think so. It's not so clear

 BK>  Does that mean you would find child abuse acceptable, sometimes?

Depends on what is being called child abuse.
I do not thing every thing that gets called child abuse, is

 BK>  All the time?

 JM>> Some people think that to spank a child, is child abuse.

 BK>  Now you are talking about degree, not kind. You are not arguing
 BK>  that child abuse is not grounds for interference, but arguing
 BK>  just what is child abuse. That is another issue all together.

 BK>  For the record, in Ohio spanking a child is not abuse.

 JM>> Some don't. Some think that to send a child to Government
 JM>> schools is child abuse others do not.

 BK>  The "others" are right.

In YOUR opinion



 BK>>>  Actually, that's about the worst place to start talking about
 BK>>>  socialism and individualism,

 JM>> No Bob, it is an excellent place to start.

 BK>  Since socialism is an economic theory, and child protection is
 BK>  not, it is a completely different area of human activity, and
 BK>  therefore a terrible place to start the discussion.

IF you believe like the Socialist,"it Takes a village" Hillery Clinton, the
amount of control you are willing to give up to government is a great place to
start.


 JM>>>> But no, you and Dan are so hell bent on attacking that you
 JM>>>> make up a position for me then attack that position, and

 BK>>>  No, you asked a question in terms of absolutes. You ascribed a
 BK>>>  position to us and we defended it.

 JM>> Bull shit

 BK>  IOW, you are determined not to have a reasonable discussion. Ok,
 BK>  so be it.

You are incapable of a reasonable discussion.

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Fidonet Via Your Newsreader (1:123/789.0)