"Court decision outlawing religious circumcision is worst attack on Jewish life since the Holocaust" (European conference of rabbis & its president Pinchas Goldschmidt). It is a sign that Jews have to leave Germany. German court had valued child's right to self determination above religious freedom

[–]Drainedsoul 96 points97 points98 points 14 years ago (170 children) | Copy Link

[–]maha420 47 points48 points49 points 14 years ago (151 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drainedsoul 35 points36 points37 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points37 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Hessmix -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]NoMoreNicksLeft -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I really think this is an issue the men's rights movement needs to drop. For a slew of reasons, but mostly because a lot of us are never going to agree and it's going to divide more than unite men.

Personally I don't get it. This custom, per se, isn't harming "men". And the practice is supported by both men and women. So part of this opposition to circumcision is opposition to other men and what they want to do to their kids.

I also don't like the idea that it harms men's "rights". They are children. The basis of the argument is they should be allowed to choose, but kids have no rights other than those legally transferred to them through their parents. Ex, the litigant in Brown vs Board wasn't the child.

Are we arguing men's rights or the rights of children? Or do we care because there is an overlap? But I can't see how children have any self determination rights. If so my son would eat ice cream for dinner every night.

I guess this is a weird topic overall with lots of opinion on both sides but I have a hard time telling parents what to do with their kids. As a man do I have less rights than my child if I want him circumcised?

[–]Peter_Principle_ 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

What I love about this argument is it's exactly like most - it's sensational.

The opening story from the Sydney Morning Herald is biased as anyone could be on either side of the argument (the one I think Mens Rights should avoid - it's a separate issue/movement all together). What John van Tiggelen describes is not what is typical or seen by most. I've seen 4 circumcisions and while all of the child's reactions varied and there were different doctors and hospitals involved - nothing comes close to the description. (For example I've never seen an anaesthetic injected into an infant - and one into the base of the penis makes little sense...)

"Give him a feed and he'll be right"

Which, is true. Because I never saw a infant male scream for hours on end once the procedure was over. Dare I say, because it won't matter much, that one child was more upset at the preparation. Like how a tongue piercing isn't painful in itself, but the clamp on your tongue is.

I don't even care to argue about something along these lines because... we won't agree and we won't change each other's minds - but this movement is totally different than "Men's Rights" as I see it.

[–]Peter_Principle_ 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]maha420 34 points35 points36 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mean0dean0 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -19 points-18 points-17 points 14 years ago* (112 children) | Copy Link

That's funny, because libertarians normally have a hard time to consistently include non-autonomous beings (such as little children and animals) in their "moral" framework. They think that each agent fully owns himself and only has negative rights, negative freedoms and negative obligations in regards to everybody else. According to this view, human rights never require anybody to take positive steps such as protecting and providing. Everybody is only responsible for himself. What is the status of non-autonomous creatures in such a moral framework? One possible reply is that non-autonomous beings are simply things to be used. As such, they can be the full private property of agents. Few people, however, will accept such an extreme position. Most agree that children are not the private property of their parents and would say that certain animals may not be tortured for fun. Another possibility is to hold that non-autonomous beings are also full self-owners. Firstly, this would have the odd consequence that animals are protected by rights of self-ownership. It gets even more problematic when we look at chldren again: It would be ludicrous to allow little children to do whatever they want to themselves. We don't allow children to give "consent" to have sex with old creepy women, to not go to school, stay awake all night or to sign contracts of any kind. Rather, we have to protect the child's interests. But libertarians don't think that any positive obligations exist. Thus, nobody has to protect the interests of children or to take care of them.

And don't even get me started on the NAP. It's an utterly shallow principle. When limited to actual physical force, it’s superseded and made obsolete by conventional moral systems which can explain when force is justified. When extended to concepts which are not immediately intuitive, its subjective nature quickly devolves it to shouting matches. To me, when somebody explains that according to the NAP, this or that is wrong, they just sound like “This or that is wrong, because I say so.”

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

But libertarians don't think that any positive obligations exist.

I don't think someone identifying as a libertarian has to follow the philosophy to such an extreme. That is more like the cold logic of a robot, than that of a human. I think for practical and human reasons, subscribing to a libertarian position, while allowing exceptions in extreme cases is perfectly legitimate. Nothing has been done wrong.

Colloquially speaking, a person who believes in smaller government and less interference with most, but not necessarily EVERY, thing could describe themselves as libertarian without violating anything. It is just for simplicity of communication, rather than an attempt at an extensive philosophical debate. In this context the colloquial meaning is much more important than the technical one.

I think you are putting a lot of words, unjustifiably, in this guys mouth. Its fine to disagree with the thing you described, but he didn't say he believed that, you just assumed he did.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think someone identifying as a libertarian has to follow the philosophy to such an extreme.

Extreme? That's the core of the entire libertarian and anarcho-capitalist belief system. Otherwise they would have no basis to rant about how using taxes for school lunch programs for poor people's children is "immoral theft".

I think for practical and human reasons, subscribing to a libertarian position, while allowing exceptions in extreme cases is perfectly legitimate.

In other words, you have no problem to be a hypocrite when it suits you personally. Why even bother to subscribe to a moral theory when you just neglect it whenever you feel like it?

Colloquially speaking, a person who believes in smaller government and less interference with most, but not necessarily EVERY, thing could describe themselves as libertarian without violating anything.

You can call yourself whatever you want but every label has baggage. You're just going to confuse people when you go around calling yourself a "libertarian" or "borderline anarchist" despite not really being aware of the implications of such a statement.

In this context the colloquial meaning is much more important than the technical one.

Please notice that what you call the "colloquial meaning" is only the meaning you just came up with.

I think you are putting a lot of words, unjustifiably, in this guys mouth. Its fine to disagree with the thing you described, but he didn't say he believed that, you just assumed he did.

Libertarians promote negative rights and reject posivite rights. Thus, when you call yourself a libertarian it is fair to assume that you're rejecting positive rghts. Otherwise, calling yourself a libertarian is just a meaningless soundbite that needs further elaboration before it can be understood by anybody else.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drainedsoul 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

I love you, as a minarchist who is highly influenced by libertarianism. You are actually one of the few people on Reddit to criticize libertarianism well. I am a minarchist simply because I have a problem with people not letting me live the way I want as long as I don't harm them.

It is true that under true libertarianism, non-autonomous beings, like babies, are worth no more than an animal. I personally feel like if someone brings a being into this world, they are responsible for it, but this is not a logical corolary that follows from the axioms of libertarianism. In fact, it does not logically follow from any fact, simply people's emotions regarding what is fair.

Regarding the Non-agression principle, I do not understand why you think this is shallow when compared with every other political belief made by man-kind. Every political belief boils down to "This or that is wrong, because I say so". I personally like this social construct and I would prefer to see this construct try to be enforced and be applied to government. Also, libertarianism has one of the most consistent records of adherence to its own axioms. Most other political denominations are loose formations that actually have no axioms that they adhere to.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I personally feel like if someone brings a being into this world, they are responsible for it, but this is not a logical corolary that follows from the axioms of libertarianism. In fact, it does not logically follow from any fact...

Both Mill's Utilitarianism and Schopenhauer's Compassionate Morality provide axioms from which you can consistently extrapolate that children should be taken care of.

simply people's emotions regarding what is fair.

Emotions alone don't make something moral or immoral. Just because somebody's gut feeling tells him that a tree can feel pain (although it can't), doesn't make the tree worth moral considerations. Moral behavior is an offshoot of knowledge, namely the knowledge about sentient creatures. I would say that 'knowing good' will ultimately lead to 'doing good' (and desiring it). It's a Socratic tenet that has been explored since the Golden Age of Greece. When you understand other sentient beings so well that you share their experience, then you don't want them to suffer.

Every political belief boils down to "This or that is wrong, because I say so".

If you want to convince somebody else that a certain act is right or wrong, then you have to provide something he can sympathize with. Simply saying that something is wrong because you say so is a waste of breath.

"I personally feel like" isn't an argument.

Also, libertarianism has one of the most consistent records of adherence to its own axioms.

Overall, they are pretty consistent: Consistently foolish.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I am only familiar with Mill's Utilitarianism due to a book by Michael Sandel, so pardon me and correct me if I say something stupid. What I am saying is morality is completely subjective, and as such, no moral value is superior to another. We are not arguing a court case where there is evidence and we need to extrapolate what happened, we are merely discussing what our favorite color is. Maximizing what you perceive to be aggregate happiness is no more morally "valid" than me wishing no one interfere in my life becuase at their core, they are just emotions of what we want. One can't logically derive what should be from what is. What we are having is not argument but rather a discussion of what are our own subjective notions of what should be a guiding code of behavior.

"When you understand other sentient beings so well that you share their experience, then you don't want them to suffer" The second does not logically follow from the first, in my opinion. One could understand another beings feelings very well, but receive more pleasure from helping himself/herself than another. There are limited resources, there is limited "help" one can give. It is impossible to know another beings "qualia" better than one's own, therefore, a rational person helps himself before helping others. Helping others, such as family, does not come from knowledge that they are sentient beings but rather the fact that their presence and company are associated with pleasurable feelings for the individual.

"If you want to convince somebody else that certain act is right...waste of breath" I agree. But like I said, one can't logically derive what should be from what is, doing so requires a subjective "I personally feel like"-ism, whether one recognizes it or not. All political beliefs have to use a trick to convince people that their beliefs are not based of whims. Libertarianism is no exception, but bashing it as if there are political beliefs that don't have this same flaw seems strange to me.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

What I am saying is morality is completely subjective, and as such, no moral value is superior to another. We are not arguing a court case where there is evidence and we need to extrapolate what happened, we are merely discussing what our favorite color is.

Morality isn't something trivial like a favorite color. In the hierarchy of values, moral values take preference over everything else, such as aesthetic values or economic values.

Furthermore, I wouldn't say that morality is simply the expression of any whim, but rather an expression of a special emotion, namely compassion. It is "the immediate participation, independent of all ulterior considerations, primarily in the suffering of another (...)." Compassion is the only incentive people have to wonder if their actions are right or wrong in regards to other sentient creatures. The inner nature of sentient creatures can be understood correctly, wrongly or not at all.

Those who understand them correctly and what causes them can be considered to be objectively morally right.
Those who understand them and their causes incorrectly as objectively wrong.
Those who don't care are moral nihilists.

Besides, even if I would accept moral relativism, it wouldn't make a difference in this discussion. Even if morality would just be a personal whim, I could still despise your kind for disregarding and violating what is dear to me.

The second does not logically follow from the first, in my opinion. One could understand another beings feelings very well, but receive more pleasure from helping himself/herself than another.

Your statement doesn't contradict mine. When you understand somebody else's emotions so well that you participate in his suffering, then, in and off itself, you don't want him to suffer. You simply pointed out that, despite not wanting him to suffer, there could be other things you want even more. Of course there could be many exceptions. For example, you could recognize his suffering to be a just punishment or to be a necessary evil in order to preserve an even greater good. The point is that the qualitative experience of sentient creatues necessarily becomes part of the moral equation and can not simply be disregarded. Thus, the "fuck you I got mine" mentality completely misses what morality is all about.

Helping others, such as family, does not come from knowledge that they are sentient beings but rather the fact that their presence and company are associated with pleasurable feelings for the individual.

This naive hedonism flies in the face of actual empirical data. We know that people are even willing to sacrifice their own lifes to save the life of their loved ones. Death necessarily reduces the net pleasure of an individual (unless said individual only has pain left in his live).

Libertarianism is no exception, but bashing it as if there are political beliefs that don't have this same flaw seems strange to me.

I guess you're referring to my complains about the NAP. As you probably know, the NAP is often used by libertarians or anarcho-capitalists in a specific way. They define property as an extension of themselves and thus justify to use real, literal violence against someone who "initiated force" by trespassing or stealing what they think belongs to them. It should be obvious that there isn't an axiomatic set of ownership rights which everybody accepts and adheres to. How does somebody rightly acquire entitlements? How is property legitimately created? People will give very different answers to these kinds of questions. Libertarians/anarchists simply presuppose that a very specific kind of free-market scheme should serve as the baseline distribution and that anything else would be "an initiation of force". Yet, those who find that only an egalitarian set of social arrangements is ethically defensible will (symmetrically) view the distributions that come about pursuant to a lasses-faire market scheme as involving rights infringing redistribution and "an initiation of force". Somebody who thinks that the entire world is his just property could use the NAP to blame everybody of "initiating force" against him. Libertarians/Anarchists can't even agree among themselves which specific set of ownership rights should be used in their "utopia".

The NAP is effectively made hollow by irresolvable disputes about its correct application. Such disputes can only be settled by a homogeneous system of courts and enforcement agencies. A de-facto state.

That's why I said that the NAP is a shallow principle and people could just as well say "this or that is right/wrong because I say so."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

"Morality isn't something trivial like a favorite color. In the hierarchy of values, moral values take preference over everything else, such as aesthetic values or economic values." I meant that no moral value is objectively superior to another moral value. I am sure that most people hold their moral values above their aesthetic values. This in no way shape or form disproves that morality is merely the whims of people. "Furthermore, I wouldn't say that morality is simply the expression of any whim, but rather an expression of a special emotion, namely compassion." Again, morality could also be based on the need for self-preservation and survival, which might at times requires the opposite of compassion. Slave versus master morality comes to mind. You are saying that morality is based on compassion purely on your whims, there could be other reasons that the social construct of “morality” was created amongst humans. Other animals that have codes of behavior or exhibit their own “moral framework” arguably have done so for survival reasons, not for compassion for others. But again, even if they have, you have no choice but to accept moral relativism. "I could still despise your kind for disregarding and violating what is dear to me." This is fine. I hate people who have different beliefs than me and are stupid. Personally, I like people like you that have well-thought out opinions. "This naive hedonism flies in the face of actual empirical data. We know that people are … net pleasure of an individual…" Individuals don’t always maximize their net pleasure rationally. Empirical data shows that people are bad at predicting their own future behavior. Pleasure is the driving force of all actions behind every human. People who sacrifice themselves might have made the net pleasure calculation wrong, but when they do it, they actually believe that this will maximize their pleasure.
"It should be obvious that there isn't an axiomatic set of ownership rights which everybody accepts and adheres to" It is obvious. Just as it is obvious that there aren’t any moral guidelines or social constructs everyone accepts or adheres to. That does not make it stupid to accept or adhere your moral value or a Libertarian’s moral values. "The NAP is effectively made hollow by irresolvable disputes about its correct application. Such disputes can only be settled by a homogeneous system of courts and enforcement agencies. A de-facto state." I totally agree with this critique of NAP, even though I am a minarchist. Most people who believe in the NAP believe that there has to be some state, because initiation of force should be kept to a minimum. Of course, this doesn’t “fix” the issues with acquiring entitlements etc. Most people who believe in NAP believe that a state should be created through initiation of force or that one might even be able to be created without initiation of force.
"people could just as well say "this or that is right/wrong because I say so." I agree. Same holds true for every single political belief, including utilitarianism. Effectively, your criticism of libertarianism and NAP is valid. Of course, the right of property would have to be defined arbitrarily, but once done so, would only be able to be violated to protect against its violation. On the other hand, creating institutions that effectively do something like “maximize utility” seems absurd, as there is no way to measure this, and the difficulty of predicting the consequences of actions can lead to many things being done in the name of increasing utility that are really just for a given individual’s self-pleasure.

EDIT: Pardon, I am too stupid to format.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

If you respond again then quote like I do ("formatting help" on the right under the comment window shows you how). Otherwise, the comment is really hard to read.

Again, morality could also be based on the need for self-preservation and survival, which might at times requires the opposite of compassion.

You could call that morality if you want, but conventionally it wouldn't be.

A person who is alone on an island could be concerned about his survival. Preserving his life, however, wouldn't conventionally be called moral behavior. Morality is concerned with inter-subjective behavior. A victimless crime is an oxymoron. You can not act morally wrong when you're alone.

You are saying that morality is based on compassion purely on your whims, there could be other reasons that the social construct of “morality” was created amongst humans.

No, I have reasons. Firstly, moral behavior can not be purely self-centered. As I said before, we are concerned with inter-subjective behavior, otherwise it makes no sense to wonder if your actions are morally right or wrong. In order to find the basis of morality, we therefore have to identify the incentive for people to care about something other than just themselves. Compassion seems to be that incentive.

But again, even if they have, you have no choice but to accept moral relativism.

If morality is an offshoot of knowledge, as I claim, then somebody who has perfect knoweldge of a certain situation, is objectively morally right.

Individuals don’t always maximize their net pleasure rationally.

Isn't that an indication that they are concerned with other things than just their personal net pleasure?

People who sacrifice themselves might have made the net pleasure calculation wrong, but when they do it, they actually believe that this will maximize their pleasure.

Are you familiar with Nozick's experience machine (a famous thought-experiment)? If so, why do you think Nozick is wrong?

I know where you're coming from. You probably would describe even altruistic acts as selsifh because they make people feel better about themselves. However, that doesn't mean that all acts are necessarily self-centered. When I feel better because I helped somebody, then I only feel better because I made a positive impact on somebody who isn't me.

Just as it is obvious that there aren’t any moral guidelines or social constructs everyone accepts or adheres to.

I never denied that. However, just because there isn't a moral guidiline which everybody adheres to, doesn't mean there can't be a moral guidiline who everybody would accept if they had all the relevant knowledge.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Morality is concerned with inter-subjective behavior. A victimless crime is an oxymoron. You can not act morally wrong when you're alone.

I agree.

we therefore have to identify the incentive for people to care about something other than just themselves

I disagree. Morality is a social construct that exists for whatever ends. Many societies would find it in their best interests to protect and individual's right to self-preservation from being violated by others. Self-preservation morality can only exist in a society. A moral system would arise in a society made up of purely self-centered individuals. Of course, in my opinion, all individuals are self centered and pleasure is the driving force for all action.

Isn't that an indication that they are concerned with other things than just their personal net pleasure?

No it is not. Money could be my only concern, and if under stress, I could make decisions that do not maximize my wealth. Pleasure maximization is similar as one cannot predict future behavior perfectly.

I am not familiar with Nozick, although I have a book of his sitting on my shelf. I need to read it some time.

As for everyone accepting a moral guideline, it might be possible amongst humans given that all humans share certain psychological aspects. However, I find this highly unlikely. Of course, if the sentinent beings at question where all completely different (a society of different alien races), then a moral guideline everyone would accept would not be possible to find as one can't derive what ought to be from what is.

[–]NoMoreNicksLeft -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

According to this view, human rights never require anybody to take positive steps such as protecting and providing.

Yes. You've nailed it. This is exactly the truth.

See, retarded non-libertarians are never able to conceive of anything unless it's in a human rights context. If they like the internet... then by god they have a fundamental human right to internet access. How can it be any other way?

Me though? I do feel obligated to provide for my family and protect them. It was never any question that I should do these things, I think I would rather be dead than fail in that regard. But "human rights" don't really come into it. "Human rights" is a concept that tells how I should deal with other human beings whom I don't care about and don't love. Who needs to worry about human rights for loved ones... surely the love will have you treat them more fairly than any human rights commission would. It's strangers that we need this context for.

If you weren't a fucktarded socialist, you'd get this.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

First, I want to congratulate you for dodging the actual argument and providing me with this pointless personal rant instead.

Me though? I do feel obligated to provide for my family and protect them.

All you told me is that you help your family because you want to. That's not what an obligation is. An obligation is something you can be held accountable for if you fail to fulfill it. If you truly are obligated to help your family, then (by implication) your family is entitled to your support and a right is nothing more than an entitlement.

"Human rights" is a concept that tells how I should deal with other human beings whom I don't care about and don't love.

Not necessarily. People may violate the rights of humans they do love. This very thread is an example of that.

If you weren't a fucktarded socialist, you'd get this.

Stay mad, libertarian/anarchist vermin.

[–]maha420 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I see parents as temporary trustees rather than owners. By choosing to keep and raise the child, they enter into a social contract in which they do have positive obligations to feed, shelter, and not profit from the existence of the child. In a society where abortion is tolerated, and in which a baby free market exists (in the form of adoption, currently), the parent is voluntarily choosing to uphold the best interests of the child. This contract is of course limited by time, as a 50 year old man cannot be subject to the whims of his 70 year old mother.

"It is worth mentioning that the ownership right stemming from production finds its natural limitation only when, as in the case of children, the thing produced is itself another actor-producer. According to the natural theory of property, a child, once born, is just as much the owner of his own body as anyone else. "

--Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

By choosing to keep and raise the child, they enter into a social contract in which they do have positive obligations to feed, shelter, and not profit from the existence of the child.

That's an ad-hoc justification. You wouldn't let an egalitarian get away with the argument that the libertarian, by freely choosing to keep living in a community, enters a social contract in which he has the positive obligation to help provide equal opportunity to each member.

Libertarian parents could simply choose to be neglectful whenever they please, as it doesn't violate the child's negative rights. Furthermore, they could let the child run wild in order to not constraint its freedom.

In a society where abortion is tolerated, and in which a baby free market exists (in the form of adoption, currently), the parent is voluntarily choosing to uphold the best interests of the child.

The parent is not necessarily "voluntarily choosing to uphold the best interests of the child." You just tacked that on. In other words, you regulated the rearing of children and apparently are in favor of enforcing this regulation even if some people don't want to comply.

a baby free market

How is it a free market exactly? There are various requirements for people who want to adopt and raise children.

According to the natural theory of property, a child, once born, is just as much the owner of his own body as anyone else.

This creates the inconsistency I mentioned earlier. If children would be full owners of their bodies, then they should be able to do with them whatever they please. This, however, is a ridiculous idea.

[–]maha420 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

That's an ad-hoc justification. You wouldn't let an egalitarian get away with the argument that the libertarian, by freely choosing to keep living in a community, enters a social contract in which he has the positive obligation to help provide equal opportunity to each member.

Because the libertarian, as an adult, has transcended to full self-ownership, and is no longer entrusted to his or her guardian.

Neglect would be in breach of the tacit agreement by choosing to raise the child they agree to provide for the best interests of the child.

The parent is not necessarily "voluntarily choosing to uphold the best interests of the child." You just tacked that on. In other words, you regulated the rearing of children and apparently are in favor of enforcing this regulation even if people don't want to comply.

Nowhere have I mentioned a form of enforcement in my post. If a parent has declined to provide for the best interests of the child, they are in breach of this tacit contract. This is not a discussion of how contracts should be upheld in a stateless society.

How is it a free market exactly? There are various requirements for people who want to adopt and raise children.

You're right, it's not exactly a free market, as there are laws that govern who may or may not adopt a child. My point was simply to provide an alternative for an already born child who has parents that do not wish to nurture it.

This creates the inconsistency I mentioned earlier. If children would be full owners of their bodies, then they should be able to do with them whatever they please. This, however, is a ridiculous idea.

As I mentioned, the child is not the full owner of its own body, but entrusted to its parent until it has attained full ownership.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Because the libertarian, as an adult, has transcended to full self-ownership, and is no longer entrusted to his or her guardian.

That wasn't my point. You imposed positive obligations on somebody else, namely the parents.

Neglect would be in breach of the tacit agreement by choosing to raise the child they agree to provide for the best interests of the child.

No they do not necessarily do that. You just want them to.

If a parent has declined to provide for the best interests of the child, they are in breach of this tacit contract.

An environmentalist could say that the libertarian, by choosing to live in a certain envrionment, tacitly agrees to observe certain rules in regards to environmental protection.

Is that how it works? In order to impose regulations on people in your "libertarian" or "anarchist" society, we just invent tacit contracts that exist for people by virtue of acting in a certain way?

As I mentioned, the child is not the full owner of its own body, but entrusted to its parent until it has attained full ownership.

When does it attain full ownership and how is it decided? Let me guess: the free market will handle it?

My point was simply to provide an alternative for an already born child who has parents that do not wish to nurture it.

According to your principle, however, nobody would have to nurture it. Right?

[–]maha420 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That wasn't my point. You imposed positive obligations on somebody else, namely the parents.

Incorrect, the obligations were imposed upon themselves by voluntarily choosing to raise a child rather than abort or give the child up for adoption.

No they do not necessarily do that. You just want them to.

They are my views, after all.

An environmentalist could say that the libertarian, by choosing to live in a certain envrionment, tacitly agrees to observe certain rules in regards to environmental protection.

Is that how it works? In order to impose regulations on people in your "libertarian" or "anarchist" society, we just invent tacit contracts that exist for people by virtue of acting in a certain way?

No, as previously posted, a child is a special case, because one day the child will be fully autonomous and have full self-ownership. This is why I equate parenthood with temporary trustees, rather than owners.

When does it attain full ownership and how is it decided? Let me guess: the free market will handle it?

That is outside the scope of this argument.

According to your principle, however, nobody would have to nurture it. Right?

No, that's untrue. I previously stated that choosing to be a parent is a tacit agreement that they will nurture the child. As this discussion seems to be an exercise in circular logic, I am finished.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Incorrect, the obligations were imposed upon themselves by voluntarily choosing to raise a child rather than abort or give the child up for adoption.

No, you imposed them by regulating the rearing of children.

They are my views, after all.

So your arguments boils down to "This or that is right because I say so"? Then why even bother to subscribe to a moral framework, when your morality is nothing more than a personal whim?

No, as previously posted, a child is a special case, because one day the child will be fully autonomous and have full self-ownership.

So what? Why are positive obligations created just because a being will one day have full self-ownership?

What about mentally-handicapped children or other people who, through no fault of their own, have important needs they cannot fulfill themselves?

No, that's untrue. I previously stated that choosing to be a parent is a tacit agreement that they will nurture the child. As this discussion seems to be an exercise in circular logic, I am finished.

Circular logic? No. Just special pleading on your part. You come up with ad hoc exemptions to your own principles and, when asked to justify said exemptions, you offer nothing more than "because I say so". Pretty weak performance, even for a libertarian.

[–]maha420 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -23 points-22 points-21 points 14 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fauvenoire 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago* (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]fauvenoire 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -70 points-69 points-68 points 14 years ago* (58 children) | Copy Link

Libertarians, for instance, say that they want everybody to have liberty, and denounce force and coercion at all turns, but at the same time embrace structural violence in regards to people they feel aren't deserving of help. The paradox lolbertarians face is that they want to abolish what is necessary to protect the very freedom they claim to cherish. True freedom means being free not just from external restraints, but also from internal restraints like the threat of starvation or threat of lack of basic necessities. The ancap/libertarian concept of freedom is laughable and captures only half of what true freedom means. Freedom means absence of limits to your wants, irregardless of their sources. For a hungry man, it does not matter if he lacks food because someone stole his food, or he was unable to obtain it. For an ill man, it does not matter if he lacks healthcare because someone stole it from him, or he was unable to obtain it. A man who works under threat of starvation and poverty does not lead a self-directed life. Someone who lacks any opportunities can not be said to act according to his own true will.

Another example is that Libertarians only accept negative rights. Thus, they think that human rights only require people from refraining to do certain things but never requires them to actively do something. To refute this claim I don't even need to appeal to social rights that require the provision of things like education and medical care. It is enough to note that this view is incompatible with the position that one of the main jobs of governments is to protect people's property rights by creating an effective system of criminal law. Providing effective legal protections is providing services, not merely refraining. Yet, our illogical friends, the libertarians, want they cake and eat it too. They don't accept positive rights, yet they think that the government has the duty to protect their property. An intellectually consistent libertarian is called an anarchist (arguably the most horrible people in the world).

[–][deleted] 46 points47 points48 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I don't get where this idea comes from, that without a government to dole out stuff like roads, education, security, help for the poor, etc. we wouldn't have these things.

The government is a huge middle-man. It takes a massive cut for itself. So any argument in favor of government redistribution of wealth is is overlooking the fact that the government is primarily interested in feeding its own spending habits, rather than helping the poor.

Second, you don't explain why a government should even be interested in helping the poor. After all, a government is a monopolist. It locks poor people up en mass. It keeps them from starting businesses, inflates their savings away, and constantly harasses them with petty laws.

And a cursory glance at history shows that no government has ever solved the problem of poverty. The only way to do that is to have abundance. And you can't have abundance when you're spending trillions on prisons and idiotic wars overseas.

[+][deleted] -34 points-33 points-32 points 14 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

I don't get where this idea comes from, that without a government to dole out stuff like roads, education, security, help for the poor, etc. we wouldn't have these things.

A government is just a formalization of society, not a group of Machiavellian agents of guile and subterfuge like ancaps tend to portray it. A society without government will become a society with no restraint, since many people will run wild without a sense of accountability or consequence. Discussions about common rules quickly devolve into shouting matches which can only be settled by a homogeneous system of courts and enforcement agencies. A de-facto state. In such a state of affairs, the more strong, cunning and ruthless prey on the less, education of children (which often calls for resources outside the family) is difficult to accomplish, and economic activity remains stunted by the insecurity of holdings and the unreliability of undertakings. Human nature simply requires checks and balances. Therefore, some kind of political authority is needed to enforce certain rules. Only an institution that represents the entire population will promote the common good of the people, rather than the interests of a segment of the population that is indifferent or even hostile to the interests and wellbeing of other segments.

The government is a huge middle-man. It takes a massive cut for itself. So any argument in favor of government redistribution of wealth is is overlooking the fact that the government is primarily interested in feeding its own spending habits, rather than helping the poor.

Granting power, and then checking that power against other groups of individuals that have agreed to a social system of governance is better than simply allowing someone individually to accumulate power through, say, an economic system, that can be corrupted far easier. A proper government that is beholden to its people can be held accountable. An economic system cannot. That is why corruption is so rampant today: our government has conceded its authority almost entirely to an economic system that is absolutely rife with corruption. Those who become powerful do so by whatever means, and in Capitalism, there are no real checks or balances. Government is one form of balance against other corruption, and one that allows for public participation.

Second, you don't explain why a government should even be interested in helping the poor.

Which government? In a democratic system, it's the people's interests that decide whether or not opportunity is distributed equally to enable ambitious and talented youth from any social group to determine their own fate.

After all, a government is a monopolist.

A monopolist of power. That's all.

It locks poor people up en mass. It keeps them from starting businesses, inflates their savings away, and constantly harasses them with petty laws.

You're treating "government" like a guy who is responsible for this or that. That's childish. As I said earlier, a government is simply a formalization of society.

And a cursory glance at history shows that no government has ever solved the problem of poverty.

And medical science has not completely eliminated disaeses. Does that mean that we should get rid of medical science? Of course not. Medical science has historically reduced diseases and welfare states have historically reduced poverty.

The only way to do that is to have abundance.

Abundance doesn't reduce the poverty of the masses when it is only in the hands of a tiny elite.

EDIT: I changed a few words and spelling.

[–]fauvenoire 39 points40 points41 points 14 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to be honest with you. This is the craziest most naive post I've ever read in my entire fucking life... Making it through has... has been a struggle.

Let's start with the most obvious place: you are the most arrogant ass I have ever encountered on the internet.

Secondly, for someone who claims to be so morally superior and intellectually beyond my capacities; you should know that IRREGARDLESS isn't a fucking word.

Now to the substance of your argument; freedom means having food and money whenever you want it. You must be, what, fourteen? You know who has food whenever they want it? Domesticated animals. Also, non-corporeal beings. If you want to be free from hunger and poverty then you want to live in heaven because that's pretty much the defining characteristic of death. It's also completely unrepresentative of the natural state of every organism on the planet. Perhaps you should approach your mother and demand that she pay you for your time being forced to be alive and then demand that she continue to let you breast feed.

God, now to force myself to read the next paragraph... "Education and health care are a right." Those are goods. They are services that someone has to provide. Therefore, you aren't entitled to them because you were born. You should read about natural rights as hashed out by the philosophers of the Enlightenment, as you are horribly confused as to this point.

I say, good day, SIR.

[+][deleted] -21 points-20 points-19 points 14 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Let's start!

I'm going to be honest with you. This is the craziest most naive post I've ever read in my entire fucking life.

Immediately your underlying pettiness shines through.

you are the most arrogant ass I have ever encountered on the internet.

Followed by childish insults! How do you know your opponent has nothing substantial to say? That's right, kids! He resorts to infantile name-calling!

you should know that IRREGARDLESS isn't a fucking word.

I'm German. We could continue this debate in German and then I could nitpick your spelling and grammar mistakes.

freedom means having food and money whenever you want it.

Freedom means that your fate is determined by your decisions and not by unavoidable social circumanstaces.

You must be, what, fourteen?

Actually, attacking the person you're arguing with is a sign of immaturity and insecurity.

If you want to be free from hunger and poverty then you want to live in heaven because that's pretty much the defining characteristic of death.

I don't see how this has anything to do with this discussion.

It's also completely unrepresentative of the natural state of every organism on the planet.

So what? Do you equate nature with justice or moral correctness? If so, then you're committing the naturalistic fallacy.

Perhaps you should approach your mother and demand that she pay you for your time being forced to be alive and then demand that she continue to let you breast feed.

You're resorting to insults again. Why are you so angry? Did I hit a nerve?

Those are goods. They are services that someone has to provide.

Correct. That doesn't mean they can't also be rights. A right is merely an entitlement. You seem to simply presuppose that a very specific kind of free-market scheme should serves as a morally privileged benchmark. Those who find that only a more egalitarian set of social arrangements is ethically defensible, however, will (symmetrically) view the distributions that come about pursuant to a lasses-faire market scheme as involving rights infringing redistribution.

Therefore, you aren't entitled to them because you were born.

Somebody isn't entitled to something because he...is born? Huh...

They are services that someone has to provide.

You said that already. So what? If it is in my power to prevent somebody from dying, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, I ought, morally, to do it. Let's imagine a man is drowning in a lake and I could easily throw a lifebelt to him. According to your skewed view of morality, I would have no moral obligation to actually throw that lifebelt. I think there is something wrong with you, inside. You lack something that most people have - most likely a sense of compassion that equates to the overriding collective morality. It may be some kind of birth defect, or possibly a curse.

You should read about natural rights

I already have and I disagree with the account of rights you're referring to. You see, I actually studied philosophy and did some proper research. You probably read a few wikipedia articles and now think you're an expert. Cute.

[–]Kwashiorkor 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anxiousalpaca 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

and captures only half of what true freedom means

"True freedom" is subject to the definition of an individual, you can define true freedom as the absence of hunger, health problems, illiteracy, as an unlimited supply of pizza or whatever you want, i can define it as not being coerced. Trying to use your definition to show some kind of moral or intellectual superiority ("The ancap/libertarian concept of freedom is laughable") is pretentious.

In the later posts you also make silly assumptions you hold as truths without any evidence, instead of being cautious and allow for other opinions to be potentially true. For example:

A society without government will become a society with no restraint, since many people will run wild without a sense of accountability or consequence.

Only an institution that represents the entire population will promote the common good of the people

My definition does not require other people to do anything for me if they don't want it, yours would. It could work for some people to use my definition of a "passive" freedom as a foundation and put their definition of an "active" freedom on top of that for everyone that has the same opinion, not the other way around.
Your definition of freedom as inherent coercion is pretty nonsensical imo and it is a definition of freedom that was used in classical communism and in states like the former DDR.

[–]KissYourButtGoodbye 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tuldav93 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

That's an odd way to say that.

I'm not a native speaker but, to my knowledge, it's a pretty common phrase.

When somebody says "He will have a hard time winning that gold medal", then this doesn't mean that it's impossible to win that gold medal. Rather, that it is difficult to do.

My argument is there exist more libertarians than propertarian deontological libertarians and that the fact you don't know this

I knew this. In fact, I think I already debated one of each of these breeds. For some reason, you simply assumed that I'm clueless. So far, you haven't really shown me why.

You could cure your ignorance with a simple google search. I don't tend to put forth much effort to those I think are intellectually lazy.

I see, "ignorance" is just your rosary. You chant it like some apotropaic charm meant to ward off any criticism of your radical ideas. Gotcha!

Your failure to pursue this discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to ignore the problem instead of resolving it. Unless you can come up with something substantial next, I probably won't reply anymore.

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

"Hard time" acts on "consistent." In the future you should be more clear that the "hard time" acts on "getting people to accept it." As you didn't included the "getting people to accept it," anywhere in the sentence, paragraph, or entire comment, I don't think many would understand the point you were trying to make.

I don't think you understand the point I made. I said that "libertarians normally have a hard time to consistently include non-autonomous beings in their moral framework", i.e. that it is difficult for a libertarian to include non-autonomous beings in their moral framework and be consistent at the same time.

What is so hard to understand here? Sure a libertarian could "easily" say that all non-autonomous beings are simply the property of autonomous beings but barely anybody would be willing to say such a horrendous thing. In other words, they have a hard time to find a sensible solution.

Similarly, a theistic priest has a hard time to consistently justify all the suffering in the world, because he assumes that there is an all-powerful and all-good being in charge of the universe. Of course the priest could simply say that diseases and natural disasters are a good thing and therefore the existence of these things doesn't conflict with his position that there is a benign deity. However, since most priests wouldn't be willing to say this, they normally have a hard time to justify all the suffering in the world.

Got it now?

You represented propertarian, deontological libertarians as the only libertarians which exist. I doubt you have "debated" any other ones, actually.

To my knowledge, I simply said that libertarians only accept negative obligations/rights/freedoms. This is true for libertarians in general and not an unfair representation at all.

Please, either show me where I "represented propertarian, deontological libertarians as the only libertarians which exist", or apologize for your unfounded accusations.

You're ignorant b-b-b-because...uhhh...I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU! You're lazy! Whaaa whaa.

This is what I love about Libertarians. Not only do they refuse to improve themselves, they literally block out anything that endangers the lattice of self-delusion cradling their egos. Sure, you could pull a mea culpa and just admit that you didn't bring anything substantial to the table. You could own up to your limitations. You could internalize the criticism that you deserve and attempt to better yourself. You could even merely examine your life in light of the criticisms others raise against you. Any one of those would be a reasonable reaction.

But Libertarians aren't reasonable. So they say "haters gonna hate" and dig their heels in, lashing out at anybody who wonders what the fuck they are doing. You literally consciously alter your perception of others to validate your subversive ideology.

Why do Libertarians always do this?

I think it has to do with that old devil, the ego. Since Libertarians are by nature weak and unhealthy, physically and mentally, they have nothing in them to build a viable identity around.

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] -18 points-17 points-16 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]codefocus 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]maha420 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]curious67[S] 20 points21 points22 points 14 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drainedsoul 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]wigglepuffy -17 points-16 points-15 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Grubnar 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JockeVXO 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]getya 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drainedsoul 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grubnar -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pahncrd 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck 61 points62 points63 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarahC 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grubnar -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Spenzo2006 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CalmSpider 135 points136 points137 points 14 years ago (84 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xenoith 60 points61 points62 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]demengrad 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Irrel_M -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Irrel_M 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacksambuck 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Irrel_M -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (62 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]blueoak9 42 points43 points44 points 14 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (36 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mean0dean0 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Forgotten_Son 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mean0dean0 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mean0dean0 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SarahC 30 points31 points32 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ZMaiden 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]sheller96 -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ZMaiden 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]threemorereasons 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]grammatiker 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eleitl 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]eleitl 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pokepat460 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]pokepat460 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Forgotten_Son 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SarahC 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eleitl 21 points22 points23 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]eleitl 29 points30 points31 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]blueoak9 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarahC 27 points28 points29 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kmmeerts 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]demontaoist 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]demontaoist 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]demontaoist -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, I always skip class when we talk about child's rights. True story.

And yes, I meant I can see how the ECHR would find it illegal from studying its rulings. Their being infants certainly complicates things though. Obviously it's not a violation of human rights to deny an infant its autonomy. I imagine the opposite is true. I recently saw an article in like Science or some super popular magazine/journal with the headline "Do Infants Suffer?" or something. How much circumcision harms babies is hard to know (I think). I think it's a no brainer that it's extremely painful, but many people don't, and when you have no concept of what pain and suffering is, is it still suffering?

If a parent straps their child into a gurney and duct tapes their eyes open while throwing poisonous snakes at them in church, yeah I think that would violate their rights. If the parent just takes the kid to church and the kid whines on the way, they aren't exactly forcing the kid in the same way that circumcision potentially inflicts bodily harm on a child.

the ECHR would never, ever rule that "forcing" kids to go to church is an HR violation unless they wanted their court flooded with kids claiming their HRs are violated every time they are "forced" to go to school. Meanwhile, I have to go to work if I want to eat and live... but I live in America, outside of I-law's jurisdiction.

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]demontaoist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bflat13 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Lamar_Scrodum -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Gingor 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gwolf100 26 points27 points28 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilJohnCho 20 points21 points22 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grubnar 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragmoor 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bookishboy 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]eleitl 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]maha420 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Irrel_M 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]kmmeerts 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CAPTAIN_BUTTHOLE 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shrodingerstherapist 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarahC 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BOLDTHUMB 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I visited Auschwitz when I backpacked Europe. It was my first time traveling alone and I had just turned 19. It was an incredible experience. The place was just horrific, and that's when it was full of tourists instead of starving, abused people. The things that got to me most were the piles of personal belongings, like shoes and glasses. It really hits you that each one of those things belonged to a person -- probably totally innocent, and possibly a child. In all likelihood they were murdered somewhere not far from where I was standing.

The other thing that really got to me was the ovens. The sorts of thoughts that went through my head after being there, watching a documentary, and reading a very detailed book from the perspective of the SS... it's hard to explain how much pain I was able to feel secondhand. I have Polish and Jewish ancestry, but this has nothing to do with the emotions I felt. That anguish I experienced was for humanity. For the horrendous things we can do.

Comparing a ban on circumcision to the Holocaust is just shameful. It's behavior like this that just pushes us farther apart. As others have said in this thread, there is nothing inherently wrong with circumcision, but there is something wrong with inflicting a painful, permanent alteration on a child's body who has no capacity to opt out. Perhaps there were good reasons for circumcision historically, but there is plenty of evidence to show that this is no longer true.

Human progress is slow. There will always be those who resist the change. But it is inevitable.

[–]Scott2508 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]babno -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]almostchristian 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]picopallasi 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gingor 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DoppleBamger 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazypants88 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]phi_is_all -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -22 points-21 points-20 points 14 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–]Equa1 19 points20 points21 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 23 points24 points25 points 14 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -21 points-20 points-19 points 14 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 14 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -14 points-13 points-12 points 14 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -18 points-17 points-16 points 14 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]jubbergun 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -19 points-18 points-17 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Bleux33 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

" I'm loyal to both, but if my country were to impose an anti circumcision law, then that is them rejecting me and my way of life," * But that is the point though. It's YOUR way of life. It is one thing to teach your children the ideals and faiths you hold dear. And this is a freedom that I have and will defend with my life. Mainly because as your child grows to manhood he is still capable of making his own decision on whether on not to follow suit in his adult life. Circumcision on the other hand is a permanent physical change that the child has no choice in. When an infant child is circumcised, he doesn't know her is a Jewish child. He doesn't know of religion and the varied rites that accompany the many faiths of the world. All he knows is that he is in excruciating pain. The child has not chosen it. * I have no problem with the proceedure , but I am a strong advocate of it being reserved to medical neccessity or by choice of an adult male having reached the age of majority. Otherwise it is no better than forced circumcision / mutilation of female children. And yes I know, I do not know proper formatting.

[–]chavelah 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueoak9 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]geodebug 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sylvan 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]paints_reality 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]rusty890 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rusty890 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]johnmarkley -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Liverotto -32 points-31 points-30 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points37 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Liverotto -25 points-24 points-23 points 14 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

So explain to me why I as a German citizen should tolerate a religious minority to mutilate their babies when we as a society decide that it is wrong?

Pragmatismus.

I am against circumcision but I think a father should be allowed to have control of his minor son.

Beside this is the wrong battle to pick!

When this whole anti-circumcision thing inside the Men's Rights movement came to my attention I instantly thought this was a set-up to put the weakest lobby in Washington, the Men's Rights lobby, against its most powerful lobby, the Jewish lobby, it sounded like a Feminist trap from the get going.

With all the injustices men suffer in the Western world, where we are basically Dhimmis in a Feminist Theocracy the battle you choose to fight is against circumcision?

Are you insane?

And now where do you decide to fight that battle against a millenarian Jewish tradition, in Germany, of all places.

We are either MENTAL or manipulated by people smarter than us.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I am against circumcision but I think a father should be allowed to have control of his minor son.

I bet that you don't. Can a father decide that his son doesn't go to school, has sex before the age of 18 or enters a work relationship at a young age? I don't think so. We give parents a certain wiggle room but they can't just do with they're kids whatever they want.

When this whole anti-circumcision thing inside the Men's Rights movement came to my attention I instantly thought this was a set-up to put the weakest lobby in Washington, the Men's Rights lobby, against its most powerful lobby, the Jewish lobby, it sounded like a Feminist trap from the get going.

Do you also think that 911 was an inside job and that humans never landed on the moon?

With all the injustices men suffer in the Western world, where we are basically Dhimmis in a Feminist Theocracy the battle you choose to fight is against circumcision?

Yes, because circumcision is not a trivial thing.

And now where do you decide to fight that battle against a millenarian Jewish tradition, in Germany, of all places.

In front of the courts. The Bundesverfassungsgericht will decide. All the discussions and the outrage will ultimately lead to this and that's why it's necessary. I'm confident that the BVG will rule against circumcision. Maybe they won't but lets at least try.

[+]Liverotto -11 points-10 points-9 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mxalo 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Equa1 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mxalo 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Equa1 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mxalo 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Equa1 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mxalo 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Liverotto -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mxalo 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kmmeerts -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]geodebug 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]johnmarkley 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueoak9 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -17 points-16 points-15 points 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -16 points-15 points-14 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]jubbergun 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueoak9 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeannaimard 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeannaimard 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeannaimard -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jeannaimard -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blueoak9 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments

Pragmatismus.