[Alive]

Quote by: Chanc No, "logically implies" is your interpreation.

Well, no, but I think this section of our argument can be put to rest.

Actually, no, it wasn't "the courts" responsible for doing the stoning.

Actually yes, it was.

KJV Deut 21: 18-21
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Note how the entire event is public and sanctioned by society in general. We do NOT have private killing of children for discipline, the parents have to bring their case to the courts (the elders) and then tell what evil their child did. Then the entire city collectively stones him--again, the parents are not the individual disciplinarians, but the community as a whole. Note also the list of evils that make the child liable for stoning--all public offenses except possibly the "will not obey our voice." The system is not arbitrary. The parent have no right to kill their children for any old offense, just the ones specified.

The entire point of the OT, after all, is that there is a higher law--a higher law than kings, a higher law than individuals, and a higher law than parents. I agree with that, though I might disagree with what that higher law is.

The point, of course, was that some of the things your leftist mind seems to think is abuse was actually required by law in some societies (such as killing children under certain circumstances). That doesn't make such things either right or wrong (except as interpreted by our respective cultural values).

Some of the things your totalitarian mind seems to think is too power-restrictive were actually required by law in some societies (such as taking custody away from parents under certain circumstances.) That doesn't make such things either right or wrong (except as interpreted by our respective cultural values).

In most societies there are laws against rape. Parents can be charged accordingly. That has nothing to do with parental authority over their children.

Ah, so you relent, as I knew you must. Parent can't do whatever they want to their children--they can be charged with rape if they rape them. I don't see how this has nothing to do with parental authority, of course; it has everything to do with it. It is the first restriction you agreed should be imposed on what parents may do with their children.

So we finally agree-parents should not have absolute power over their children. Debate over?

My point, of course, is that if you give the government an inch it'll take a mile. Is it better to have a situation where there is an occasional instance of abuse in order to let parents keep their intrinsic authority over their children than it is to have a nanny state where government usurps the role of parents? Yes.

Ah, so ideally we would have limited government restricting parental power only in extreme instances but because limited government is impossible, we must give the parents completely absolute power? Would you say that is your position?

So, their studies cannot be trusted exactly because of who they work for.

Absurd. Data is data. Ignore their interpretations if you disagree, but as long as you trust the scientific method, let data be data. We have recorded and transcribed interviews. Do you think researchers forge interviews to support their leftist agenda? If so, you have a perverted view of science. I admit they are liberals, but they are scientists first, and while their liberalism may color their perspective, their data is sound nevertheless.

Do cases of sexual abuse happen? Yes. Are parents sometimes perpetrators? I suspect they are more so than strangers are. Oh, and I also know people who have been sexually abused by their parents.

Ok, then we agree on all relevant information, no need for further discussion on this aspect of the discussion--some parents do molest their children.

No, I believe in liberty as opposed to government control and intervention.

But you don't believe in liberty for children! You believe in totalitarianism in the family. So how can you claim to believe in liberty? Every single abuse the government imposes on its citizens has a comparable abuse a parent may impose on their children. So we are you so against government power and so in favor of parental power? What makes parental power so much safer than government power, once you already admit that some parents go so far as to rape their children?

Because I suspect that for you "abuse" means more than just rape, torture and murder.

Of course. So? The argument does not change at its fundamentals. Parents should not have absolute power to abuse their children. If we agree on that, we can argue over what abuse means. But we don't agree on that, so I am arguing that first.