[Chancellor]

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

It can only be put to rest when you stop doing it. What I post means exactly and only what I post. There is nothing to be read into them. There are no hidden meanings. There's nothing implied or inferred. Now, I insist that you stop lying about what I'm saying by engaging in such deceptive practices!

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 parents brought the child to the elders, not the courts (and don't give me this "well they were the ancient equivalent" nonsense because they weren't. Notice also that it was all of the men of the city that carried out the punishment - and not the courts. By the way, I cited this particular example as a law that was applied in a particular society - I wasn't saying anything about whether it's right, wrong or otherwise.

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).

Yes, but my Libertarian values are right and your leftist/socialist values are wrong. :)

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.

Parents having absolute authority over their children doesn't mean parents get to do whatever they want to their children. It is your deceptive practice of inferring that read into my posts the idea that parents are allowed to do whatever they want to their children.

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

No, we don't agree. Parents have absolute responsibility for their children and, therefore, absolute authority (which is not the same thing as saying they can do whatever they want to their children).

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?

Limited government is not impossible. The United States of America was founded as a limited federal government. It's the tendency of politicians, however, to usurp more and more power for government. Instead of letting government put its grubby hands on families, parents should be allowed to carry out their parental responsibilities without interference from the government. That is my position.

Absurd. Data is data. Ignore their interpretations if you disagree, but as long as you trust the scientific method, let data be data.

I don't trust the scientific method and I don't accept science as authoritative. Even if I did, data is not just data because there are humans involved and humans are automatically biased.

We have recorded and transcribed interviews. Do you think researchers forge interviews to support their leftist agenda?

We both know that questions can (and often are) worded in such a way to obtain a particular result.

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.

It's the fact that they have biases that color their perspective (whether liberal, conservative or otherwise) that automatically makes the science biased.

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.

Yes and there is nothing to be inferred from that fact.

But you don't believe in liberty for children!

No. Children are rightly under the authority of their parents - who are responsible for raising and nurturing the children. When the children become adults, then they have the liberties that adults have.

You believe in totalitarianism in the family.

I believe that because parents have moral (if not legal) responsibility for their children that they have the absolute authority to carry out that responsibility. Why you insist on calling it totalitarian (which only applies to governments), other than to inflame the discussion, I don't know.

So how can you claim to believe in liberty?

Yes. However, liberty does not mean anarchy and it does not mean libertine.

Every single abuse the government imposes on its citizens has a comparable abuse a parent may impose on their children.

How do you figure that?

So [why] are you so against government power and so in favor of parental power?

Because the parents birthed the children and the children are their responsibility, not the government's.

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?

What makes government power so much safer than parental power, given that governments take away liberties, torture their citizens, etc.? It isn't about which one is safer, it's about whose responsibility it is. The responsibility belongs exclusively to the parents.

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.

Why do you keep saying "power" when I was saying "authority"? Parents have the absolute authority to carry out their responsibilities as parents: all these things you keep bringing up about abuse and rape and torture, etc. are all straw men! What part of responsibilities do you not understand?