Should tobacco companies be allowed to give free cigarettes to children?

[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.

[Alive]

Quote by: 5010 Liability for damage caused to the individual by the harmful act, for starters.

Yes, this makes some sense. So can kids sue parents for giving them cigs when they are young? I think it better to impose and enforce ground rules at the start myself.

The people need to know the truth and when that is done the normal biological urge to protect our kids will fix the community.

Sadly, the biological urge to protect our kids is not absolute, and does fail often enough.

[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?

[Alive]

Chance,

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.

Sorry, but you are wrong. The elders were not the ancient equivalent of the courts, the elders WERE the courts (that is, they were the judges in the courts). Elder was not necessarily even a descriptor of age. The term senator means "old man" too but that's not its meaning in the current political sense (the Roman senators also ran their early judicial system).

Notice also that it was all of the men of the city that carried out the punishment - and not the courts.

Well even today the judge isn't the one pulling the switch on the electric chair. The whole point of bringing the offender to the courts is to attain court sanction for the execution. It's somewhat ironic that you take one of the books famous for being legalistic to support your position of arbitrary, extralegal parental power.

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

So: Murdering children is morally relativistic, but libertarianism is morally absolute. Interesting. Your moral system becomes stranger every time I look at it.

By the way, claiming that absolute parental authority is a libertarian position is an affront to every true libertarian. No true libertarian believes that anyone should have absolute power over any but themselves! It used to be that most who went under the mantle of libertarianism believed primarily in freedom; freedom from Church authority, freedom from government authority, freedom from as much authority as possible. While some still fight under that banner, it seems that many libertarians today seem more driven by hatred of government than love of freedom.

If you want to hold your perverted views, so be it. But please do not claim to be a libertarian. You are nothing of the sort.

Parents having absolute authority over their children doesn't mean parents get to do whatever they want to their children.

That is what it literally means!! If you have absolute authority over your children, then they must do everything you ask them to without the government interfering. Unless you are using a radically different definition of "authority" than I do.

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).

Ok, so tell me exactly what it IS saying.

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.

The problem is you are talking very much in generalities and not getting into specific responses which pose the hardest counterexamples to your general ideas. That is why it takes us so many posts just to get out of you that parents shouldn't be able to rape their children--that there are some limits as to how parents may raise their children.

You: 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.
Me: 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?

Then you go on to talk about something else but don't respond to my question. So, could you? Would it be better to have limited government that just restricted parental power a little to prevent the "occasional instance of abuse" than either extreme of absolute parental power or absolute state power over children? Or is the extreme of absolute parental power what you actually support?

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

So? That's what I'm saying. Data is data. You don't get to choose the data that is there, but you do get to analyze it however you'd like. As long as the interviews are real you can read the questions and determine for yourself whether it supports the conclusion of the researcher. That is why the scientific method is so effective, and has brought us so much knowledge in the modern world--it is the closest humans can get to objectivity.

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.

Then it is false to say it is liberty you believe in for the context of this discussion. In this discussion, you are arguing in favor of absolute power, while I am arguing in favor of limited power.

Why you insist on calling it totalitarian (which only applies to governments), other than to inflame the discussion, I don't know.

Because I think you are blind to the parallels between power anywhere and power anywhere else. I am in favor of limited parental authority for the exact same reasons I am in favor of limited government power. Power is always liable to corruption, which is why a limited balance of powers and a restrictive constitution is generally a good way of running governments. It is also why limited parental power and a set of rights of children is a good way of protecting children. The same concepts apply.

Of course you think that totalitarianism only applies to government; your viewpoint is extremely narrow in that regard. Somehow you miss the universal ideal of freedom which is not made less important by which entity is encroaching on that freedom.

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?

Well, name an abuse of government on its citizens and I'll name a comparable abuse of parents on their children. You of course already mentioned one--some governments kill citizens who act out of line even when those actions are of no threat to anyone, so do some parents.

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

But that's so arbitrary. Why does birthing have anything to do with who should be given the power? Where is the connection? Your moral system reminds me of the feudal one, with specific classes of people set in arbitrary positions in regards to one another, as determined by birth. It is (not) immoral for government to interfere in parenting in the same way it is (not) immortal for a serf to leave his lord. I thought in America the whole idea that birth should determine status was thrown out. But now you are putting it back in, if only for the childhood years; a person's childhood status should be entirely determined by the authority of the parent. That's what annoys me most about your moral system, it seems completely arbitrary. Why should who births who have anything to do with anything? It's completely random.

What makes government power so much safer than parental power, given that governments take away liberties, torture their citizens, etc.?

Nothing. They should be treated the same way.

Why do you keep saying "power" when I was saying "authority"?

I have been using them interchangeably. If you want me to stop using "power" in place of "authority", why not define authority in a meaningful way?

Saying "parents have the absolute authority to carry out their responsibilities as parents" means nothing to me. Tell me what powers the parents should be given over their children, and what parental powers should be limited by government.

[Captain Cardio]

To which I would answer, "none."

That's the problem right there - is that you don't feel the need to give a reason for your opinion. The debate doesn't end there - you need to provide some sort of reason for why you think the government shouldn't play any parental role.

Any powers not specifically given to the federal government under the Constitution belong to the states or to the people.

Are you saying social services, or age restrictions on movies are unconstitutional?

Or are you claiming the majority of Americans don't want social services or age restrictions for movies?

If the majority of Americans want those two things, shouldn't the constitution be amended to suit them, rather than have us dogmatically hold on to a dated piece of paper that erroneously represents our values? Or should we hold on, in the interests of appeasing you, the minority.

Yes the US should be sticking by it's constitution, or if it doesn't, it should go through the proper procedures for amendment, but appealing to it as the moral authority on an issue, especially when your stance on that issue doesn't represent the majority's desires, is not valid.

Since parents have a certain responsibility for their children and since children are not legally capable of running their own lives, some preference must be given to the rights of the parents.

You're interpretation of the above as 'some preference must be given to the rights of the parents', could just have easily have been interpreted as 'the government needs to get involved in some ways'. You're not really answering the question. - and you didn't even address the fact that the government is already involved in certain ways of which society largely approves - with other movie viewing restrictions and social services. You've taken an absolutist attitude toward this thread, and completely abandoned the actual issue.

Of course, that was specifically in response to "This is such a weird strain of American libertarianism, this concept that parents deserve complete control over their children." Would you have preferred I say "Parents do deserve complete control over their children"?

You missed the point entirely, we don't need you to spell out more specifically what you mean by "They do." we need you to provide some sort of convincing argument for why you believe that. If he says 'they don't', and you say 'they do', that isn't good enough if you want your argument to be considered persuasive or intelligent. 'They don't' - 'they do'. "Ya-huh" - "Na-huh". If you disagree with what somebody said, you should always say why. I don't know how to put it any simpler than that.

Do you understand that in making this statement I'm saying something about the underlying philosophy of what America is? Do you understand that in making this statement I'm saying that being a leftist/socialist (I use the terms synonymously) is inconsistent with the American ideals of limited government and maximized liberty.

Fine you were refering to an assumption about the underlying philosophy, but thats a bad assumption, because, depending on the practicality of the issue in question, there are socialist aspects to the US.

There are social services, there are legal age limits for buying certain goods, engaging in certain activities, or watching more mature material - . When you say that you' should kick the socialists out of America - and that thats a valid point with a deeper philosophy behind it' - thats disingenuous. As I have already stated - there are very, very few actual socialists, within America. There may be people who disagree with you on specific issues, and you might interpret their stance on a specific issues to be socialist, but just because one of their opinions coinsides with a non-relevant, larger political viewpoint, doesn't make them socialist - it's taking their viewpoint to the extreme - and the practicality or non practicality of that related to the actual issue comes into question.

It's like if I say it's a good philosophy to 'turn the other cheek' - somebody says "Oh, you must be Christian because of your opinion on that one thing", and suddenly say's Im stupid because I'm against gay marriage. What would that have to do at all, with the stand alone, original statement?

Identifying someone's political/philosophical bent isn't necessarily a bad thing and it's not your place to make any assumptions about how the term is being used.

That still says nothing about what the best course of action is. In this case, it clearly has been a bad thing, because like I've already said - you guys are trying to pigeon hole each other's view into an entire political stance - rather than acknowleging the specifics and that neither of you guys wants a socialist america or a totalitarian america. By saying you are identifying your opponents political/philosophical bent - isnt at all honest, because anybody with half a brain who has read your guys conversation, knows that that isn't what is going on. It is so obvious that you guys were trying to insult each other there. Seriously, who are you trying to kid? Did you think I wasn't going to notice, or call you on it again?

A person's particular position may indeed be a "right" (conservative), "left" (liberal), "socialist" (see "left") or "totalitarian" (see "right" and "left"). Using such terms as shorthand makes for shorter posts.

Nonononononono, there would be a very obvious difference between shorthand, and doing exactly what I pointed out that you were doing "only attempt to associate your opponent with something bad - basically, intelligent sounding ways of saying "well if you believe that, you're wrong"". If you are genuinely using short hand- and I sincerely don't believe that for a second - then its very, very bad short hand, because its wildly inaccurate to use that short hand in the conversation I've witnessed. That 'shorthand' puts down all sorts of completely inaccurate, non-relevant, dishonest implications about your opponents stance - in a way that is completely unnecessary to a coherent debate.

That doesn't make such involvement right and it's really beneath you to use the "Well, the government does it and so that makes it right" argument.

Again - you are dishonestly representing somebody you are debating with. I did not say the government does it, so that makes it right, - that is a very weak intrepretation. If I said that without backing up such a statement - yes, that would be beneath me. But that wasn't me making such a statement - it was you putting said words in my mouth to try and make me look wrong - and then say I'm wrong because of those words - that I never said.

What I was saying, which you have greviously and purposefully misinterpreted - was that by ignoring what the government is already doing to assist parenting - you are taking an absolutist attitude toward government and are not giving any credence to the notion of what's best for society or what is prefered by the majority in society.

The fact that most American citizens are fine with social services and age restrictions on certain products, says something.

If you are claiming that the current, minor government involvement in parenting is not right - well that's fine for you to have your opinion, but you need to provide much better reasons than simply "It is the parent's responsibility - not the governments" and leave it at that. That is not debate. Debate does not mean unbacked opinion fun hour with chancellor. Unless you have some reasoning, logic, substance, evidence or something to back up your opinion, we're not intererested in what you have to say. By continuing to debate in that manner, even after you are called on it - is an obvious slap in the face of the people at this site that are interested in serious, rational debate, and not the childlike dance around the issue that you've been doing.

[Captain Cardio]

Most Americans are sheeple and don't have a clue about what they want. They like the idea of the government providing all kinds of social programs and creating all these regulations to stick it to the rich and to the corporations. They have this entitlement mentality going on. But in order for government to provide all these things for them it has to violate the Constitution, usurp powers it does not rightly have, and effectively become a socialist state complete with a huge bureaucracy.

I don’t agree with the conclusions you’ve drawn, but if the American people as a majority wanted that, why do you think they should be forced to live in a system that the minority, you, wants?

Do we have to address why in a thread about whether tobacco companies should be allowed to give free cigarettes to children? Here's it what it comes down to: the parents brought the children into this world, the parents are responsible for them.

That says nothing about the rights of the children.

Obviously it's a wrongheaded view because it's like letting the inmates run the prison. Cambodia (or Laos) tried something like this by putting the children in authority over their parents after the United States pulled out of Viet Nam.

No, that’s again taking it to the extreme. We’re talking about social services and movie restrictions, not putting children in charge of their parents.

Quote: But regardless, I want to clarify again, that my interpretations are not up for scrutiny. I would merely like people to consider more in depth, an intelligent style of discussion, so we can move the tendancy more towards debate, and away from merely argument. That you posted it puts it up for scrutiny.

I was referring to my hypothetical interpretation of what you guys said - something I would hope you guys could do without somebody prompting you - not being up for scrutiny, because it wasn't the point. Of course if I actually state something, it is up for scrutiny, but I put absolutely none of myself behind the interpretations of what you guys might have been saying.

It's nice of you to make the attempt. Just understand that there is a place for the shorthand of using certain terms in the place of full sentences.

I understand the idea of shorthand perfectly thank you, but what you were typing that you refer to as ‘shorthand’ was not shorthand, it was just unsophisticated name calling dressed up to look like it was actually debate.

Granted, you guys have progressed your conversation somewhat since I posted, but when I did post, you guys were in the process of an unsophisticated, unproductive argument.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I don’t agree with the conclusions you’ve drawn, but if the American people as a majority wanted that, why do you think they should be forced to live in a system that the minority, you, wants?

Because they'll have to change the constitution, first.

[Captain Cardio]

Because they'll have to change the constitution, first.

I addressed that:

Yes the US should be sticking by it's constitution, or if it doesn't, it should go through the proper procedures for amendment, but appealing to it as the moral authority on an issue, especially when your stance on that issue doesn't represent the majority's desires, is not valid.

My argument was concerned specifically with using the constitution as a moral authority, rather than what the people of a democratic country want.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Captain Cardio That's the problem right there - is that you don't feel the need to give a reason for your opinion. The debate doesn't end there - you need to provide some sort of reason for why you think the government shouldn't play any parental role.

The question was asked and an answer was given. I don't usually feel the need to elaborate further unless someone asks for such elaboration. Now, to answer your further request for elaboration, I don't think government should play any parental role first because that is not a power that has been given to the American government, second because the government did not give birth to the children and, therefore, does not have the rightful responsibility for raising them.

Are you saying social services, or age restrictions on movies are unconstitutional?

On a federal level, yes.

Or are you claiming the majority of Americans don't want social services or age restrictions for movies?

Most Americans don't know any better. They want social services because they think they're getting something from the government (when it's really coming from the tax payers). They want age restrictions for movies so that they don't have to carry out their parental responsibility in deciding what they will and will not allow their children to watch.

If the majority of Americans want those two things, shouldn't the constitution be amended to suit them, rather than have us dogmatically hold on to a dated piece of paper that erroneously represents our values? Or should we hold on, in the interests of appeasing you, the minority.

This is the point you've been missing in what I've been saying. The only way the American people can cede to the federal government these powers is to either amend the Constitution or to scrap the Constitution and come up with a new one.

Yes the US should be sticking by it's constitution

To do otherwise is good cause for another revolution.

, or if it doesn't, it should go through the proper procedures for amendment, but appealing to it as the moral authority on an issue, especially when your stance on that issue doesn't represent the majority's desires, is not valid.

Amending the Constitution is itself constitutional. But, yes, for our constitutional republic the Constitution is the only moral authority on any issue that involves the federal government.

You're interpretation of the above as 'some preference must be given to the rights of the parents', could just have easily have been interpreted as 'the government needs to get involved in some ways'.

No, it can't - unless you're reading into it. I'll tell you what I've said to others: my posts mean exactly and only what I post and not what you or others read into them. There is nothing being implied or inferred and there is nothing written between the lines. Now, to clarify the statement I made, some preference must be given to the rights of the parents - over the "rights" of the children (whether children even have rights is subject to debate).

You're not really answering the question. - and you didn't even address the fact that the government is already involved in certain ways of which society largely approves - with other movie viewing restrictions and social services. You've taken an absolutist attitude toward this thread, and completely abandoned the actual issue.

I did address it by saying that just because the government is involved doesn't make it right. It doesn't matter that society largely approves because it's still not right. If society wants to cede such powers to the federal government they must either amend the Constitution or replace it with a new one. And, yes, that is absolute!


CONTINUED...

[Chancellor]

You missed the point entirely, we don't need you to spell out more specifically what you mean by "They do." we need you to provide some sort of convincing argument for why you believe that. If he says 'they don't', and you say 'they do', that isn't good enough if you want your argument to be considered persuasive or intelligent. 'They don't' - 'they do'. "Ya-huh" - "Na-huh". If you disagree with what somebody said, you should always say why. I don't know how to put it any simpler than that.

But he didn't say "they don't." He said, "This is such a weird strain of American libertarianism, this concept that parents deserve complete control over their children." Now, if someone wants me to explain why, he or she can ask. Oh, by the way, I'm not making arguments or engaging in debate, I'm having a conversation.

Fine you were refering to an assumption about the underlying philosophy, but thats a bad assumption, because, depending on the practicality of the issue in question, there are socialist aspects to the US.

There is nothing socialist about the form of government established under the Constitution and I resent you suggesting that there are.

There are social services, there are legal age limits for buying certain goods, engaging in certain activities, or watching more mature material.

Just because the government has usurped authority it does not have doesn't make it right (referring specifically to the federal government here). What state and local governments do is their concern (though, arguably, the 14th amendment puts them under the same constitutional limits as the federal government).

When you say that you' should kick the socialists out of America - and that thats a valid point with a deeper philosophy behind it' - thats disingenuous. As I have already stated - there are very, very few actual socialists, within America.

Oh, they may not belong to the American Socialist Party but they are actual socialists. Any time you start believing that it's the role of government to provide social services, otherwise take care of its citizens' needs from cradle to grave, or that we must look to government for solutions to problems is socialist. And there is no place for such a view here in America because it is contrary to everything the founding fathers fought for (there, I provided a why for you without you even asking).

There may be people who disagree with you on specific issues, and you might interpret their stance on a specific issues to be socialist, but just because one of their opinions coinsides with a non-relevant, larger political viewpoint, doesn't make them socialist - it's taking their viewpoint to the extreme - and the practicality or non practicality of that related to the actual issue comes into question.

It isn't about whether they agree or disagree with me - I really don't care whether they agree or disagree with me. It's about what their views represent. Some of these people are of a mindset that looks to government as problem-solver, looks to government to fix things, etc. and that is socialist.

It's like if I say it's a good philosophy to 'turn the other cheek' - somebody says "Oh, you must be Christian because of your opinion on that one thing", and suddenly say's Im stupid because I'm against gay marriage. What would that have to do at all, with the stand alone, original statement?

Some people in Volconvo do that kind of thing to me (usually based on how they interpreted what I said and not the actual words that I posted). What's your point? Yes, I do refer to some people as socialists or leftists or other such things but it's because of views they've presented in a number of different threads (or because they're from Canada :) ), not just this one.

That still says nothing about what the best course of action is.

People disagree on what the best course of action is. I and some others here would say the best course of action would be where the government stays within its constitutional bounds.

In this case, it clearly has been a bad thing, because like I've already said - you guys are trying to pigeon hole each other's view into an entire political stance - rather than acknowleging the specifics and that neither of you guys wants a socialist america or a totalitarian america.

I'm not convinced that he doesn't want a socialist America and he's using "totalitarian" to refer to my view about parental authority and not government authority.

By saying you are identifying your opponents political/philosophical bent - isnt at all honest, because anybody with half a brain who has read your guys conversation, knows that that isn't what is going on.

That's the problem: those of you who are trying to assign motives seem to be operating with only half a brain (I'm kidding). Seriously, though, it is not your place to assign motives. I am identifying someone's political/philosophical bent, it is honest for me to do so, and just because I am indentifying a particular bent doesn't mean I'm also using the term assigned to that bent pejoratively. Understand this: I mean exactly and only what I post and it is not your place or anyone else's to try to assign motives or to assume I mean anything other than what I post.

It is so obvious that you guys were trying to insult each other there. Seriously, who are you trying to kid? Did you think I wasn't going to notice, or call you on it again?

See above.

Nonononononono, there would be a very obvious difference between shorthand, and doing exactly what I pointed out that you were doing "only attempt to associate your opponent with something bad - basically, intelligent sounding ways of saying "well if you believe that, you're wrong"".

It's shorthand, get over it! You assume that just because someone is using a term that they're using it with a particular motive and it's not your place to do that. You wrongly assume that just because I refer to someone as a socialist or a leftist that I'm doing it in order to insult him or her. If one believes in what one believes then using the correct label for those beliefs is not an insult.

If you are genuinely using short hand- and I sincerely don't believe that for a second - then its very, very bad short hand, because its wildly inaccurate to use that short hand in the conversation I've witnessed.

It's shorthand, get over it! It's not your place to try to assign motives to people.

That 'shorthand' puts down all sorts of completely inaccurate, non-relevant, dishonest implications about your opponents stance - in a way that is completely unnecessary to a coherent debate.

No, not inaccurate, not irrelevant, not dishonest, and not implications. You need to stop reading things into what people post because that is dishonest.

Again - you are dishonestly representing somebody you are debating with. I did not say the government does it, so that makes it right, - that is a very weak intrepretation. If I said that without backing up such a statement - yes, that would be beneath me. But that wasn't me making such a statement - it was you putting said words in my mouth to try and make me look wrong - and then say I'm wrong because of those words - that I never said.

No, I'm being entirely honest about it. You were arguing that the government is already doing it - as if to say that this must be considered right. In response to that, I said, "That doesn't make such involvement right and it's really beneath you to use the 'Well, the government does it and so that makes it right' argument." Like it or not, by insisting that I must give consideration to the fact that government already does things to "assist" (I would say "interfere with") parenting is saying, in this context, that because government does it that makes it right for them to do so. If you don't mean that it's right for government to do it (because they are doing it), then appealing to the fact that government is already doing it was inappropriate.

What I was saying, which you have greviously and purposefully misinterpreted - was that by ignoring what the government is already doing to assist parenting

See above.

- you are taking an absolutist attitude toward government and are not giving any credence to the notion of what's best for society or what is prefered by the majority in society.

You'd better believe I'm taking an absolutist attitude toward government! It has no role that the Constitution does not give it. If you don't like such absolutism, that's your right. As for what's best for society, what's best is for the government to stay within its constitutional bounds and otherwise keep its nose out of people's lives. As for what is preferred by the majority, the United States of America is not a democracy: what the founding fathers gave us was intended, in part, to protect us from the tyrrany of the majority. Besides, if the majority of society prefers to stupidly cede their liberties to the government or to have the government take care of it from cradle to grave, the majority of society is free to try and have the Constitution amended or to scrap it for an entirely new Constitution.

The fact that most American citizens are fine with social services and age restrictions on certain products, says something.

That they're nothing more than sheeple.

CONTINUED...

[Chancellor]

If you are claiming that the current, minor government involvement in parenting is not right - well that's fine for you to have your opinion, but you need to provide much better reasons than simply "It is the parent's responsibility - not the governments" and leave it at that. That is not debate. Debate does not mean unbacked opinion fun hour with chancellor. Unless you have some reasoning, logic, substance, evidence or something to back up your opinion, we're not intererested in what you have to say. By continuing to debate in that manner, even after you are called on it - is an obvious slap in the face of the people at this site that are interested in serious, rational debate, and not the childlike dance around the issue that you've been doing.

The government's involvement is not minor and it is not right. Also, parental responsibility is just that: parental responsibility. It's not government responsibility, it's not societal responsibility, and it is reason enough to explain why the government needs to butt out.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Captain Cardio I don’t agree with the conclusions you’ve drawn, but if the American people as a majority wanted that, why do you think they should be forced to live in a system that the minority, you, wants?

Because the founding fathers specifically designed our form of government to protect us from the tyrrany of the majority. This is not a democracy and "majority rule" does not apply. If the majority of the American people want the government to do something or if they stupidly want to cede more power to the federal government, they must either amend the Constitution or they must scrap it for an entirely new one.

That says nothing about the rights of the children.

First, you assume that children even have rights. Second, it wasn't intended to address whether children have rights or what those rights. Try reading what people post instead of looking for hidden meanings! I'll ask again, "Do we have to address why in a thread about whether tobacco companies should be allowed to give free cigarettes to children?"

No, that’s again taking it to the extreme. We’re talking about social services and movie restrictions, not putting children in charge of their parents.

No, it's not taking anything to the extreme; I used a simile (one thing is like another) and I cited an example from history. I was challenging the view that children should not be under parental authority or that parental authority should be limited.

I was referring to my hypothetical interpretation of what you guys said - something I would hope you guys could do without somebody prompting you - not being up for scrutiny, because it wasn't the point.

The only correct interpretation of what we said was what we actually said. We were engaged in conversation (I presume you know what a conversation is).

Of course if I actually