Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
In fact, I don't believe in absolute "rights", period. "rights" are whatever society chooses to grant you.

---

And if society chooses not to grant "rights" to you? Say a Bangladeshi community that doesn't think you have a right to live because you "seduced" a married man and are now impure and defiled? Or if your Alabama town says you don't have a right to sit anywhere you like on the bus because of how much pigmentation your skin has?

So the whole concept of Creator-endowed, unalienable rights...that's all hogwash?

I have to believe all human beings have inherent rights to equality and dignity. Underlying the right to dignity is the cardinal right to self-ownership and privacy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
They are smaller, more influence-able, with much less world experience, intelligence, and an incomplete moral center or code and MUCH more likely to lie, especially to avoid punishment.

---

Quote:

---

They are also subject to the same mental diseases and incapacites as the rest of us but probably far less understanding of them and less coping mechanisms.

---

Quote:

---

A responsible parent knows what their kid is doing, and where they are AT ALL TIMES until such a time as they can prove reliability and maturity and there is no magical age for that to happen.

---

Quote:

---

If locker searches and pat-downs save one more kid from Colombine (which these days is more likely to happen than not) do it!

---

Quote:

---

Having a life is WAAAAY more important than being teed off for a while.

---

Quote:

---

They are not as able to protect themselves, so it should be done for them. Freedom is not free, even for kids.

---

Quote:

---

Or do nothing and hope for the best. May your suprises NOT be terminal.....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"If locker searches and pat-downs save one more kid from Colombine"

Hello,

http://www.amazon.com/Columbine-Dave-Cullen/dp/0446546933

I recommend this book. There is a lot of misunderstanding about Columbine and what might have happened there. To be brief, locker searches and pat-downs would not have saved anybody from Columbine.

On the issue of children, this is how I feel:

As soon as a person is capable of requesting a certain degree of privacy, I am inclined to grant it. I expect that most children would accept the gift of a cell phone, even knowing that it might be used to track their position in the event of an emergency. If not? Well, those of us over thirty somehow survived without tracking devices monitoring our positions.

Something I cannot stress enough is this: A person who wants their privacy will have it. They will lie, hide, and maneuver in order to obtain it. If you make invasions part of a person's life, they will begin to connive ways to avoid the invasions. It is nothing more than a war of escalation. Is this the relationship you want with loved ones?

My bedroom door used to have a peeper on it, like an outside door. You could peep into the room and see what I was up to. I disabled it permanently as soon as I could figure out how. This infuriated my mother. She ordered that I keep my door open. I did not. She wanted my door removed. My father wisely decided to end the escalating events here. I know my next act would have been to destroy their bedroom door.

My school materials were regularly searched. I stopped keeping anything important in my school effects. I lied to my mother constantly about anything I felt she might get upset about. Eventually, the lies became truth. I actually learned to forget things on demand, compartmentalizing events away from myself, just so that my own guilt and subconscious would no longer betray me.

Yes, in order to secure privacy, I learned to hide things from myself.

Even if you believe in the moral justification of intrusion, it is a pointless endeavor. There is no magic device that will intrude sufficiently into the lives of those who want privacy. Because it is a war that you can not win, it makes little sense to fight it. All you do is create anger, fear, and frustration.

The end result of intrusion for a society is worse than any consequence of not knowing something.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Permission is not necessary because they are children. They do not have the ability the knowledge nor the experience to make some of the choices for their lives.

---

Quote:

---

Therefore we ultimatly only have those rights we grant oursleves and are willing to fight for.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
In your view, is the Golden Rule not applicable to children then? (e.g. I don't want to be spied on, so I don't spy on my kids.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Is permission not necessary at all until they are no longer "children" (however you wish to define that)? Or is permission unavailable because children are unable to give it? Or is it both (neither necessary nor available)?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I would contend permission is necessary to govern any human being. As very immature humans, young children are unable to give permission to be governed, and parents give themselves permission to govern on their children's behalf--a proxy consent if you will. As children mature and take over increasing governorship of their own bodies and lives, parents must relinquish that "proxy consent" in favor of real consent if they must continue to govern.

So for me, permission is always necessary, but not always available. I think it is important for parents to remember they have no more right to govern a child without consent than the govt has to govern us without consent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
That right being inherent or not does not affect if you get that right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think we're getting closer to an agreement but we're not there yet.

I would argue that if someone feels the need to fight to obtain a right, then that means that right must on some level exist and be known by that person despite society not recognizing that right.

If ANYONE would feel they had been wronged by a transgression against that right, even if society hadn't clearly delineated that right, then such a right must be universal, or in other words "."

No creator necessary. The invocation of the creator in the famous phrase does not in fact require a creator to distribute those rights, but is simply an antiquated way of saying "rights that we all naturally recognize" by someone who actually didn't particularly believe in a creator.

---

Quote:

---

I mean, jeez, sick kids are vastly better patients than sick adults, haven't you noticed? And not just because you can push 'em around, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I think parents giving themselves permission to govern small children is no different then doing it without permission.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
It is no different in action, at the time. But remembering they NEED permission to govern will affect how they treat the kids as they get older. It is the difference between treating a child as a slave (albeit kindly) until the date of emancipation, and treating a child as a sovereign who needs to give consent before being told what to do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Nick: That would be where that whole "anyone would see it as a transgression" paragraph comes in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
If that is your stance you are ignoring that fact that people make bad decision, even when perfectly well informed, sometimes.

---

Quote:

---

Then all rights become selfish.

---

Quote:

---

Even the right to life would then change. I doubt many people who were shot by someone defending themselves thought, "this is okay since I am attacking him."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Um. Kay. If you say so.

I recall saying nothing of the sort, since I was making the point that it's absolutely pointless to flip out on teenage children, because parents should have already provided the foundation of choices, consequences, and good decision making. Anything beyond providing said foundation is useless and will do a teenager no good whatsoever, and poking around their underwear drawer looking for "evidence" is worse than useless. I never said that nobody did stupid things if they knew better, I said that sixteen is way too late to try to make the point to one's child. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't turn things I say into bizarre absolutes about things I never mentioned.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Ah, you misunderstood me.

There ARE a few things that generally produce a horrified reaction across every culture among the sane, because if those things weren't seen as a horrific, that culture would not survive past a couple generations, you see?

For example, people do not generally approve of rape. There are of course instances in cultures where maybe the victim tends to get blamed, and of course there are some people who fetishize it, but we can't really consider that the norm. Even the Ancient Greeks, who were rather rape happy, had it's share of protective fathers. The horrified reaction has many possible instinctual or genetic causes, but it's still pretty uniform. I'd speculate that if rape were the standard in a theoretical small village groups, that village would quickly become inbred and die out, leaving only the populations of humans who think it is awful. And, of course, invading tribes committing rape would also generate an instinctive fear and reaction to it - that can also wipe out the tribe.

Murder is also often generally frowned upon (minus, once again, those with psychological issues or a fetish).

Even among cannibal tribes, they don't kill their own members just to eat them (though they might administer capital punishment, but in that case usually the tribe member isn't eaten). They either eat enemy tribes, or wait for that member of their tribe to die of old age. It's also not a sign of disrespect - it's more symbolic of gaining the other person's strength and power (which is why they don't eat their criminals - disrespect).

So murder and rape are two that are probably always wrong, and people generally expect to be able to go about their lives without a whole lot of rape or murder happening to them. People in a society write themselves laws to help make sure it doesn't happen to them. But people not in a society will also fight to keep it from happening to them. So there must be a right people wish to assert to not be murdered or raped.

Quote:

---

Even the right to life would then change. I doubt many people who were shot by someone defending themselves thought, "this is okay since I am attacking him."

---

This kind of hits at what I'm getting at. There's actually a number of societies that only believe killing in self-defense is acceptable only IF the person who was killed was THREATENING lethal force themselves. Or for rape.

Ultimately, killing someone or raping someone is probably the worst thing you could do to anyone. No matter what culture they're from, they're not going to think "this is fun!"

That said, I LIKE self-defense, though I think anyone who's going to do it needs to be competent enough that they don't kill anyone who's not threatening lethal force.

Let me think about your police example, but suffice to say, no, I don't think this inherently makes the concept of rights selfish.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think we're getting closer to an agreement but we're not there yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Well, my argument is more that with some very few exceptions that I don't think represent normal human behaviour, NO group likes murder or rape, and that dislike exists even when there isn't really a society or specific laws to speak of.

And definitely no one likes it being done to them, so we have some kind of general human reaction to it.

I mean, if we want to go down that route, maybe living is selfish. But that doesn't really change anyone's feelings about living or the fact that dying/being murdered is usually not something they want to have happen to them. And since living can result in as much positive outcomes as it can negative outcomes, I have a hard time really seeing it as selfish.

And maybe, and I know this sentiment is not going to be liked by anyone, because I'm not sure I like it either, maybe something selfish like someone like a convicted murderer having their house searched by police and feeling transgressed upon can still be an issue of rights.

I suppose if someone is asserting what they believe to be their right, I suppose I don't see that as selfish until they transgress upon someone else. I dissociate the two concepts. Yet I'm not sure I'm incorrect to do so.

---

Quote:

---

If people, an individual or group can justify an act against someone else but not agaist themselves how can that act be some sort of natural right? I don't think it can be.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:M52Nick: Yanno, that picking up the toys issue would be a great intro for educating them about personal and shared property rights - one could point out that yes, it's your toy, but it happens to be in a shared travel area, and that's like parking your car across a road other people are using, thus it's a matter of selfish behavior that wrongs others, and just like the police will tow a car that does that, if you do not remove that toy in ten minutes (which I'd stretch to fifteen, cause, yanno, learning experience) I will impound it for a while.

Of course, at those ages it might be a little early, but it's well worth educating about personal and mutual/shared property rights as soon as the concepts can be comprehensible to them whatever - sure, it's your toy, but it's everyones hallway, yes ?
And yes, sometimes a child "helping" isn't very helpful - but you never do know what's going to stick, in their head, and sometimes they learn things which keep forever, five isn't too early to teach the basic concept of right-makes-tight, left-makes-loose... the very basics, yes ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Pretty simple, because back in those days a tribe didn't even see another tribe as human. But they'd react how I describe if they saw it happening to members of their OWN tribe. Therefore the reaction I speak of was still in place, and appears to be very much ingrained. It's just nowadays people are more aware and tolerant of other people (and don't consider them sub-human animals, not that it's right to do this thing to sub-human animals either), and so the reaction has actually become broadened. But the roots are still the same.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Yes you need to keep a careful constant eye on little Johnny when is 3 because he might fall in the pond and drown, but you shouldn't have to worry about him falling in the pond when he is 10. If you are hovering over him then, you are kind of doing him a disservice.

If you are going to give your adolescent access to mobile phones, cars, credit cards and whatever else parents do, then you are kind of telling them you trust them to behave responsibly with all those things. You can't let them loose and then sneakily monitor them, you are simply giving conflicting messages.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
So what is a parent to do if they did provide that foundation and find out their teenager is taking drugs?

---

Quote:

---

Also just to point out that privacy, right or otherwise, varies from culture to culture. In many places, especially within the family, there is no privacy. People eat, sleep and shit communally.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
""There are no bad kids. Only bad parents.""

Hello,

I must say that I do not agree with this. As a child, I met some people of moral derangement whose actions and attitudes were not easily attributable to their upbringing or family environment. I consider such children to be rare as good-luck-clovers, but they do exist.

When we give people the freedom to choose, they will sometimes choose wrongly. A few will choose wrongly with diabolical relish and some will do so with cold, detached disregard.

The first thing I look at when I see a 'bad' child (though I hesitate to use that term) is the family and their history. But I try not to forget to look at the child, too. Some sociopaths are made, brick by brick, by life's experiences.

But I am in no way convinced that all are constructed this way. If there can be a defect of body- a short arm- a bad eye- a malfunctioning pancreas- a flat foot- then we should not discount the possibility that there are malfunctions which govern behavior as well.

And I even believe it may be possible that some such behavioral aberrations are not merely 'malfunctions,' but genetic residue from the process of evolution and human development on a vast scale. In essence, we may have built societies that select such individuals for success.

Of course, this is a biased observational opinion bereft of scientific validity. But if nothing else, we cannot give the child the freedom of choice and then damn the parents for all bad choices made.

The parent is responsible to instruct, nurture, protect, and provide. The child is responsible for all the rest as they ascend towards adulthood. The ability to protect a growing child from their own choices is mitigated by the necessity that they grow into independent beings. Most often, everything will work out when the formula is right. But not always. I will not levy a flat condemnation of the parent when it does not. Not without evidence of wrongdoing.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

I said that seemed to be what you were arguing. Heck you seem to still being doing it, "because parents should have already provided the foundation of choices, consequences, and good decision making."

So what is a parent to do if they did provide that foundation and find out their teenager is taking drugs?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I will not levy a flat condemnation of the parent when it does not. Not without evidence of wrongdoing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
It's just that the state took no responsibility for administering punishment for that crime. Not that there was no reaction to murder, or even no punishment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I said that seemed to be what you were arguing. Heck you seem to still being doing it, "because parents should have already provided the foundation of choices, consequences, and good decision making."

---

Quote:

---

Rights and values are NOT universal. They are generally accepted as being such by a majority.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Is your argument, then, that parents should not provide any such foundation before their children are in their mid-teens because it might not work? Is your argument that it is better to flip out and go paranoid on a teenager than not to, even if you have already given them all the information you can? Is your argument that teenagers cannot be trusted, no matter what, and they are the "property" of their parents, who have every right to monitor their every move, "just in case"? Because that certainly seems to be what you are arguing. And if it is, I honestly hope you don't have children.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

Rights and values are NOT universal. They are generally accepted as being such by a majority.

---

I disagree, obviously.

Magons, I see you edited some comments about Romans, but I thought I might try to address them anyway.

I would still say having a different value system is not the same thing having NO moral qualms about murder.

They made slaves fight to the death for entertainment, they had the same value system regarding women that most European cultures have had until about a CENTURY ago, they could (apparently) retaliate lethally against someone else.

But we have this stereotype of ancient Rome as this over-decadent hyper-military and completely treacherous backstabbing society. But you have to take that with a grain of salt, because like with most history, you tend to only hear the bad reported - for example, Romans would also probably be appalled by our policies towards the poor, because they had a program that distributed bread among the poor and hungry. Also, keep in mind that once the Roman Empire fell and Christians no longer had to suck up to them, the church had no qualms about portraying those awful pagan Romans as horrible people.

(Pontus Pilate still gets off easy, and the Jewish are more implicated than the Romans even though the original stories were about one man, Jesus, angry over the treatment of his people, the Jews, in a Roman principality)

But the average person in Rome... I don't think based on a historical anecdote about husbands killing their wives and children (again, not too different from the history in most places) we can conclude that was anywhere NEAR standard practice, and logic dictates it couldn't be because the civilization simply would have collapsed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... I strongly, even bitterly, disagree with that assessment ..."
"... the absence of normal parenting ... is the reason the kids create extreme situations."

I think there is a fundamental (and childish) assumption on which these statements are based, which is that parents are totally in control, and therefore totally responsible. It's the old 'blame the parent' response of a dependent.

If you look at the general situation of group-living species where the young are dependent on the adults - meerkats or wolf packs or chimps for example - a misbehaving youngster could put the group (or themselves) at risk. Eg, one that doesn't hide when a predator comes around, or wanders too far from shelter or the group. All adults have ways of correcting and teaching the young to keep them from being a hazard to the group (or to themselves).

No dependent group-living youngster is totally free from having their behavior intruded on. It's a biological necessity for group survival (and the youngster's survival).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
The lack of laws about murder in a society does not mean that society was amoral about it.

Imagine, for example, a society with no written code of law but that still has some non-verbal implicitly understood agreement. For a society that has some laws but none for a particular act, but that particular act has some understood non-verbal consequences attached to it, like Rome, you have to take in the non-verbal implicit agreement into consideration. i.e. If you raped someone's daughter or killed a family member, someone was going to come stab you on the steps of the forum - an honour society. Remember what I said about a hypocrisy not necessarily taking away from the initial reaction to murder? We are talking about retaliation against a perceived wrongdoing, not ENDORSEMENT of it.

I would have to read your book to confirm it's historical accuracy, but taking it face value as true for now. There may have been more murder was done in Rome, perhaps, but the fact that families dealt out any punishment for it suggests that it was still considered wrong (in fact, a grieving Roman mother or father or other family member would go to temples to pray for murderers to be cursed).

It's just that the state took no responsibility for administering punishment for that crime. Not that there was no reaction to murder, or even no punishment.

And no, not scoping who to kill. That is an inaccurate interpretation of that society.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

I would still say having a different value system is not the same thing having NO moral qualms about murder.

---