/townhall/ - Townhall

>>11757
>You can get more human rights if you don't interact with children.

I think some elaboration is needed.

>>11758
I think we're arguing about pedophilia again.

>>11764
>arguing about pedophilia again
I...maybe.  I mean, not really, but I suppose there's a claim that human rights and pedophilia are connected, usually when it comes to rights concerning gender and sexual orientation.  And pedophiles are human and have human rights, and maybe that's a very good special case where they are safest avoiding children.  So kinda about pedophilia, but not really.

>>11758
>I think some elaboration is needed.
Human rights are often held back by an argument that they will harm children ("think of the children").  If you avoid children, you can get the deluxe version of human rights because you don't have to wait for those freedoms to no longer be seen by some as impure.

>>11767
>>11765
Be careful. Human rights is a very laden term.
The right to abuse children (sexually, physically or through neglect) or to have sex with another human being while discarding their right to consent, should not be a human right.

I feel like Think of the children can be considered a tool to put rights away in a societal level of sense though, but that doesn't really depend as much on a person's proximity towards kids.

>>11775
If I remember right, I replied to this post, then deleted it because I felt things had just gone off the rails and it didn't matter.  I'm not sure why this is at the front.

Anyway, if it matters, the thread was never suppose to be about actual child abuse, it was about the drag queens reading to kids in libraries thing.  Granted, some would consider that child abuse or pedophilia, and maybe that's some of the point too -- opinions seem more varied on what is appropriate for children than for adults, and you'd have more freedom to do drag, be an atheist, or whatever, if you avoided kids.  You'd offend fewer people and more people would leave you be.

And while I kinda don't want to get into it, human rights theory posits that pedophiles have human rights.  And to be clear, as apparently that is not, that does not mean pedophilia is a human right.  It is merely a specific example of the inalienability of human rights -- no human can do or be anything that causes them to cease to deserve human rights.

This feature of human rights theory makes it highly controversial, I grant, but I don't think I'm applying it incorrectly in this case.

I wonder that maybe altruistic adults should just accept that children don't have rights. Parents do. And if parents wish to dispose of their children due to their being inferior and a disappointment such as by  turning out atheistic, disabled, transgender, bisexual, or whatever else, the the parents should discard those children rhe same as one would get rid of a faulty toaster oven or a damaged automobile.

I certainly can't say that I personally have either the physical or mental health in terms of my constitution to fight for the wellbeing of children that aren't my own. I wish I did. Yet I don't. Why not let parents be parents and enact their wills upon their property, in accordance with God's will? Maybe.

That's complete nonsense since the only way a person could completely avoid interaction with children (whatever you mean by "ineract" specifically) would require them to wave some of their basic human rights, like the ability to be present in public spaces where children might exist.

>>12356
>the ability to be present in public spaces where children might exist
I think you've accurately captured the trade off.

>>12353
I'm not sure what to say.  My non-educated idea is that children are not considered legal property in America, currently, but it is true in many cases children's rights are guarded by a parent or guardian.  Some would prefer to turn out some children, at least judging by Facebook posts, but I don't know whether it's hyperbole and if not, whether it's legal.  It does probably happen.

I feel similar in that the welfare of children is not something I can effectively improve.  I have enough trouble keeping myself safe, I guess.

>>12357
>children are not considered legal property in America, currently

The only effective way to guarantee that children fail to become defective in the eyes of American parents by them developing atheism, a disability, Judaism, Islam, a desire for a same-sex crush, or the like is for children to be property. If children aren't property and have some semblance of rights, then a disabled child who happens to be blind, deaf, diagnosed with cancer, or such would protest that he or she has the right to certain things such as health care and free expression, which parents naturally don't want to provide for unwanted children. And should children refrain from being property, such legal petitioning would be given some grounds.

The either-or is clear-cut. Either parents cannot throw away or otherwise recycle children who're broadly seen as an inferior type of offspring, or they can. Either children have the legal recognition of their lives as having ethical value separate than their parents (which means that they cannot, by definition, be thrown away like standard pieces of property), or they do not. A choice must be made.

Who matters? Parents and their human rights? Or children and their human rights? Either you tell garbage children to accept being thrown out, or you tell parents to accept garbage children that they refuse to want. There is no possibility of avoiding suffering.

>>12360
>Who matters? Parents and their human rights? Or children and their human rights?

I feel like we might back up a bit to make sure we have consistent definitions.  Which are the human rights we are considering to answer this question?

>>12361
I suppose the premise is believing that whenever can be practically applied children have the same essential ethical rights as adults. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as bedrock principles. And this goes on to expand to freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and so on. This naturally has a common sense group of limits since, for example, a five-year-old can't really be expected to understand how the voting process of Congress works. It's a general set of guidelines.

While I wouldn't view post-birth-abortion as necessarily something that's a part of the conversation, I would say that the possible ability of an adult to have a de facto post-birth-abortion by giving up their child and severing all legal obligations such that they become wards of the government or somebody else is a key matter here. Especially since American parents generally would rather have a dead heterosexual child than a live homosexual child, a dead sighted child than a live blind child, a dead Christian child then a live atheist child, and so on.

>>12363
>the possible ability of an adult to have a de facto post-birth-abortion by giving up their child and severing all legal obligations such that they become wards of the government or somebody else is a key matter here

I see.  I think this happens in cases where a guardian becomes or is judged incapable of caring for a child, or sometimes voluntarily in adoption for a wide range of reasons.

Are you saying, perhaps, there should be a no questions asked at will system in the event a guardian simply prefers not to care for a child?

>>12366
>Are you saying, perhaps, there should be a no questions asked at will system in the event a guardian simply prefers not to care for a child?

It's important. It's still not everything. That's not good enough for parents in the U.S. You need to have the ability to cause constant physical and psychological harm to children in order to possibly stop them from becoming inferior through perceived improvement measures, such as attempting to cure their autism, their homosexuality, their atheism, et al with various acts on their bodies and minds. It's not enough to be able to just discard your children if they're defective same as a broken toaster oven. You have to be able to bang into them angrily in order to nudge them into the correct shape, just as you would with whacking a mallet into a toaster oven as well.

There's also the fundamental fact in addition that as an American parent in order to prevent your children from becoming defective you've got to segregate and separate them from children that've already been corrupted. This means making sure that races that you don't like, ethnicities that you don't like, religions that you don't like, and so on can't be around your children. You need to make sure that not just their schools and libraries but other institutions around them are cleansed from degeneration.