Rick Horton

Haha

But the child wont die from it. The child will simply be in pain. Oh. Is this a tradition somewhere, like body peircing in tribes? No its just a woman spanking her child until blood is drawn as the standard of punishment. It does not kill the child, doesn't even do much damage, just causes a bit of pain. Why is it bad for her to do that? How much is not much? I mean I need to know the specifics. Born in USA, I'm pretty conditioned to see something like that as abusive because there's blood. How much blood? Will it scar? How long does the pain persist? Does it prevent the child from doing normal activity? How long does it take to heal? If I'm supposed to judge another parent in a family outside of my own I need a whole lot of details like this. If you answer these questions I'll judge based on my own set of beliefs very honestly. Aside from this though, until you give me the specifics, I have a question for you. Lets say a parent beats his child nightly until that child has many broken bones and the parent makes the child eat from a toilet. What are you, as an anarchist going to do about it?

Injecting heavy metals. Okay, evidence please..... Also you're equivicating flu shots with paint chips. And to top it off you are only mentioning flu shots but do you accept that vaccines are beneficial "other" than flu vaccinations? I don't get flu shots either because they seem a little frightning to me from all of the things going around, and that's probably a shame.

LOL. golden

I was talking to somebody else, and no, it is a serious question. Tribes and cultures have different ways of raising members and a lot of times there are initiations, and rites of passage, and spiritual beliefs that they value. Maybe in some tribe it is considered absolutely normal to discipline kids with rods until they show blood. Maybe the bleeding has a different meaning spiritually and the children grow up feeling different about it than you might think. They may associate it NOT with fear or abuse but with spiritual healing. Who are you to say?

Hi Greg. I was with you up to the point where you said "Telling people not to get vaccinated, we might as well be the Catholic Vatican telling them not to use condoms." That only makes sense if you accept as unquestionable that vaccinations are safe, effective and sensible. If asked, I would probably warn anyone not to trust in a Homeopath, a witch doctor or an astrologer but I would not insist that they take my advice. I would highly recommend that people not consume caustic soda because I'm convinced that it would be detrimental to their health. My advice concerning vaccination is not dogma based but based on sound evidence that directly conflicts with the establishment's position on this subject and is not founded on the popularity of the organisation. Hence, my warnings against vaccination are in no way similar to the Vatican's rules on the use of condoms. Would you agree? Your warnings are pretty irrational. This is how I see it. Good article. NPR http://www.npr.org/2010/11/17/131385344/why-the-controversy-vaccines-save-lives

Given the population of the earth, thousands is a drop of water in a lake. It's meaningless data.

LOL!!! What bullshit!!! Talk about fantasy!!! "lets all just have free money!"...

Look. You tell me how to get rid of rulers and we'll go from there. You tell me how you stop people from ruling over each other and I'll concede. You tell me how an anarchist can tell a person what to do and we can discuss that interesting angle.

You've already learned how and you don't agree with it. In fact, you've mocked it. You can't answer the question.

I'm listening to this right now. I haven't heard anybody mention the obvious problem. A parent is obligated to raise their children. They cannot walk away. A child needs a parent to survive until they are old enough to survive. The children can act any way they want including tantrums, disrespect, and abuse under the knowledge that their parents cannot leave them and stop feeding them. This is totally involuntary for the parent. The child is using leverage in ANY way he can to get what they want. They are helpless in some ways but clever in others. Tantrums don't work outside of the family dynamic. You get fired at work. The parent cannot let the child use this leverage over them. That would lead to disaster. The parent cannot, should not pretend they both don't have an obligation to raise their kids, and also that they can just let their kids act as if the parent has to do whatever the kid wants. When a child gets to that point, the point of tantrums, abuse, and disrespect, the parent needs to lay down the law. The parent's have the duty to teach children respect. The parent cannot say to the child, WOW you are disrespectful so I'm leaving this relationship. So the parent has every perrogative to discapline his child in whatever way they need to bring the child into better behavior. Screw this voluntaryism thing. I would NEVER let my children use me, or steam-roll me just because they know I wont leave. That is abusive behavior that they will take with them into adulthood. That's fucked up. I teach my kids that if they don't respect those who HAVE to give them stuff, then they sure as hell wont respect people who don't give them stuff. There is no contract. The parent child relationship is sovereign unto "itself" There is NOTHING that can be compared to a parent child relationship. Word games are bullcrap. The parent feeds the child, shelters the child, plays with the child, loves the child, and they also should punish the child when they don't show them respect, don't listen to them, and abuse them. I would NEVER let my child abuse me. This is all academic "crap". A parent has every perrogative to shape the child the way the parent believes is correct. The child is NOT free. The parent is essential for the child's survival, and the child must be submissive to THAT position. Children aggress against parents more than parents aggress against children because they know they can get away with it. Not in "my" house, pal. My kid wants to smart off to me and be abusive and he will be punished. I'm proud to teach my kid about respect. By the way, the guest with the deeper voice was great. He makes sense. Common sense. I love the last thing he asked about going into another person's house and peacefully start using their stuff. He's like, what would you do? You going to use force? Call the police? The other guy's like, Hmmmm..... Idunno..... LOL!!! See, I'd be like. Get the fuck out of my house. I'd get my gun out and point it in his face and say, NEVER come back. If he didn't leave I'd shoot him in the face. Hey, my home is my castle. Don't fuck with my castle. The law would most likely not prosecute me if a robber came into my house and I shot him.

I'm listening to this right now. I haven't heard anybody mention the obvious problem. A parent is obligated to raise their children. They cannot walk away. A child needs a parent to survive until they are old enough to survive. The children can act any way they want including tantrums, disrespect, and abuse under the knowledge that their parents cannot leave them and stop feeding them. This is totally involuntary for the parent. The child is using leverage in ANY way he can to get what they want. They are helpless in some ways but clever in others. Tantrums don't work outside of the family dynamic. You get fired at work. The parent cannot let the child use this leverage over them. That would lead to disaster. The parent cannot, should not pretend they both don't have an obligation to raise their kids, and also that they can just let their kids act as if the parent has to do whatever the kid wants. When a child gets to that point, the point of tantrums, abuse, and disrespect, the parent needs to lay down the law. The parent's have the duty to teach children respect. The parent cannot say to the child, WOW you are disrespectful so I'm leaving this relationship. So the parent has every perrogative to discapline his child in whatever way they need to bring the child into better behavior. Screw this voluntaryism thing. I would NEVER let my children use me, or steam-roll me just because they know I wont leave. That is abusive behavior that they will take with them into adulthood. That's fucked up. I teach my kids that if they don't respect those who HAVE to give them stuff, then they sure as hell wont respect people who don't give them stuff. There is no contract. The parent child relationship is sovereign unto "itself" There is NOTHING that can be compared to a parent child relationship. Word games are bullcrap. The parent feeds the child, shelters the child, plays with the child, loves the child, and they also should punish the child when they don't show them respect, don't listen to them, and abuse them. I would NEVER let my child abuse me. This is all academic "crap". A parent has every perrogative to shape the child the way the parent believes is correct. The child is NOT free. The parent is essential for the child's survival, and the child must be submissive to THAT position. Children aggress against parents more than parents aggress against children because they know they can get away with it. Not in "my" house, pal. My kid wants to smart off to me and be abusive and he will be punished. I'm proud to teach my kid about respect.

Ah, I see. You are confusing egalitarianism with anti-statism. Rulership =/= statism. Hierarchy =/= statism. Again, you're confusing egalitarianism with anti-statism. Look. You tell me how to get rid of rulers and we'll go from there. You tell me how you stop people from ruling over each other and I'll concede. You tell me how an anarchist can tell a person what to do and we can discuss that interesting angle.

Oh, I see. You won't answer the question. Okay. You don't have an answer. I see you want to change my question, but I wont accept those terms, either. I asked a question and you refuse to "refuse" to answer it.

Force is the only thing at work here. If the newborn is left alone for like 12 seconds, it is only force (either personal or institutional) that entitles her to recover the child from a closer stranger. The exclusion of fathers from this assumption of automatic genetic custody is something both statists and anarchists seem to ignore. There's no entitlements outside of a State.

Yes you raise a totally valid point that markets and the state are equally inside/outside nature -- though your prior posts suggest to me you should at least deny they are real things, but just adaptive mechanisms (ie. fictitious ideas that guide us). Anyway, please admit your response style here is completely messed up. I apologize for being rude.

WHAT THE HELL? So markets are not part of nature? Let me tell you something you keep missing. There are no property rights outside of The STATE. Your argument really blows. I'm sorry to be rude, but you are so wrong that it blows my mind. You think competition doesn't exist in markets in "some" equal way to nature because? Because what? Markets are "outside" of the confinements of reality or something? Jesus fucking Christ man.

But I thought that you don't believe in morality. Your opinion that something is "awful" does not make a moral imperative. I think a man having anal sex with another man is kind of gross but it's not immoral if its voluntary. I also think heroine use and pork are awful. "How can we tell them what to do with their babies". How can a person "own" a baby? Put wife or slave in that sentence and see how it sounds. I never said I don't believe in morality. I do judge rape to be immoral. Now instead of trying to turn my statement about babies around, why not answer the question? How can we tell them what to do with their babies? I won't play word games based on equivication, which so many people here think I do, but is obviously what you are doing. You are equivicating Parents and their children with Wives and Slaves. Homie doesn't play that game. Don't divert. How can we tell people what to do with their children? "Try" and answer. REALLY try not to just ask another question. It's an honest question. I think I deserve an answer to it. We can talk about Wives and Slaves another time.

Is that your honest analogy, or a joke?

If you just look at those 1582 subjects, you don't get 50% effective, you get absolutely no proof of effectiveness whatsoever. He goes on to point out: So we're getting closer to the truth. But still: If the vaccine was, at best, 17% effective in this biased group, some fancy maths would be required to determine the likely effectiveness rate amongst the general population allowing for the fact that the flu vaccines are completely useless for the elderly as proven by the CDC themselves. Flu vaccines failed to provide protection this year, particularly among elderly But don't worry about these facts - just get your damn shots! I'm going to be as nice as possible. This will be my last response. Your bullcrap is appauling. In the study you quote: Those who did not get the shot were 200% more likely to get the flu. Those who DID NOT get the shot were 200% MORE LIKELY to get the flu. The flu can and does kill people every year. 105 children this season alone. The flu CAN AND DOES KILL PEOPLE every year. 105 CHILDREN this season alone. The flu vaccine does not kill people. The flu vaccine DOES NOT KILL PEOPLE. It may cause minor reactions, but I'm betting a little red welp would have been acceptable to the parents of those 105 children. The flu vaccine is not perfect. Doctors make their best guess as to which of the many influenzas are going to come from the pig farms in China (and Mexico) and they start creating vaccines for those before those viruses ever spread. "The flu" is a class of illness, not a certain disease. I would expect the vaccine is in the 99%+ efficacy rate for the specific viruses it was designed to protect against, however they can't predict which viruses will spread. IN FACT, the fact that so many people (over 100 million Americans every year) are vaccinated for the ones the virologists think most serious and spreadable certainly prevents many other non vaccinated people from contracting the disease.... Talk about a free rider problem.... Get your head out of your butt. Stop seeing conspiracy everywhere because when you really do stumble upon something worth looking at, people are going to ignore you because of your constant nonsense. Your noise is tantamount to yelling fire in a theater. I agree.

So back to the topic. I think rape is awful. When a woman says no, it means NO. And if it "doesn't" mean no, a man should still STOP and take that no as meaning no.

Circumcision boggles my mind. I don't think about it much. I was circumcised at birth, I think? I mean it doesn't bother me that I was. I've never thought about it. The procedure doesn't have any scientific advatage? I always thought it helped keep the area cleaner but it probably doesn't do anything beneficial does it? Most women, when I hear them talk about it, say they think uncircumcised men are gross. I guess they're just so used to seeing the penis in a circumcised way. I don't consider it abuse, really that men are circumsized. I consider it tradition, but a rather strange one. It reminds me of tribes that pierce their bodies and put pins and spiers through their bodies for ritualistic beliefs. I mean, if that's what they like to do, then who am I to say what they can do with their babies?

Interesting view

Yes you might be right about autism, it seems random. You have me confused with the "intelligent design" people or at least their characterization of evolutionists. Of course evolution does not magnetically guide toward beneficial adaptation. But you seem to accept the general narrative that "flu shots save people". If so, then you can't deny those people reproduce similar need for shots. Animals "evolve into extinction" because they were beaten (and perhaps eaten) by stronger species, perhaps viruses, not because evolution gave them random fatal misfortune which they somehow passed on. I say this because the individuals with a fatal random mutation are less likely pass it on, correct? So it would seem to me you must either say flu is totally non-fatal, or else (to whatever extent it is fatal) admit effective vaccines facilitate a long-term weakening of the genome. This would seem essential, because if you can claim that is just the way our species was heading anyway (weakened immunity) then you should also accept that those children who get flu are equally likely (eg. survive the flu) to pass on this weakness compared to those who do not get flu. There can be no bias in the expectation. Yes. I see your point. I concede that traits that are damning wouldn't get a chance to really pass on for a very long time. This may be the case in Autism as well. It may phase itself out. Of course there is the paradox that you mentioned. (I think it was you) If we find a way to treat Autism well, or vaccinate against it, it may phase it out faster, BUT it may keep it around longer. It's tricky. I concede that.

Sorry. That isn't resonating with me. An increase in Autism because of abuse? It doesn't make sense. Families are less abusive to their children now than at any time in history. Autism, by that standard should be decreasing. Historically, families were way more abusive centuries ago. The dark ages, middle ages. I mean considering all things, violent crime is steadily decreasing world wide as time goes on, and societies have a lot more appreciation for caring well for their children that in earlier points in history.