Youtuber/Makeup Artist discusses child abuse

[AudreyM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2doTpYKG8sU

 

I admire Mr. Goss for bringing so many peoples attention to this and attempting to spark meaningful conversation. Some of the comments I read were a bit horrifying, but its at least refreshing to see such a magnitude of discourse about corporal punishment.

[dsayers]

I replied to one of the comments that provided the false dichotomy that we either have to spank or all hell breaks loose. I still don't understand where this viewpoint comes from because they do not hold this standard with ANYBODY ELSE in the world that can in fact communicate back or escape.

 

I don't have high hopes. Most commenters I've dealt with on youtube are more interested in confirmation bias, social conformity, or just plain "winning."

 

To that end, I wonder why the guy would start such a conversation. If he's truly interested in the implications, there's been plenty of research on the topic for several decades now, with very little variance in the results.

[Eva]

dsayers: "I replied to one of the comments that provided the false dichotomy that we either have to spank or all hell breaks loose. I still don't understand where this viewpoint comes from because they do not hold this standard with ANYBODY ELSE in the world that can in fact communicate back or escape."

 

It comes from the fact that the child is good and they are evil, and being rational with the child would reveal this.

 

 

 

 

"I don't have high hopes. Most commenters I've dealt with on youtube are more interested in confirmation bias, social conformity, or just plain "winning."

 

To that end, I wonder why the guy would start such a conversation. If he's truly interested in the implications, there's been plenty of research on the topic for several decades now, with very little variance in the results."

 

Spanking is a moral issue, not scientific. It's about principles, not effects. Black slavery was not ended because it had this or that bad consequence... A lot of people want to start these conversations because, fundamentally, they have not accepted that this is a question of principle.

[dsayers]

Thank you for the feedback. I'm ashamed to admit that I hear so many people bypassing the moral argument to talk about the consequences that I get sucked into it myself sometimes.

[nathanm]

Commented.  Well, I hope I used my FDR training for good.  I am now ready for my special shoes and the comet ticket from the bald one.

[AudreyM]

Thank you for the feedback. I'm ashamed to admit that I hear so many people bypassing the moral argument to talk about the consequences that I get sucked into it myself sometimes.

 

I totally sympathize with your regret, dsayers. Just yesterday I was talking with some coworkers about the legalization of pot, chose to throw out a few remarks about self ownership and the non-aggression principle, caught myself wishing later on that I had gone the route of comparing alcohol to marijuana, and then felt guilty for thinking about handling the issue as anything but a moral one. Minor sleep deprivation may have been a contributing factor. It is tough though, I automatically assume people consider morality to be subjective (therefore pointless), and am tempted to contribute facts instead of philosophy to a conversation for the sake of productivity. Maybe if the goal is just to get the other person to agree with you on a particular issue, and not to introduce them to reason and virtue, then it makes sense to argue from effect. But I dont think I want my end goal to be that shallow. Hmm...

 

Commented.  Well, I hope I used my FDR training for good.  I am now ready for my special shoes and the comet ticket from the bald one.

 

Haha, do you think they'll be blue and gold? 

[nathanm]

We cannot answer the question of how to be a happy and contented child or parent in a YouTube comment, but we can at least know with certainty what NOT to do. Non-violence should be the default, but unfortunately it isn't. Everybody agrees that stalking and raping isn't the way to win over the person you've got a crush on, but we still think that belting children is some sort of useful tool.  Small crimes are not solved by committing bigger crimes.  It's pathetic that it even needs to be said, but clearly it does as every time this comes up someone's got their anecdote about how their parents hit them and yet they turned out fine.  You can get mass moral outrage over Lance fucking Armstrong's drug use but parents cheating on parenting by using violence doesn't even warrant a reaction.

[dsayers]

I totally sympathize with your regret, dsayers. Just yesterday I was talking with some coworkers about the legalization of pot, chose to throw out a few remarks about self ownership and the non-aggression principle, caught myself wishing later on that I had gone the route of comparing alcohol to marijuana, and then felt guilty for thinking about handling the issue as anything but a moral one. Minor sleep deprivation may have been a contributing factor. It is tough though, I automatically assume people consider morality to be subjective (therefore pointless), and am tempted to contribute facts instead of philosophy to a conversation for the sake of productivity. Maybe if the goal is just to get the other person to agree with you on a particular issue, and not to introduce them to reason and virtue, then it makes sense to argue from effect. But I dont think I want my end goal to be that shallow. Hmm...

 

There's still value there. When you're talking to people that set the standard as effect, then to reveal that their position even in terms of effect is flawed could be useful. Not likely considering the moral argument is paramount so for them to disregard it suggests they're not interested in the truth. My regret came from not being aware that that is what I was doing in the moment. I'm usually better about that. What I usually do is answer their concerns, but then also point out that the moral consideration is more important. My biggest regret is that the area of children is one that I cannot afford to make that mistake. People who promote assaulting children need to be made to face the hypocrisy that they wouldn't dream of doing the same thing to people that could fight back or flee and seek reinforcements.

[Eva]

dsayers, I am sorry you feel regret about this. In my experience you can't go wrong with the moral argument. I almost never talk about effects. Most people think they will be ostracised and antagonised for using the moral argument, but this is just their facade and the test that you face in society. In reality they have become attached to you in a big way because deep down they know what you are talking about is true...

 

 People who promote assaulting children need to be made to face the hypocrisy that they wouldn't dream of doing the same thing to people that could fight back or flee and seek reinforcements.

 

But isn't that an appeal to effects (if I hit I will get X or Y)?

 

The hypocrisy that they (already) face is that they themselves use the moral argument when abusing children. Taking advantage of their superiority is not hypocrisy—it's just plain evil that their contradictory or false moral arguments come to "rescue" them from.

If we use arguments from effect we remain on the moral and rational low-ground. Same as if we are emotionally dependent on the idea of convincing people. People—who are already using false morality and arguments from effect—can "smell" that in the words you use, and it gives them all the peace of mind they need.

 

You can get mass moral outrage over Lance fucking Armstrong's drug use but parents cheating on parenting by using violence doesn't even warrant a reaction.

 

I found this interesting. It sounds like you see parenting as if there was a code somewhere? The only thing parents "cheat on" when abusing their children is logic and evidence.

[dsayers]

Same as if we are emotionally dependent on the idea of convincing people.

 

Once again, I really appreciate the feedback. I'm still mulling over how I feel about this particular statement. It resonates with me. Then I see myself as somebody who attempts to convince others to show off my intellect after decades of everybody devaluing me. Then I acknowledge that part of the reason I'm able to use my intellect for such important things is because of the way others have convinced me. Which leads me to question if being emotionally invested in convincing others is necessarily a bad thing.

 

I really can't picture drawing somebody into a debate just to waste their time. I suppose that is a good thing.

 

It sounds like you see parenting as if there was a code somewhere? The only thing parents "cheat on" when abusing their children is logic and evidence.

 

The evidence is that newborns cannot survive on their own and the logic is that the people who chose to bring the newborn into the world are required to provide for it until such a time that they are able to do so on their own. To assault somebody you are required to provide for is "cheating on" a "code" based on logic and evidence. Would you agree?

[nathanm]

I'm just using "cheating" in the sense of any human interaction which bypasses voluntarism for force. Since everyone in the world is opposed to cheating in professional sports I think to use that as a metaphor for coercion makes sense.  If you want to raise money for a project and someone says, "hey let's just steal the money!" that's 'cheating'.  My child did something wrong, "Let's just smack him!" that's likewise 'cheating'.

[Eva]

Once again, I really appreciate the feedback. I'm still mulling over how I feel about this particular statement. It resonates with me. Then I see myself as somebody who attempts to convince others to show off my intellect after decades of everybody devaluing me. Then I acknowledge that part of the reason I'm able to use my intellect for such important things is because of the way others have convinced me. Which leads me to question if being emotionally invested in convincing others is necessarily a bad thing.

 

I really can't picture drawing somebody into a debate just to waste their time. I suppose that is a good thing.

 

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that you are "showing off our intellect", or that you are simply trying to "convince people" who show signs that they are sufficiently open to reason... It all depends on how you feel, and you know better of course.

 

What I am saying is that, if you use arguments from effect, you are likely operating from a place of certain anxiety to win the argument; which is very common—we can all get trolled. This is the place they operate from—also through arguments from effect—because they are being defensive and thus emotionally dependent on convincing or otherwise knocking you.

I really can't picture drawing somebody into a debate just to waste their time. I suppose that is a good thing.

 

 

It's always a good thing to expose information and arguments, but not so much if you do it at the expense of the truth. Getting into a debate with an irrational person equals to telling them that they are "right".

The evidence is that newborns cannot survive on their own and the logic is that the people who chose to bring the newborn into the world are required to provide for it until such a time that they are able to do so on their own. To assault somebody you are required to provide for is "cheating on" a "code" based on logic and evidence. Would you agree?

 

"people who chose to bring the newborn into the world are required to provide for it..." is not logic, but a moral proposition. You cannot prove it, the same as you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". As I have said, the immorality of child abuse is not in violating a certain code, but in using codes to violate actual logic and evidence.

 

This is the problem I see with yours and nathanm's position. But I suppose I could be convinced if you provided a rational demonstration of your code or positive obligation to provide for children.

[dsayers]

What I am saying is that, if you use arguments from effect, you are likely operating from a place of certain anxiety to win the argument

 

This part stumped me for a bit. Are you saying that by not arguing from morality, somebody might be indicating a desire to "win" and therefore ignore the morality to make a lesser argument that sounds principled? I'm interested in this quote, but can't quite connect the dots (unless that was in fact it).

 

"people who chose to bring the newborn into the world are required to provide for it..." is not logic, but a moral proposition

 

Valid morality is logical. To bring a newborn into the world and not provide for it is assault until such a time that they perish, at which point it is murder.

 

I suppose I could be convinced if you provided a rational demonstration of your code or positive obligation to provide for children.

 

When you enter into a contract with somebody, you voluntarily create a positive obligation to them. To choose to have a child knowing that a child cannot survive without you providing for them is creating a positive obligation to that child. Would you agree?

 

For what it's worth, I find your input to be consistently thought-provoking and challenging. I really appreciate this.

[corpus mentium]

Paraphrased, but: "I absolutely would smack my child LOL!" Horrifying.

 

I tried to post my own comments but they don't seem to show up after I've gone to look for them. : / Anyone else have similar issues with youtube? It's not the first time it's happened when I've posted something. Makes me wanna cry conspiracy, but I think there would be a simpler explanation.

[Eva]

 

This part stumped me for a bit. Are you saying that by not arguing from morality, somebody might be indicating a desire to "win" and therefore ignore the morality to make a lesser argument that sounds principled? I'm interested in this quote, but can't quite connect the dots (unless that was in fact it).

 

Think about it. Why would anyone use lesser arguments? The intention of "winning" would clearly not be to establish the truth, but to keep it at bay—even if your arguments point in the same direction. Why would an anarco-capitalist get involved in endless debates about the effects of state power, and so on? Because he has not really accepted the principle that the state is immoral or has a certain anxiety to introduce that principle into that debating relationship. 

 

Valid morality is logical. To bring a newborn into the world and not provide for it is assault until such a time that they perish, at which point it is murder.

 

 

I don't see or have never seen the "logic" in this making it compulsory—if only because there are a million factors in babies being born outside a person's control. What I see is just a moral proposition for a positive obligation. There is an infinity of possible moral propositions for positive obligations that pass the logic of UPB and we don't go about inflicting them; that's what the "coma test" is for, isn't it? 

When you enter into a contract with somebody, you voluntarily create a positive obligation to them. To choose to have a child knowing that a child cannot survive without you providing for them is creating a positive obligation to that child. Would you agree?

 

No. Having a child is not like entering in to a contract with somebody. Besides, as I have been commenting on a recent thread about marriage, positive obligations expressed in contracts are not above reason.

 

For what it's worth, I find your input to be consistently thought-provoking and challenging. I really appreciate this.

 

Me too. I'm enjoying the chat.

[Josh F]

Every reply follows the exact same pattern

 

I was horribly abused by my parents.  It was discipline.  I am better for it.  I still love them.  I abuse my children.

 

What I read?

 

I hate my parents.  I've become them.  I hope they love me.  I abuse my children for them.

[dsayers]

 

Think about it. Why would anyone use lesser arguments? The intention of "winning" would clearly not be to establish the truth, but to keep it at bay

 

Brilliant! I feel ashamed for not making the connection myself.

 

I don't see or have never seen the "logic" in this making it compulsory—if only because there are a million factors in babies being born outside a person's control.

 

Compulsory suggests a 3rd party infliction, does it not? Rape is the only 3rd party infliction and factor resulting in a baby being born outside a person's control that I can think of. In this case, the parents can avail themselves of abortion or adoption.

 

Say you abduct me and tie me up in your basement. For the sake of the hypothetical, let us ignore the imorality in those behaviors. I am a creature of consciousness and reason that cannot survive without you feeding me and protecting me from predators, including microscopic ones. If I perish, are you not guilty of murder? I'm trying to simulate the idea of creating a person, the act of which I maintain is creating a positive obligation to it.

 

No. Having a child is not like entering in to a contract with somebody. Besides, as I have been commenting on a recent thread about marriage, positive obligations expressed in contracts are not above reason.

 

I wasn't making a comparison in the context of a two-way agreement. I accept that the child owes the parent absolutely nothing by merit of being birthed alone. I was making a comparison in the context of voluntarily creating a positive obligation. Outside of rape, conceiving is a choice that can be made that has predictable outcomes. Just as if you decide to detonate a bomb, you are not absolved of the destruction that comes AFTER just because you didn't do the destruction yourself. The destruction is a predictable outcome that a reasonable person would understand is inherent to the decision of detonation.

[corpus mentium]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2doTpYKG8sU

 

I admire Mr. Goss for bringing so many peoples attention to this and attempting to spark meaningful conversation. Some of the comments I read were a bit horrifying, but its at least refreshing to see such a magnitude of discourse about corporal punishment.

 

I just want to say thank you so much for posting this link. I have been following the comments with a great deal of interest and also sadness. A lot of the comments really are horrifying, but if some of us peaceful parenting types can keep up with the conversation, I hope that we can win over at least some of the subscribers to start using peaceful parenting strategies. I think YouTube channels similar to this one that focus on demographics most likely to spend the most time with young children could be some of the most important to engage in with regards to spreading peaceful parenting information. If you know of any similar channels, I would love to take a look at them.

 

 

Every reply follows the exact same pattern

 

I was horribly abused by my parents.  It was discipline.  I am better for it.  I still love them.  I abuse my children.

 

What I read?

 

I hate my parents.  I've become them.  I hope they love me.  I abuse my children for them.

 

I noticed this too. I have mostly been focusing on responding to those who are against hitting children apparently based on their opinions. I share some of the moral arguments and scientific findings as a sort of backup or supplement with the hopes that it gets them thinking even more about it.

[nathanm]

Paraphrased, but: "I absolutely would smack my child LOL!" Horrifying.

 

I tried to post my own comments but they don't seem to show up after I've gone to look for them. : / Anyone else have similar issues with youtube? It's not the first time it's happened when I've posted something. Makes me wanna cry conspiracy, but I think there would be a simpler explanation. 

I don't get how it works at all.  The numbers apparently have nothing to to with it.  I was feeling good about my comment having +30 upvotes on there, but when I logged out of my YouTube account and viewed the page again it doesn't even show up as a top comment, instead a pro-abuser's blather with +10 is at the top. (Non-spanking parenting causes SCHOOL SHOOTINGS don't ya know?  F$@&$*@(…&<:"!!!

[Wesley]

I don't get how it works at all.  The numbers apparently have nothing to to with it.  I was feeling good about my comment having +30 upvotes on there, but when I logged out of my YouTube account and viewed the page again it doesn't even show up as a top comment, instead a pro-abuser's blather with +10 is at the top. (Non-spanking parenting causes SCHOOL SHOOTINGS don't ya know?  F$@&$*@(…&<:"!!!

My understanding is that comments with the most upvotes are counted in the top comments, but comments with recent upvotes are weighted more heavily. It is their attempt to keep the conversation relevant as videos age for many years.

 

I may be wrong, but that could explain it.

 

In general, I get very sad for the state of the world whenever I read the comments to a YouTube video or mainstream news article that deals with physical child abuse.

[dsayers]

In general, I get very sad for the state of the world whenever I read the comments to a YouTube video or mainstream news article that deals with physical child abuse.

 

The people saying those things desperately need to know that the abuse they suffered was okay, so they are vocal and pat each other on the back. It doesn't help that people like us are making it more uncomfortable than ever before. Those people believe (because they want to believe) that there is no debate, so the sheer prevalence of items looking into spanking will make them very uncomfortable. With any luck, each attempt will peel a few away and then they'll be in the minority. Imagine a world where a parent yells at a child in a restaurant and suddenly three different parties approach to intervene. I cannot wait.

[Prairie]

[...] My child did something wrong, "Let's just smack him!" that's likewise 'cheating'.

 

I think that calling it something done wrong is a form of cheating as well (the guy in the video worded it the same, wrong or naughty). I see it as the child doing something that the parent doesn't like, or that causes the parent to remember their own mistreatment and feel powerless to ask the child to stop. So the justification itself smears the child's actions as defense/attack-worthy.

[corpus mentium]

If anyone is interested, here is another peek into gossmakeupartist's history and thoughts - this time on verbal assaults. 

 

 

I don't get how it works at all.  The numbers apparently have nothing to to with it.  I was feeling good about my comment having +30 upvotes on there, but when I logged out of my YouTube account and viewed the page again it doesn't even show up as a top comment, instead a pro-abuser's blather with +10 is at the top. (Non-spanking parenting causes SCHOOL SHOOTINGS don't ya know?  F$@&$*@(…&<:"!!!

 

There must be some kind of bug. When I log in I can see my posts. When I log off I can only see some of my posts... in the same short conversation thread.   Let me just take a moment to copy and... F$@&$*@(…&<:"!!!  

 

I am a g+ / YouTube newb so I guess it could partly still be me. 

 

 

In general, I get very sad for the state of the world whenever I read the comments to a YouTube video or mainstream news article that deals with physical child abuse.

 

Me too, but getting a post off my chest that poses thought provoking questions to potentially abusive parents helps me feel a lot better. I know it will simply roll off most of their backs, but I keep in mind that there will be a few here and there that will take it in and, hopefully, get them to think about more peaceful parenting. I was fully and firmly entrenched in their camp until a couple years ago. I was trying to convince my wife that belting children was OK and necessary. (I have a childhood history post incubating on all this.) She was against hitting of any kind but she didn't have the arguments to present to get me really thinking about it. I heard Stef's arguments and analogies and I did a 180 and bolted to the opposite end of the spectrum in a very short amount of time. Now I am extremely passionate about spreading these arguments and getting people to really think about them and start changing their ways. I try to do it the best I can by keeping things neutral and factual because god knows that there is more than enough steaming hot methane blowing around on these sites to spark a gloriously counterproductive flame war.

[Eva]

Rape is the only 3rd party infliction and factor resulting in a baby being born outside a person's control that I can think of. In this case, the parents can avail themselves of abortion or adoption.

 

I don't suppose you think children are the inevitable result of choosing to have sex, or that choosing to have children inevitably results in children. Many things outside your control...

Say you abduct me and tie me up in your basement. For the sake of the hypothetical, let us ignore the imorality in those behaviors. I am a creature of consciousness and reason that cannot survive without you feeding me and protecting me from predators, including microscopic ones. If I perish, are you not guilty of murder? I'm trying to simulate the idea of creating a person, the act of which I maintain is creating a positive obligation to it.

 

The idea of "creating a person" is as wrong and abhorrent as that metaphor, which is perhaps why it's hard to come up with a metaphor that isn't immoral.

 

Man is not life.

I wasn't making a comparison in the context of a two-way agreement. I accept that the child owes the parent absolutely nothing by merit of being birthed alone. I was making a comparison in the context of voluntarily creating a positive obligation. Outside of rape, conceiving is a choice that can be made that has predictable outcomes. Just as if you decide to detonate a bomb, you are not absolved of the destruction that comes AFTER just because you didn't do the destruction yourself. The destruction is a predictable outcome that a reasonable person would understand is inherent to the decision of detonation.

 

 

I understand that—if the people who conceive a child have all the purpose to do so—but there is absolutely no "logic" in that, just like there is no logic in saying you should not detonate bombs. It's just a moral proposition.

 

Let's put it this way. I would not want a man around my child—biological father or not—who felt obligated towards him, just like I wouldn't want to be around a man who does not detonate bombs just because he feels obligated not to—let alone "logically obligated". Can you see why?

[dsayers]

I don't suppose you think children are the inevitable result of choosing to have sex, or that choosing to have children inevitably results in children. Many things outside your control...

 

I'm sorry, but I do not see how this at all alters the conversation. I view this as saying that a person isn't responsible for putting a brick through a window since all they can do is throw it at the window. They might have slipped, or the wind could've picked up, or it could've hit an object and changed trajectory, or any number of things outside their control.

 

Let's put it this way. I would not want a man around my child—biological father or not—who felt obligated towards him, just like I wouldn't want to be around a man who does not detonate bombs just because he feels obligated not to—let alone "logically obligated". Can you see why?

 

I'm not sure. I'm confused by the biological father or not part. What I'm saying would only apply to the biological parents or whomever they relinquished guardianship to (presuming voluntary recipients of course). I don't mean forever if that's what you're thinking.

 

I'm intrigued as I trust you're trying to lead me to greater precision, which I welcome. I'm just not seeing how feeling obligated to not detonate a bomb when a reasonable person would anticipate non-consenting human lives would be impacted is not something to be desired.

 

I have noticed that you continue to put logic in quotes. I take this to mean that I have yet to establish that the obligation I speak of is logical, but you are building off the presumption that it is in order to reveal its flaw. Am I close?

[Eva]

I'm sorry, but I do not see how this at all alters the conversation. I view this as saying that a person isn't responsible for putting a brick through a window since all they can do is throw it at the window. They might have slipped, or the wind could've picked up, or it could've hit an object and changed trajectory, or any number of things outside their control.

 

Choosing to have sex results in sex; just like choosing to cross the road results in you crossing the road, as was your intention. The fact that crossing the road bears the risk of getting run over doesn't mean you intend to get run over. Knowing there is a risk—or possible consequence—in an action is quite different from intending that risk, especially when it comes to assigning moral responsibility—you would have a hard time proving that someone who had a child had that intention. This is very clear. You might as well say a man who gets run over is responsible for it. A man who gets run over is as responsible for the traffic and the accident as a mother is responsible for the baby growing in her belly, or having an indigestion because she ate... 

I'm not sure. I'm confused by the biological father or not part. What I'm saying would only apply to the biological parents or whomever they relinquished guardianship to (presuming voluntary recipients of course). I don't mean forever if that's what you're thinking.

 

I'm intrigued as I trust you're trying to lead me to greater precision, which I welcome. I'm just not seeing how feeling obligated to not detonate a bomb when a reasonable person would anticipate non-consenting human lives would be impacted is not something to be desired.

 

Do you feel "obligated" to not drink sewage? Do you get up in the morning and first thing you feel glad that some logic keeps you from sabotaging a nuclear plant? Do you think the best acrobats are those who feel obligated to stay on the high wire? ... How does a shopkeeper behave with you if he feels obligated to serve you? How about feeling obligated towards a child? How would that make your parenting? 

 

If being a biological parent means someone feels obligated towards a child, then I don't want this person around the child.

I have noticed that you continue to put logic in quotes. I take this to mean that I have yet to establish that the obligation I speak of is logical, but you are building off the presumption that it is in order to reveal its flaw. Am I close?

 

Yes. Reasoning is logical, or propositions derived logically; not propositions in and of themselves. Not even the fact that you derive a proposition logically makes it true. You simply cannot make an "ought" from an "is" (Hume) because it is "logical". You can say parents who choose to have kids and neglect them are murdering, but you cannot say they have an obligation not to do that, just like nobody has an obligation not to murder. They are just moral propositions.

[dsayers]

I was actually so frustrated that the gap appeared to widen that something clicked for me. I think we need to start from the beginning because it seems as if the rest of it stems from that. By this I mean that the last 2/3 of your last post was presuming no obligation has been created while addressing the question of whether or not an obligation is created. This is because the first 1/3 of your last post (if it is correct) establishes that no such obligation is created because it is not chosen.

 

As such, I did want to clarify that I understand that saying murder is immoral is not the same as saying one ought not to murder. While it wasn't my point when I first mentioned detonating a bomb, I did use the word obligation in my last post in regards to detonating a bomb, which was erroneous. My initial point in mentioning the detonation of the bomb was reasonably predictable outcome. Just as...

 

You might as well say a man who gets run over is responsible for it.

 

There's not enough information here. IF he was somewhere that is designated for the operation of something that would be lethal to his presence, then we know that he is at least partially responsible and could be solely responsible. IF you were to cross a road AND you did not want to be injured or killed, THEN you take steps to manage this risk. Typically, looking both ways will suffice. Identically, if you are having sex and you do not want to have a child, then you take steps to manage this risk. Typically, using a prophylactic will suffice. If you walk onto a roadway and get hit by a car or you have sex and get pregnant, you chose the risks.

 

Intention is no measure for accountability. You cannot put a brick through somebody's window and walk away because you didn't intend to get caught. You do not get to keep your money with a losing hand at the blackjack table because you intended to get 21. You knew the risk of getting caught or losing the hand, therefor the consequences of that decision belong to you. This means you owe for damages to the car, you owe the child resources until such a time they can survive on their own, you owe restitution for the broken window, and you forfeit your bet. These are all examples of voluntarily created positive obligations.

[Eva]

I was actually so frustrated that the gap appeared to widen that something clicked for me. I think we need to start from the beginning because it seems as if the rest of it stems from that. By this I mean that the last 2/3 of your last post was presuming no obligation has been created while addressing the question of whether or not an obligation is created. This is because the first 1/3 of your last post (if it is correct) establishes that no such obligation is created because it is not chosen.

 

I feel with this you try to pass me the ball and rationalise your not addressing the questions and the valid threads that are there on my previous post. I cannot trust you will not do the same if I address this meta-conversational claim, so I won't.

 

My initial point in mentioning the detonation of the bomb was reasonably predictable outcome. Just as...

 

"You might as well say a man who gets run over is responsible for it."

 

There's not enough information here. IF he was somewhere that is designated for the operation of something that would be lethal to his presence, then we know that he is at least partially responsible and could be solely responsible. IF you were to cross a road AND you did not want to be injured or killed, THEN you take steps to manage this risk. Typically, looking both ways will suffice. Identically, if you are having sex and you do not want to have a child, then you take steps to manage this risk. Typically, using a prophylactic will suffice. If you walk onto a roadway and get hit by a car or you have sex and get pregnant, you chose the risks.

 

You might as well say that you are responsible for any accident that happens to you just because of "choosing the risks" involved in living. Using a prophylactic or looking both ways before crossing the road are precisely ways to diminish risk; which is the complete opposite of taking it (if I choose to use a prophylactic, I am not taking the risk involved in not using a prophylactic...) and which are both intentions. 

 

Yes, intention is the measure, and you know that because you are the one saying that parents are obliged to take care of children based on the fact they have chosen to do something (or what would otherwise mean to choose something you did not have an intention towards?). Morality is about human will.

 

If I am "responsible" for the chain of events that resulted in your window being broken, when it wasn't my intention to do so, then so is the wind, the rock, my mother and all my ancestors... If the man that gets run over is "responsible" for it—as he "chose the risks"—then what you are saying is that the driver/s that did it were not responsible—or that the sperm was not responsible for reaching the egg...

 

I am not saying there cannot be some amount of negotiable or reasonable responsibility, but this is not what you are saying when you almost elevate this contract toward children to the category of moral absolute.

[dsayers]

I feel with this you try to pass me the ball and rationalise your not addressing the questions and the valid threads that are there on my previous post. I cannot trust you will not do the same if I address this meta-conversational claim, so I won't.

 

"not drink sewage?" No moral component.

"keeps you from sabotaging a nuclear plant?" Negative obligation.

"stay on the high wire?" No moral component.

"shopkeeper behave with you if he feels obligated to serve you?" No positive obligations prior to interaction.

"How about feeling obligated towards a child? How would that make your parenting?" Do not address whether a positive obligation is created or not.

 

I didn't answer the questions because they're not germane to the topic of whether or not choosing to have a child is choosing to create a positive obligation to that child. Hence the frustration. Upon exploring that frustration is when I noticed that you appeared to be begging the question. Since I feel that that is an unlikely behavior for you, I explored further. This is when I saw what was I thought you taking the question for granted, which is perfectly fine if you've made the case that would provide the answer to the question. Which I then noticed you did from your perspective.

 

This is my experience. If I am in err, then a patient correction would be welcomed.

 

Do you accept that if a long mathematical theory is based off of 2+2=5, we can dispense with the later steps altogether? To do so would be rational. As such, somebody who did so could not be described as rationalizing since that which is rational is ineligible for rationalization.

 

The quote here really stung. I've tried to address it rationally here, but will be taking some time to look deeper into it.

[Eva]

"not drink sewage?" No moral component.

"keeps you from sabotaging a nuclear plant?" Negative obligation.

"stay on the high wire?" No moral component.

"shopkeeper behave with you if he feels obligated to serve you?" No positive obligations prior to interaction.

"How about feeling obligated towards a child? How would that make your parenting?" Do not address whether a positive obligation is created or not.

 

Look, you say this:

 

 

I'm intrigued as I trust you're trying to lead me to greater precision, which I welcome. I'm just not seeing how feeling obligated to not detonate a bomb when a reasonable person would anticipate non-consenting human lives would be impacted is not something to be desired.

 

I proceed to provide examples illustrating how this is not to be desired, and you give me that paragraph above?? Sorry, dsayers. I have left enough arguments around the central issue of obligation and I have no time to read your lengthy paragraphs about how I am assuming false premises. Do you care to show me how it is I have done that?

[dsayers]

I proceed to provide examples illustrating how this is not to be desired, and you give me that paragraph above?? 

 

Yes. My first course of action in continuing an unraveling debate on whether or not choosing to have a baby is choosing to create a positive obligation to it was to not spend time addressing questions that weren't conducive to it (false premise according to your label which I disagree with). You took issue with my not answering the questions and said I was rationalizing, so I gave you that paragraph to indicate why each question was disregarded and how doing so is rational.

 

The series of irrelevant questions was frustrating to me. Something that I was open and honest with you about. You responded with a verbal slap in the face. I tried to reply while not focusing on that too much (in case my interpretation was in error) by actually addressing the questions. Now you've slapped me in the face for that too. I'm referring to your sudden issue with the length of my posts. To recap I'm wrong to disregard the questions and I'm wrong to address them.

 

I realize this is just text, but it seems as if your disposition has changed to one of retaliation as if my acknowledging my frustration was the same thing as placing blame or fault on you. Which I was not doing at all.

[Eva]

About my "irrelevant" argument, you first say:

 

I'm intrigued as I trust you're trying to lead me to greater precision, which I welcome. I'm just not seeing how feeling obligated to not detonate a bomb when a reasonable person would anticipate non-consenting human lives would be impacted is not something to be desired.

 

The questions were supposed to illustrate a point you were seemingly interested in—to the point you argue it is desired to feel obligated—but then "suddenly" you are not interested in it:

 

Yes. My first course of action in continuing an unraveling debate on whether or not choosing to have a baby is choosing to create a positive obligation to it was to not spend time addressing questions that weren't conducive to it (false premise according to your label which I disagree with). You took issue with my not answering the questions and said I was rationalizing, so I gave you that paragraph to indicate why each question was disregarded and how doing so is rational.

 

Try this theory: you are defensive (because you don't want to accept the major point that you cannot create arbitrary positive obligations), which is why you don't reply to my other points, you bring up irrelevant appeals to emotions, and project in me the same dismissal ("slap") you actually initiated.

[dsayers]

I never said it is desired to feel obligated. Calling the positive obligation in question arbitrary is begging the question.

 

you bring up irrelevant appeals to emotions, and project in me the same dismissal ("slap") you actually initiated.

 

"Initiated" substantiates my interpretation and "irrelevant" in response to my using the word shows it persists. My use of the word irrelevant spoke of items that did nothing to establish or refute that choosing to have a child is choosing to create a positive obligation to it. Your use spoke of appeals to emotion, which I haven't used.

 

The only mention of emotion I've made was not part of my argumentation. It was brought up to show you that you tried to punish me for being honest with you. Something you're continuing to do even after I explained that me experiencing frustration doesn't mean YOU frustrated me.

 

Did you notice that we both perceive being attacked but only one of us feels it justifies retaliation? I mention it since it can help to establish the validity of the perceived attacks. By this I mean that if a person senses an attack and tries to continue discussing rationally, it is clear he does not want attacks to be part of the discourse. Whereas somebody that senses an attack and retaliates might have only seen the attack because they were looking for it.

 

Pride has no place in a productive debate. My claim either accurately describes the real world or it does not. Either way, it is no reflection on you or me.