palou said:
I was talking specifically about children, if you haven't noticed. More specifically, the influence of parents over their children. I consider children to be humans, and thus, they cannot be "owned", even by a parent. People have free will concerning themselves - not upon others. Since a child does not have the required capacities to make informed decisions or to simply look after themselves, some decisions need to be made for them, and some things need to be given to them. Parents, having a natural attachment and sensibility to the vulnerability of their children, can naturally be the first to be trusted to use this power over the child in the child's best interest. It is nonetheless a reality that not all parents know (or sometimes desire) the best interest of the child at all times, which, to me, revokes their right of intervention in a child's freedom in said context. So, we can collectively agree upon rules (the function of a democratic government) that delimit what can be considered to be in a child's interest. |
I know I'm being overly sensitive here so don't take me too seriously it's just that this shit pisses me off.
Why not avoid the inevitable then and turn all children over to the state after birth, the government is never wrong, food science is never revised. People are too stupid to always make good decisions so the government should just go ahead and make those decisions for them. As another poster said, baby steps, baby steps. Stop being a fucking baby and just jump straight to the inevitable.
