Setanta wrote:
Quote:
I can't believe how dull-witted this thesis is.
The law does not consider the "moral" position of the child,
or the wishes of the child.
As I indicated earlier in this thread:
this is the
PHILOSOPHY and
DEBATE forum.
HERE, we can debate the philosophy of what is right and rong.
This is NOT the legal research forum.
Over the years and centuries the law has varied radically
between and among different jurisdictions.
The law is an arbitrary fact of a particular point in time in a designated place.
In this forum, we are not so limited.
Quote:The law considers the the parents are responsible for the child--
responsible in the sense that the parents are the guarantors of the child's good behavior,
BALONEY !
Your assertion is in error in my jurisdiction,
and false as to most of America.
If a child goes and robs a liquor store,
the parents are
NOT responsible;
thay guaranty NOTHING.
In my jurisdiction, if a child runs over someone
with his bicycle, or hits someone with a rock, the parents are
NOT responsible
( with some narrow and unusual exceptions ).
U r blurting out emotional declarations
without understanding what u r talking about, Setanta.
I thought u did better research than that.
Quote:
and responsible in the sense that the law requires the parents to house,
and clothe, and feed and educate the child.
Yes, but thay r NOT in default ( neither legally, nor morally )
of their duty of financial support, if the kid has
yielded to the allure of the open road
and left them behind.
Quote:If a horse gets loose, and it tramples a man's newly planted field,
and eats another man's fodder--the owner of the horse if responsible for
the losses those others have suffered.
Yes; this involves the owner 's negligence
in failing to secure his property,
the same as if he failed to properly secure his tractor,
it rolls downhill and breaks down his neighbor 's barn.
I only mentioned the horse ( owner 's property )
to distinguish this from the relationship of a father to a human being,
who ( because of the 13th Amendment ) cannot be property.
I am saying that the man has a RIGHT to his equine property;
DOES HE HAVE A RIGHT TO A HUMAN BEING ( his son ) ?
In this thread,
I raise questions as to the rights of a child;
u answer with allegations concerning
OBLIGATIONS of parents, Setanta,
IGNORING my questions about the rights of children.
I did not ask about the duties of parents; THAT IS ANOTHER THREAD.
These are 2 distinct and different concepts.
Let 's keep them separate.
Does the boy violate the rights of his dad
if he hits the road ?
Does the boy violate the rights of his dad
if he goes to live with someone who gives him a better deal ?
The HORSE has no right to choose a better farmer;
does the BOY have a moral right to choose a better host ?
For instance,
Elian said on TV that he wanted to remain in Florida
with his cousins; his communist father demanded him back in Cuba,
as lost property. Elian was what used to be called " a runaway slave ".
( This concept does not apply to an escaped horse. )
In my opinion,
Elian 's own choice shud have been honored.
Quote:Additionally, the law with regard to prohibiting cruelty to animals
requires the owner to adequately care for the horse.
In WHICH jurisdiction is this the law, counsellor ?
Do u have a case on it ?
I deem it
improbable that any law against cruelty to animals
requires the owner of a lost animal to go
CHASE him.
Quote:The case with children is even stronger in that children will one day enter society
as members of that society to be held responsible for their behavior,
WHAT ?
When I was a kid,
I was under the impression that I was a member of society
THEN and there, and that I was responsible for my behavior
( e.g., no robbing of any liquor stores ) as of that time
( with some minor exceptions, such as possibly, in some cases,
being able to get out of a contract of sale ).
Quote:and in the circumstance, the behavior of any children whom they produce.
Again ( see above ) as a general rule,
people of any age r responsible for their own behavior.
( Below a certain age [ in my jurisdiction age 4 ] thay r "
non sui juris "
such that damage thay cause is deemed as a force of nature,
like the wind and no one is responsible. )
Quote:What the child wants, and what one could or could not allege is the "moral" position of the child is meaningless--
society requires the adult to care for and regulate the behavior of the child.
1 ) " Meaningless " is a relative term.
It is poor reasoning to employ a relative term
without designating the criteria to which it relates.
2 ) As I have pointed out hereinbefore,
different cultures have had different requirements, over the centuries;
for instance, in Medieval Japan, society deemed it OK
for a parent to KILL a child, within that parent 's discretion.
Girls have legally been killed by their fathers
for refusal to marry the choice of the killer.
The vu of " society " is not necessarily * RIGHT *
if u 'll excuse me for using that word.
I dissent from your point of vu, Setanta
insofar as u deem it rong to consider and debate moral philosophy.
I rely upon Freedom of Speech and upon the grace of our host.
David 