Parental rights denied by 9th Circuit Court

Originally Posted by Watts

No, it isn't taking it completely out of context. The ruling clearly states that parents have no fundamental right to inform their children on such subjects. Fundamental rights are considered "natural human" rights. Like say, you have a fundamental right to eat... or relieve your bodily functions... Oops! I forgot! In the school setting relieving your bodily functions is considered a privilege that you must ask permission for.

Fundamental rights are best described as things like the right to life, the right of self defense, the right of bodily autonomy, the right of property, et al. These are universal (apply to everybody), natural (you have them because you are who you are), and inalienable (you cannot have them taken away, period). The right to control education is not a fundamental right. It might be a DERIVATIVE right such as the ones granted under our Constitution, but it does not fall under the criteria listed above (and if they did, I would die a little on the inside).

Quote:

That's why this is a slippery slope. If the State can deny a basic fundamental right for a child, it's just as easy to do it to an adult. But that's the point of socialization isn't it?

The slippery slope is a complete myth, and for your help, here's the three basic criteria for a cause and effect relationship.

1) Spacial contiguity. There MUST be a physical connection between event A and event B.
2) Temporal Priority. X (a bat hitting a ball) must happen before Y (the ball going flying).
3) Repeatability. X causing Y must happen a statistically significant number of times.

These are the ONLY three criteria. At best, they allow for something to be merely probable. There is never a necessary connection. Events can happen with a greater or lesser degree of probability, but there is never a 100% chance.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

True, it is more or less. At least for the issue of abortion, although I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing it happening for other issues as well.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Watts

So what you're saying is that parents have no fundamental right to raise or nurture a child as they see fit. Is that not the definition of a parent?

No, I'm saying that it's not a fundamental right. It is a DERIVATIVE right, something that CAN be taken away (unlike the right to life, for example). It is a privelage set forth by our government, and as such they can take it away. If they wanted to imprison the parents for being bad parents, now that would be something else entirely. But saying that the parents have a fundamental right to influence the public education of not only THEIR child, but also implying that they have the right to influence OTHER children is bull. And you know something? If they DON'T like what the public school's doing, then they can pull them out and do something else. I should know, I was homeschooled for three years and then put into a private school for another three.

Quote:

You're essentially talking about mathematics, I'm talking about legal precedents. At any point in time this ruling could be used as justification to deny a parent the right to raise their child in any manner that they deem to be prudent.

Bullshit. I was talking about legal precedents too. There is no such thing as a necessary connection. The sun rising? Wow, that happens every day! It'll happen tomorrow! *tomorrow comes* Oh noes, the sun's light bulb burnt out. So much for the sun rising.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Watts

Isn't that what the parents that didn't want 'intelligent design' taught in their schools did? They took it to court and challenged it legally, and immediately there after kicked the whole school board out of office. What if the state were to take a very liberal interpetation of this ruling and say that "in this case, parents do not have the privilage of deciding what is getting taught in the science classroom?".

Again, I was talking about a fundamental right. Clearly you need a short lesson in philosophy.

There are two kinds of rights. There are fundamental rights, which include the right to life, the right to liberty, bodily autonomy, etc. These rights are natural (we have them because we are who we are and for no other reason), universal (they apply to everybody), and inalienable (they cannot be surrendered or taken away).

The other kind of rights are derivative rights, which are essentially extensions of fundamental rights, the difference being that they are NOT natural, universal, and inalienable. Take the 1st Amendment. If times were right, the sheep were guided well enough, and enough crying was done, we could have a constitutional amendment that annuls the 1st amendment, and poof! No freedom of religion. Or freedom of speech, or the freedoms that we take for granted.

The right to influence your child's education is a derivative right, not a fundamental right.

Quote:

I disagree. There is a necessary connection between morality and law. Law is required to comform to society's standards of the time. Otherwise law has no legitmacy.

O RLY?

EDIT: Oh, and if that's not enough, then on the top of my head, I can recall several of these laws:

It is illegal to whistle underwater.
In Texas, you may not carry wire cutters in your pocket.
If two trains meet on a track, then both must stop and neither may continue until the other has passed.

And you claim that laws have to follow society's standards?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Watts

Oh boy. Freedom of speech is misconstrued anyway. Do I need to redirect your attention to the Alien and Sedition Act? Perhaps the Smith Act? Take a look at the scarier provisions of the Patriot Act. Those freedoms are not a bastion of freedom that you think it is.

Congratulations. Now do you think you could argue my point?

Quote:

No I claimed that legitimate law has to follow society's standards. Prohibition and the other examples only confirm my point. They were examples of laws that are/were not taken legitimately by society at large. I mean, isn't that why the 30's were called the "Sober 30's" instead of the "Roaring 30's"? Or was it 20's? I forget.

*edit* But that's probably another point we won't agree on.

Legitimacy has nothing to do with your argument. The fact remains that a) We live in a social contract society (i.e. we, by being citizens, agree to obey the laws of the land), and b) those examples became laws. Thus, there is a potential for a law to go against the moral standards of the community at large, and even the potential for something like that to happen disproves your statement. You are claiming that there is a necessary connection between laws and morality, and then turning around and explaining away counterexamples by claiming that they're not "legitimate." Bullshit! If they weren't legitimate, then they wouldn't have become laws. The very concept of an illegitimate law is contradictory. :lolsign:

You really should be more careful with all or nothing statements, they're incredibly easy to disprove.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Watts

Legitimacy has everything to do with my argument. Especially when talking about Prohibition. A law that was so widely disregarded and where authority of said law was flaunted on such a wide scale.

And the people who did that broke the law and were punished for it if they got caught. You're saying that because the majority of people disagreed with it then it wasn't legitimate. Guess what? A majority of people don't agree with taxes, nor do they agree with being fined for speeding! That makes them illegitimate!

You're putting forth a VERY dangerous argument here. You're essentially saying that laws aren't based upon an objective standard, but on the whims of the public, which is a) very hard to determine, and b) very easy to influence, either the public itself or the results of any testing.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Watts

I'm not really saying anything, just posing a theoretical question. If the President of the United States openly flaunts the law; can it be considered legitimate? If the vast majority of people don't follow said law; is it legitimate?

It doesn't matter who violates the law. You violated the law, and thus you are punished (assuming you get caught). How hard is this to understand?

Quote:

The majority of the people think that taxes are a necessary evil. Since speeding tickets; like the lottery is a form of taxation, then that fits under the necessary evil catagory. Now, most people don't like taxes. They're not required too. The small minority of people, (I call them anarchists) don't buy that, nor accept that argument. Incidently they typically believe that the State's very existence violates their fundamental rights.

Funny, It's estimated that around 5 percent of Americans evade taxes via offshore tax havens alone. And consider that a tax haven is one of the least used. Of the 1.5 trillion in taxes collected in 1998, it's estimated that there was at least another 232 billion that was never collected. Even accounting for corporate evasion, that's still a pretty penny of people whom, according to you, hate taxes but pay them anyway (which coincidentally makes taxes legitimate).

Quote:

Well at least we finally agree on something eh? Long and drawn out discussions tends to do that.

Yes, I am putting forth some dangerous ideas. The question is, dangerous to whom?

Are you quite done being overly dramatic? =\

Quote:

Take slavery for example. Was that on the whims of the public? Did it benefit the public? I would like to think that both are false. Yet, slavery as an institution existed and was protected/enforced by the law. Cui bono?

Funny thing is, that prior to the Civil War era it was supported by the majority, and one of the main arguments from the South was that abolition would remove the strength of its economy. Also, it certainly isn't an institution protected by law today. And how can you say that "the vast majority of people violate this law thus it is illegitimate" is not saying "the legitimacy of law is determined by the majority opinion?"

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Watts

Everyone who violates the law and get's caught get's punished? I wish.

I meant "caught" as in with no reasonable doubt. Granted, it becomes massively complicated with plea deals, but such technicalities are outside the scope of this discussion, neh?

Quote:

That's debatable, not that I'm expecting you to come to a agreement with me. Only a small wealthy minority actually owned slaves. But it was still an institution protected by law, for roughly let's say half this nation's existence. You didn't answer my question of; Did it benefit the public even if the majority were not slaveowners?

Slave owners pre-Civil War would argue that it did benefit the public. Granted, after slavery was abolished there was (I believe) a minimal impact on the economy, but by the time the war had started the Industrial Revolution had already begun, minimalizing the need for slaves.

Quote:

When even a minority of people disregard the law, revolutions become a possibility. Revolutions in my mind are completely legitimate politicial actions. Self-determination and all that yeah? Yet they're still overthrowing "legitimate" laws right? Who's deciding what's legitimate?

One man's revolutionary is another man's terrorist. When those people became revolutionaries, then in the eyes of the law they became criminals and were punished, usually severely, when they were caught. If the revolution succeeded, then the old system didn't exist anymore and the law was changed, thus the revolutionaries were no longer criminals.

Quote:

Now I never said that "the legitimacy of law is determined by the majority opinion", I said that the legitimacy of the law is established by the society's standard morals of the time.

...what.

Seriously, what the hell do you think determines the "society's standard morals of the time?"

The majority opinion.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Watts

People with differing opinions typically share the same tradition and customs.

And thus, they have an opinion on morality, based on customs and traditions. Therefore, you are claiming that legitimacy of law is based on the majority opinion.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Morality is RELATIVE?

I'm lollin'.

DEATHBLOW TO A LEGENDARY THREAD, GO!

So, you believe in moral relativism, eh?

Well then, let me point you to two arguments, the Shape Relativist argument, and Moore's Argument.

First, let's officially define moral relativism: "Tribe "x" believes that, "a" is morally wrong. Tribe "y" believes that, "a" is morally right. Therefore, the morality of "a" is dependant on the beliefs on the tribe."

I think we can agree on this as the definition of moral relativism, no?

Anyway, one main point of Moral Relativism (or "MR") is that supporters of these theory point to a similar theory, Cultural Relativism (which is the theory that different tribes have different moral beliefs, which is true) as evidence. However, the Shape Relativist argument debunks the argument for "MR":

"Tribe "x" believes that, the Earth is roughly spherical. Tribe "y" believes that, the earth is not roughly spherical. Therefore, the sphericity of the Earth is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

The Shape Relativist argument effectively disconnects "MR" from its reasoning. Cultural Relativism is true, yes, but it does not imply "MR."

However, that does not deal with the truth of "MR," it just shows that there is no link between Cultural Relativism and "MR." Moore's argument deals with this like so:

"If it is true that one and the same action can be both right and wrong at the same time or at different times (the normative definition of "MR"), and assuming that each case of moral judgement is a factually correct dissertion of the person's feelings, then it follows that when two persons appear to disagree, they do not genuinely disagree. But, in point of observed fact, people do genuinely disagree. Therefore, Moral Relativism is false."

What this argument says is that if "MR" is true, then there can be NO genuine disagreements because we're dealing with irrevocably private feelings (an example being your opinion on Pepsi or Coke, where one person says "I like Coke," and the other says, "No you don't.") However, we DO have genuine disagreements over publically available procedures. Thus, "MR" cannot be true.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

1st, your shape relevatism is a bullshit red herring.

You've never taken a logic class, have you? Let me explain:

The Moral Relativist argument and the Shape Relativist argument share the same logical form. Think of it like two blueprints of a house: One is decked out with contemporary deocration and high-tech stuff, while the other is rustic and exudes Southern hospitality. When you look at the blueprints however, you see that they are the same thing. Thus, if you take out the keystone for one house and make it collapse, removing the same keystone will take out the other house. Since the Shape Relativist argument is so obviously absurd and logically defective, thus the logical form is defective. In other words, "MR" is a logically defective argument.

Quote:

2nd, moral relevatism is essentially the difference in beliefs between two or more parties. If it's a yes/no question like Pepsi vs. Coke, one has to be correct. But since there is no way to know which is correct (asside from the ever popular believing oneself to always be right), the issue is relative.

Did you even understand what I said? I said that the Pepsi vs. Coke debate was one saying "I like Coke more than Pepsi!" and the other saying "No, you don't." How can the other person know? He can't because they are dealing with irrevocably private feelings. According to Moral Relativism, ALL disagreements deal with irrevocably private feelings. However, there ARE disagreements that do NOT deal with irrevocably private feelings, but publically observed fact (such as 2+2=4. If somebody says 2+2=5, then that person is wrong because he is talking about a publically observed fact, and can be shown as such). Thus, Moral Relativism is false.

Quote:

3rd, In your 'Moore's Argument', there is a wild and unsubstantiated jump to guess that since people believe different things, that they wouldn't really argue, and since people obviously argue, they believe different things. That is also, some bullshit that makes no sense. Sure sounds pretty though. They argue because they have differing opinions on what is or is not moral, and they cannot or will not accept the other person's worldview as true. How is this false?

I've already dealt with this in my response to your second point. According to Moral Relativism, there can be no such thing as a genuine disagreement since we are all talking about nothing but irrevocably private feelings. But again, there ARE genuine disagreements over publically available procedures. Thus, since reality contradicts "MR," "MR" is false.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by PUG1911

The shape relevatism is only defective because it is a situation wherein we know the answer. Up until the time where the shape was known, either side of the argument could have been correct, because neither side was provable.

So you're effectively saying that the Earth ISN'T round? Rrriiiiight.

Quote:

Except that arguments on moral issues are not debates about telling others what they do, and do not believe. It's telling others that you believe what you believe, and the other sides of the debate continuing to believe what they believe. Unlike the shape relevatism, these are generally issues that have not been 'proven' one way or the other.

Arguments on moral issues are, at least from a philosophical point of view, attempts at using logic and reason to determine whether something is justifiable and if so, whether it is true. And believe it or not, a great many issues that are still hotly debated have for the most part been resolved. The only problem is that often a LOT of cases within one issue have a mazework of factors, and the problem then becomes weighing these factors and making a moral judgement, which may result in different outcomes even in cases that are very similar in circumstance.

Quote:

This is not according to MR, this is according to Moore. And how is arguing over irrevocably private feelings not genuine anyhow?

"Genuine" as in an actual argument beyond going "NO U DON'T" over and over again. =\

Oh, and believe it or not, Moore is a logician. And what he did with his argument is give the definition of Moral Relativism in both the normative and meta-ethical sense (meta-ethical as in what "good" is: in the case of MR, it's feelings in general), then follow it to its conclusion, i.e. that people cannot genuinely disagree since they are disagreeing over irrevocably private feelings. Moore then notes that genuine disagreements occur since there are procedures/facts/etc. that are universally observable (such as gravity), and thus reality contradicts MR, making it false.

Quote:

But if we are going to go on the assumption that MR is false (Which is debateable despite what your classes may have told you). What is true, if people of different backgrounds and seemingly different morals do not seem to agree. I mean, if they don't REALLY have different morals, which then are the universal morals that all of us share, just that some of us do not yet grasp?

Congratulations on asking a question that is right up there with "Why are we here?"

And I never said that they don't have different morals, I'm saying that under Moral Relativism, all moral codes are right (and all arguments period, for that matter), even ones that contradict one another. As such, under MR, there is no point in arguing at all about ANYTHING. MR would say that things such as racism, genocide, etc. are morally correct, because ALL codes are correct. To claim otherwise is to argue something other than MR. In essence, MR isn't even a theory, it's just a diplomatic way of saying "I hate what you do, but I'm too much of a pussy to argue against what you believe in."

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Watts

No, I don't agree with that at all. Especially we're talking about individual ideas and not a interconnected bond between humans. Unless mankind has developed a hive brain while I haven't been looking, saying "Tribe x" believe's "a" is false. We don't all think the same. "Tribe x" is composed of dissenters. It's too simplistic to explain otherwise. This is not a yes or no proposition.

Tribe x is any group of people. It can be a nation, the Boy Scouts, you, me, the entire world, etc.

Quote:

There's a better definition anyhow. Moral Relativism is the idea that there is no absolute or universal morals. The source of our morals is from social, traditional, and historical values. Manifested in the individual. In other words, there probably isn't a god. If there is a God, he does not dictate our actions with universal standards. As the major religons dictate as such.

You could certainly argue that, but then you wouldn't be talking about Moral Relativism, would you?

Quote:

Let's deal with this problem in a historical context. Tribe "x" is Galileo and Tribe "y" is the Catholic Church. "x" is a moral relativist because he rejects the universal standard of Christianity's belief that the earth is the center of the universe. "y" is the Catholic Church. The absolute opposite of an moral relativist because "they" believe that the Earth is the center of the universe. After all the bible said so. The only source of morals must be from a all-powerful all-knowing being.

You DO realize that the Shape Relativist argument is just one example that shows the logical defect inherent in the "MR" argument, right? Here's another off the top of my head:

"Tribe 'x' believes that, the moon is made out of cheese. Tribe 'y' believes that, the moon is made out of rock. Therefore, the composition of the moon is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

Or another:

"Tribe 'x' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of a mix comprising mainly of nitrogen, oxygen, and other trace amounts of chemicals. Tribe 'y' believes that, the atmosphere is made out of acid that will kill us all the instant we breathe one iota of it. Therefore, the composition of the atmosphere is relative to the beliefs of the tribe."

Quote:

This is what these types of debates turn into. You are still talking about relativity in relation to morality. Just the degree which you preceive it to exist. Moore was talking about ethical relativity in relation to morality. Ethics and morals go hand and hand. Hence, Moore's idea are accepted as a whole by most relativists. Just not the Catholic Church.

Ethics are morals.

Congratulations on saying the single STUPIDEST thing in this thread so far.

Quote:

Well now your point makes more sense. So people do have different morals (The way many define moral relevatism). But I don't believe that implies that each is 'right', only that to those groups they seem right. The entire crux of the moral relevatism argument is that: We of one moral stance do *not* know for absolute certain that our morals are correct, and theirs are wrong.

Ahh, but the problem I see with relativism is that instead of trying to FIND out what's moral and what's not, they just throw their hands up and say "Fuck it, everything's moral."

Quote:

The reason people argue about issues that are defined as (By those that believe in) morally relative is either to educate themselves about the other side's POV, or to try to convince them that their POV is wrong, and to convince them of that.

Wouldn't that imply that there is a possibility that one or the other is morally wrong?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

But these are still not examples of moral issues. At best they are examples of long understood 'scientific' issues. These are not questions of whether a thing is ethical but whether a thing is true or false.

*sigh*

It doesn't matter whether it's a moral issue or a scientific issue. A logical form has to be at least true (not necessarily reasonable) for ALL instances of this logical form, or the logical form isn't true, period. You cannot cherry-pick and divide into categories based on what the dressings are, because they are irrelevant to the argument.

Quote:

That doesn't have to be the case at all. One can explore and test their moral stance, and re-evaluate it based on what they learn of another views on the same subject. You needn't close your mind to the other side in order to accept that you haven't the moral authority to determine what is right for everybody. All it really boils down to is admiting that although one does not believe so, it is possible that one's stance is not entirely right. To believe that as much as we may not like or agree with another way of doing things, it may not be entirely without merit.

Which again, implies that a) one may not be right, and b) there is an objective standard for morality.

Quote:

Of course it's possible that one is right, and the other wrong. But unlike some, I don't want to assume that my way is the right way because I believe it to be. If you keep a relatively open mind you might learn something from those you might otherwise dismiss as morally bankrupt. What's so bad about *trying* to take a relatively objective stance and trying to understand another's point of view?

There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that at that point you're more or less admitting that yes, there is an objective standard for morality, which moral relativism claims cannot be the case.

Quote:

That one side is right, and another wrong, is pretty much a given. But who *knows* (not believes) which side is right? And thus, why moral relavitism is something that comes up. We don't *know* which side is right, and to assume otherwise reeks of arrogance.

And this is the crux of why relativism is so attractive. With objectivism, you have to deal with individual cases, carefully weigh benefits/harm (assuming you're approaching from a utilitarian point of view), and make difficult moral judgements that not everybody will like, and indeed, it's not even guaranteed that anybody will like them, not even yourself. Relativism, on the other hand, solves the problem by refusing to acknowledge both an objective standard of morality, and even refuses to acknowledge that disagreements occur, period.

I'll respond to you later, Watts. I just got up and have to get ready for work in like... 5 minutes, and I don't have enough time.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?