CensorshipFollow

Experience trumps logic every day of the week.



Absolutely yes there is. You cannot hold someone to a level of obligation when you yourself have no experience to dictate whether said obligation is reasonable. You cannot say what any given parent should or should not be like until you've been responsible for their kids on a parental level. Anyone who thinks otherwise is thinking out of their ****.

Edited, Oct 14th 2007 8:11pm by StubsOnAsura

Bullshit. You've been beating those poor strawmen left and right all throughout this thread ever since your first post in it.

"You have no right to say that the iraqi war is unjustified until you've been there as a soldier"

True or False

***

I only use this particular example because I've heard it more times than I can count. Pick something else if you'd like.

Edited, Oct 14th 2007 9:12pm by Pensive

that is not what you said when i jumped on your post.



you can only take so much action before you destroy your child.

No matter which way you put it, you CANNOT validate your own opinion on being a good parent until you've become a parent yourself. Being a parent is a hell of a lot different than justifying a war. Comparing the two is irrelevant for the scope of this debate.

Actually I'm not, not at all. I might be enticed to make that claim somewhere else, but what you quoted wasn't about that.

I'm just arguing that someone can make meaningful, prescriptive claims (meaning they can tell you what to do) without having had direct experience in that field. No one should be debating that. I can make a very strong claim that it is not right to beat your children even without having had children of my own. I don't understand why the content of those variables changes and suddenly non-parents just don't have any say whatsoever. My guess would be that it is simply a rhetorical trick used to discredit someone else but whatever.

haha, but what is beat? is a spanking a beating? is a smack on the back of the hand a beating? again until you are there who are you to judge?

to some who have never been a parent any touch on a child that is a threat or punishment is a beating. not to me. so again you can not make a claim of negligence or of how a parent should monitor their child until you have children of your own.

yeah i used to think that way too until i had children of my own. at the very second my daughter was born, the world changed. every parent here can tell you that, and until you are one you will never understand.

trust me i was dealing with children as a way of life long before i got married and had my first child and i used to think just like you are talking right now. you are wrong and you will understand the day your first child is born.

if you are hitting a child and it hurts them for more then a few min. you are beating a child. h311 10 days would get you killed in jail by the inmates.

so see, that is a thing that being a parent will teach you. sorry you do not like the facts that life changes when you have a child. sorry you can not comprehend that. there is nothing i can do with your lack of knowledge in this area, and there is NOTHING you can do about it either until you are in my shoes.

as for the iraq thing it was stated very clear above. a soldier follows orders, goes were he is told and does not matter if the war is justified or not. but to say that what a soldier is doing is unjustified when you have not been to iraq as a soldier is irresponsible on your part.

why? simple you do not have the experience or knowledge needed to judge that soldiers actions. that's why there are MILITARY courts were soldiers are judged as they are NOT judged in civilian courts for acts as soldiers.

keep trying. what ever dude, grow up and you will learn and understand.

You're trying to use semantics to win an argument in which you are just flat wrong. The easy road is to conjure up subjective situations which have no realistic placement in the debate. The proper road is one of submission. Why is it impossible for you to agree, on a fundamental level, that you have no business telling a parent they are not not doing what they should be doing, if you yourself have no experience being a parent?

Wait I missed this.

If a soldier, acting under the authority of the United States whatever the **** thing you want to put here, directly causes the death (shoots) of 10 young orphans who were looking for the bathroom, and does so under superior orders, I (and you) can't judge him?

By all means mold that scenario until you find some sort of line, but a blanket statement rendering my opinions worthless concerning any action that a soldier takes in the name of "war" (whatever war means) renders my condemnation of that soldier as a worthless **** who should be reprimanded, concerning the above example, irrelevant. I refuse to believe that you or I or anyone else, who is a non-soldier cannot condemn that behavior on a common ethical ground. If you can't condemn that action then you have no ethical ground at all.

1) I'm not debating semantics. Semantics debates are debates about the meanings of particular words

2) The "easy road" is what we do everyday. It's called "analogy." I'm not claiming that my analogies are very perfect, but I fully invite you to mold them however you see fit. If I had more time I'd make better ones, but right now I'm just going with bare bones, logical analogies.

3) If I agree that I have no business telling a parent how to raise a child (given that I have no experience) then all ethical systems are rendered completely worthless. Why? Do some abstraction; it goes like this. If you accept the proposition that "Non-parent's moral position is irrelevant to Parent's moral position" then you also accept the form of "Not X's moral position is irrelevant to X's moral position." Do you see where that might lead? "Parent" is a variable in this. If you replace it with any other category of which a person might belong, then you can justify almost any action whatsoever, because the non X does not have the experiences of the X.

To be honest, I can fully accept that I don't have any claim on the morality or immorality of a parent's action, or any other person's action. I really just want to know if you do, because if you do (if you believe that we can make ethical judgments at all really) then there is a very large problem with resolving those two kinds of beliefs. In fact, you wouldn't be able to tell your child what to do, because you don't have the same experiences as that child. You can only do what you believe is right, and if the child disagrees, then oops!

I do not believe that I have overlooked something which would change those two kinds of propositions. If I have, then I'd like to know what, and I'd amend basically everything that I've said, but until then I'm sticking with it.