Should minors who wish to leave their parents' religion be given legal protections?

[fhtagn]

Dule really has let his hatred of religion absolutely shred his libertarianism

My bad, I forgot that libertarianism requires me to view minors as less-than-human and undeserving of basic rights and freedoms.

Seems a bit odd that you're holding this position that parents are in no place to have a say in things their children can or cannot do at any point in their lives. It sounds great and all until you get to the stereotypical libertarian meme:

Are you willing to admit that parents have every right to tell their kids having sex with an adult is not okay and is not allowed, or do you believe children have the right to engage in those acts and the parents should have CPS come after them for telling them otherwise?

Parents can tell kids whatever they want. What I'm saying is that if their children are not receptive to those ideas, and they decide to then create a hostile home environment in an attempt to force their beliefs on their kids, CPS should get involved. I don't think this is too controversial of a position.

So if a teenager wants to start a sexual relationship with their teacher, CPS should get involved (targeting the parents) if the parents take any "hostile" steps to prevent their underage child from having inappropriate relations with said adult? This could include having numerous conversations telling them it is wrong, removing their privileges in the home for going out, requiring strict rules for when they do go out, moving to a location where the child cannot keep seeing said adult, etc.

[John Dule]

Dule really has let his hatred of religion absolutely shred his libertarianism

My bad, I forgot that libertarianism requires me to view minors as less-than-human and undeserving of basic rights and freedoms.

Seems a bit odd that you're holding this position that parents are in no place to have a say in things their children can or cannot do at any point in their lives. It sounds great and all until you get to the stereotypical libertarian meme:

Are you willing to admit that parents have every right to tell their kids having sex with an adult is not okay and is not allowed, or do you believe children have the right to engage in those acts and the parents should have CPS come after them for telling them otherwise?

Parents can tell kids whatever they want. What I'm saying is that if their children are not receptive to those ideas, and they decide to then create a hostile home environment in an attempt to force their beliefs on their kids, CPS should get involved. I don't think this is too controversial of a position.

So if a teenager wants to start a sexual relationship with their teacher, CPS should get involved (targeting the parents) if the parents take any "hostile" steps to prevent their underage child from having inappropriate relations with said adult? This could include having numerous conversations telling them it is wrong, removing their privileges in the home for going out, requiring strict rules for when they do go out, moving to a location where the child cannot keep seeing said adult, etc.

... Sex with a minor is already illegal. The government would be getting involved there regardless, and the action it would take would be against the teacher. This question is hardly applicable. I'm sure you can come up with something that will actually stump me.

[fhtagn]

Dule really has let his hatred of religion absolutely shred his libertarianism

My bad, I forgot that libertarianism requires me to view minors as less-than-human and undeserving of basic rights and freedoms.

Seems a bit odd that you're holding this position that parents are in no place to have a say in things their children can or cannot do at any point in their lives. It sounds great and all until you get to the stereotypical libertarian meme:

Are you willing to admit that parents have every right to tell their kids having sex with an adult is not okay and is not allowed, or do you believe children have the right to engage in those acts and the parents should have CPS come after them for telling them otherwise?

Parents can tell kids whatever they want. What I'm saying is that if their children are not receptive to those ideas, and they decide to then create a hostile home environment in an attempt to force their beliefs on their kids, CPS should get involved. I don't think this is too controversial of a position.

So if a teenager wants to start a sexual relationship with their teacher, CPS should get involved (targeting the parents) if the parents take any "hostile" steps to prevent their underage child from having inappropriate relations with said adult? This could include having numerous conversations telling them it is wrong, removing their privileges in the home for going out, requiring strict rules for when they do go out, moving to a location where the child cannot keep seeing said adult, etc.

... Sex with a minor is already illegal. The government would be getting involved there regardless, and the action it would take would be against the teacher. This question is hardly applicable. I'm sure you can come up with something that will actually stump me.

So by your logic "forcing" beliefs on children is okay when the government does it? Your argument here was that forcing anyone to go against their beliefs is hostile, and grounds for action against whoever is preventing children from acting based on their beliefs. If the child has a sincerely held belief that it is ok to engage in relations with their teacher, why is it ok for the government to say "no, that's illegal", but not ok for parents to influence their child to achieve the same desired result?

[John Dule]

So by your logic "forcing" beliefs on children is okay when the government does it? Your argument here was that forcing anyone to go against their beliefs is hostile, and grounds for action against whoever is preventing children from acting based on their beliefs. If the child has a sincerely held belief that it is ok to engage in relations with their teacher, why is it ok for the government to say "no, that's illegal", but not ok for parents to influence their child to achieve the same desired result?

When did I say that parents shouldn't be able to influence their children that way? The goal here is to protect the most vulnerable members of our society from coercive influence at the hands of bad actors with a severe power imbalance. That includes pedophiles who use their age and position in society to manipulate their targets into dependent relationships.

If it's pedophilia you're worried about, then let me tell you a little something about the Catholic Church-- not to mention the arranged child marriages that take place in various extremist religious groups around the globe.

[fhtagn]

So by your logic "forcing" beliefs on children is okay when the government does it? Your argument here was that forcing anyone to go against their beliefs is hostile, and grounds for action against whoever is preventing children from acting based on their beliefs. If the child has a sincerely held belief that it is ok to engage in relations with their teacher, why is it ok for the government to say "no, that's illegal", but not ok for parents to influence their child to achieve the same desired result?

When did I say that parents shouldn't be able to influence their children that way? The goal here is to protect the most vulnerable members of our society from coercive influence at the hands of bad actors with a severe power imbalance. That includes pedophiles who use their age and position in society to manipulate their targets into dependent relationships.

If it's pedophilia you're worried about, then let me tell you a little something about the Catholic Church-- not to mention the arranged child marriages that take place in various extremist religious groups around the globe.

You don't have a "goal" if you aren't willing to see how flawed your logic is when applied to any other scenarios. If you want to be edgy and anti-religion by all means go for it, but at least be honest about why you are doing it. Because nothing you are saying is actually helping what you claim to be the goal.

We already have systems in place to protect the vulnerable from real cases of abuse. What you are promoting is targeting innocent parents for raising their kids within their religious and cultural values because you just hate religion.

[John Dule]

So by your logic "forcing" beliefs on children is okay when the government does it? Your argument here was that forcing anyone to go against their beliefs is hostile, and grounds for action against whoever is preventing children from acting based on their beliefs. If the child has a sincerely held belief that it is ok to engage in relations with their teacher, why is it ok for the government to say "no, that's illegal", but not ok for parents to influence their child to achieve the same desired result?

When did I say that parents shouldn't be able to influence their children that way? The goal here is to protect the most vulnerable members of our society from coercive influence at the hands of bad actors with a severe power imbalance. That includes pedophiles who use their age and position in society to manipulate their targets into dependent relationships.

If it's pedophilia you're worried about, then let me tell you a little something about the Catholic Church-- not to mention the arranged child marriages that take place in various extremist religious groups around the globe.

You don't have a "goal" if you aren't willing to see how flawed your logic is when applied to any other scenarios. If you want to be edgy and anti-religion by all means go for it, but at least be honest about why you are doing it. Because nothing you are saying is actually helping what you claim to be the goal.

We already have systems in place to protect the vulnerable from real cases of abuse. What you are promoting is targeting innocent parents for raising their kids within their religious and cultural values because you just hate religion.

No. I said from the outset that this was limited to minors who explicitly state their wish to not be involved in such practices and actively resist involvement. Children put in this situation should be able to receive state protection from parents who seek to vindictively punish them for not conforming to their expectations. Look back at my first post in this thread and I'm sure you will better understand my position.

[fhtagn]

So by your logic "forcing" beliefs on children is okay when the government does it? Your argument here was that forcing anyone to go against their beliefs is hostile, and grounds for action against whoever is preventing children from acting based on their beliefs. If the child has a sincerely held belief that it is ok to engage in relations with their teacher, why is it ok for the government to say "no, that's illegal", but not ok for parents to influence their child to achieve the same desired result?

When did I say that parents shouldn't be able to influence their children that way? The goal here is to protect the most vulnerable members of our society from coercive influence at the hands of bad actors with a severe power imbalance. That includes pedophiles who use their age and position in society to manipulate their targets into dependent relationships.

If it's pedophilia you're worried about, then let me tell you a little something about the Catholic Church-- not to mention the arranged child marriages that take place in various extremist religious groups around the globe.

You don't have a "goal" if you aren't willing to see how flawed your logic is when applied to any other scenarios. If you want to be edgy and anti-religion by all means go for it, but at least be honest about why you are doing it. Because nothing you are saying is actually helping what you claim to be the goal.

We already have systems in place to protect the vulnerable from real cases of abuse. What you are promoting is targeting innocent parents for raising their kids within their religious and cultural values because you just hate religion.

No. I said from the outset that this was limited to minors who explicitly state their wish to not be involved in such practices and actively resist involvement. Children put in this situation should be able to receive state protection from parents who seek to vindictively punish them for not conforming to their expectations. Look back at my first post in this thread and I'm sure you will better understand my position.

If what they are being asked to participate in is truly abusive or the activities are illegal in nature, protections already exist to support those children. What you have suggested numerous times in that thread goes way beyond truly helping those who are being harmed, it's targeting innocent people that are doing their jobs are parents.

[John Dule]

If what they are being asked to participate in is truly abusive or the activities are illegal in nature, protections already exist to support those children. What you have suggested numerous times in that thread goes way beyond truly helping those who are being harmed, it's targeting innocent people that are doing their jobs are parents.

It's not just a matter of whether the nature of the activity is abusive. It's also a matter of whether the form of coercion used to get children to participate in the cult rises to the level of "abuse." Of course, I think we should take a fairly broad definition of that word (circumcision, as I said earlier, is certainly a form of abuse). I'm open to hearing arguments about where we should draw that line, but I won't entertain for a moment the idea that many in this thread appear to adhere to-- that such a line should not exist at all.

[It’s so Joever]

Of course, and it should have to be based on an opt-in and not an opt-out (so as an example, it would never be legal to take children too young to communicate to a religious event).

Wtf

[Ferguson97]

some nonsense

Not sure why you decided to turn this discussion into a "gay people are pedophiles" rant, but thanks for derailing the conversation.

I never said anything about gay people being pedophiles. It suggests far more about you and your assumptions to come to that conclusion in response to what I said. Perhaps you aren't the ally you pretend to be.

You literally said

Just look at Drag Queen Story Hour being allowed in schools and public libraries, despite their issues related to pedophilia.

Don't play dumb.

"Should we ban religion?" phrased yet another way. No. And it won't ever happen in the United States because even most secular Americans aren't as driven by the issue as Atlas internet warriors.

It sounds like you're admitting that religion wouldn't be able to perpetuate itself if believers didn't brainwash their kids from birth.

No, I'm implying that you cannot have religious liberty if parents are not allowed to raise their children according to their values, not someone else's and definitely not the state's by coercion. Which is usually something libertarians don't like. Pity that I guess.

In what universe is "children should be allowed to leave the church" considered state coercion?

The government deciding what is or what is not good for your kids , what values should be or not be taught to your kid is authoritarianism 101 and frankly communist so please stop 

... what do you think communism is

[John Dule]

some nonsense

Not sure why you decided to turn this discussion into a "gay people are pedophiles" rant, but thanks for derailing the conversation.

I never said anything about gay people being pedophiles. It suggests far more about you and your assumptions to come to that conclusion in response to what I said. Perhaps you aren't the ally you pretend to be.

You literally said

Just look at Drag Queen Story Hour being allowed in schools and public libraries, despite their issues related to pedophilia.

Don't play dumb.

She's right, though. Numerous "drag queens" at those events have been exposed as sex offenders. And this is not about gay people being pedophiles; this is about drag queens being pedophiles.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The government deciding what is or what is not good for your kids , what values should be or not be
taught to your kid is authoritarianism 101 and frankly communist so please stop 

... what do you think communism is

Anyway Communism is just not an economic system , like many leftists claim it is. It yes is about destroying every traditional structure that exists in society from the economic system to religion to the family to make sure the state controls every aspect of your life .

In fact cultural revolutions that took place in the USSR and China were just as integral to the communist system as whatever economic system they had in place.

[fhtagn]

some nonsense

Not sure why you decided to turn this discussion into a "gay people are pedophiles" rant, but thanks for derailing the conversation.

I never said anything about gay people being pedophiles. It suggests far more about you and your assumptions to come to that conclusion in response to what I said. Perhaps you aren't the ally you pretend to be.

You literally said

Just look at Drag Queen Story Hour being allowed in schools and public libraries, despite their issues related to pedophilia.

Don't play dumb.

Are you assuming drag queen = gay?

Nowhere did I say (or even suggest) gay people are pedophiles.

[John Dule]

The government deciding what is or what is not good for your kids , what values should be or not be
taught to your kid is authoritarianism 101 and frankly communist so please stop 

... what do you think communism is

Anyway Communism is just not an economic system , like many leftists claim it is. It yes is about destroying every traditional structure that exists in society from the economic system to religion to the family to make sure the state controls every aspect of your life .

In fact cultural revolutions that took place in the USSR and China were just as integral to the communist system as whatever economic system they had in place.

Educational. And yet, irrelevant.

[Ferguson97]

Are you assuming drag queen = gay?

No? I'm saying that drag queens have a historical connection to the LGBT community. Anyone even remotely familiar with LGBT history would know this.

She's right, though. Numerous "drag queens" at those events have been exposed as sex offenders. And this is not about gay people being pedophiles; this is about drag queens being pedophiles.

There are pedophiles in every walk of life - teachers, coaches, priests, family members. Assuming that all drag queens are pedophiles is what I'm criticizing.

[John Dule]

Are you assuming drag queen = gay?

No? I'm saying that drag queens have a historical connection to the LGBT community. Anyone even remotely familiar with LGBT history would know this.

She's right, though. Numerous "drag queens" at those events have been exposed as sex offenders. And this is not about gay people being pedophiles; this is about drag queens being pedophiles.

There are pedophiles in every walk of life - teachers, coaches, priests, family members. Assuming that all drag queens are pedophiles is what I'm criticizing.

And yet those other professions actually contribute something to society (yes, even priests). Drag queens, meanwhile, are an offensive and misogynistic caricature of both gay men and women. They should be socially isolated and shunned.

[fhtagn]

Are you assuming drag queen = gay?

No? I'm saying that drag queens have a historical connection to the LGBT community. Anyone even remotely familiar with LGBT history would know this.

She's right, though. Numerous "drag queens" at those events have been exposed as sex offenders. And this is not about gay people being pedophiles; this is about drag queens being pedophiles.

There are pedophiles in every walk of life - teachers, coaches, priests, family members. Assuming that all drag queens are pedophiles is what I'm criticizing.

Nothing I said (or suggested) indicates I think all drag queens are pedophiles. Once again, this is indicating some problematic assumptions you have.

[afleitch]

Are you assuming drag queen = gay?

No? I'm saying that drag queens have a historical connection to the LGBT community. Anyone even remotely familiar with LGBT history would know this.

She's right, though. Numerous "drag queens" at those events have been exposed as sex offenders. And this is not about gay people being pedophiles; this is about drag queens being pedophiles.

There are pedophiles in every walk of life - teachers, coaches, priests, family members. Assuming that all drag queens are pedophiles is what I'm criticizing.

And yet those other professions actually contribute something to society (yes, even priests). Drag queens, meanwhile, are an offensive and misogynistic caricature of both gay men and women. They should be socially isolated and shunned.

Of which, I assume you are neither. So it's not your place to decide what 'offense' either groups take to drag queens.

[Ferguson97]

Are you assuming drag queen = gay?

No? I'm saying that drag queens have a historical connection to the LGBT community. Anyone even remotely familiar with LGBT history would know this.

She's right, though. Numerous "drag queens" at those events have been exposed as sex offenders. And this is not about gay people being pedophiles; this is about drag queens being pedophiles.

There are pedophiles in every walk of life - teachers, coaches, priests, family members. Assuming that all drag queens are pedophiles is what I'm criticizing.

Nothing I said (or suggested) indicates I think all drag queens are pedophiles. Once again, this is indicating some problematic assumptions you have.

Lol nice try

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

My bad, I forgot that libertarianism requires me to view minors as less-than-human and undeserving of basic rights and freedoms.

Unless they're trans minors seeking medically necessary healthcare, right? By the way, I agree with you on protecting the religious liberty of minors.

I didn't expect this thread to turn into calling drag queens pedophiles, but on second thought, this tangent is so peak Atlas that I don't know why I didn't expect exactly this.

[John Dule]

My bad, I forgot that libertarianism requires me to view minors as less-than-human and undeserving of basic rights and freedoms.

Unless they're trans minors seeking medically necessary healthcare, right?

I addressed that question already in this thread. Use your eyes.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

My bad, I forgot that libertarianism requires me to view minors as less-than-human and undeserving of basic rights and freedoms.

Unless they're trans minors seeking medically necessary healthcare, right?

I addressed that question already in this thread. Use your eyes.

And you continued to operate on the incorrect premise that transition is done for fun rather than for the necessary medical treatment of dysphoria, a condition whose sufferers you once claimed to have the utmost sympathy for while opposing its treatment. To force people into the wrong bodies is to view them as less-than-human.

Children have the right to identify with any religion or gender they choose. If that religion or gender requires them to physically alter otherwise healthy parts of their body, then the choice should not be left up to them.

Trans people aren't choosing their gender like a religion. Gender and religion are not comparable. Gender isn't  a party line requiring people to alter "healthy parts of the body" the way religions dictate certain behaviors. And those body parts are not healthy, hence why their presence on trans people's bodies leads to often suicidal levels of distress, and if one transitions after their birth puberty has already completed, particularly if they're a trans woman, the unchangeable features from their birth sex leave them exposed and clockable to violent transphobes who will try to kill them for using the bathroom. Transitioning is medically necessary. Circumcision for religious reasons isn't. They are not the same.

Admit it. You've carved out an exception for trans people in an otherwise consistent philosophy of libertarian principles. Why you did that, I don't know (but I have my speculations), but you did it. Your hardline opposition to the liberty of trans youth is not ideologically consistent. Your insistence that transition is anything but medically necessary is not based in science. I suspect the only reason you ignore your own ideological consistency and the plentiful amount of data regarding trans healthcare and dysphoria is because you just plain don't like trans people all that much.

[John Dule]

My bad, I forgot that libertarianism requires me to view minors as less-than-human and undeserving of basic rights and freedoms.

Unless they're trans minors seeking medically necessary healthcare, right?

I addressed that question already in this thread. Use your eyes.

And you continued to operate on the incorrect premise that transition is done for fun rather than for the necessary medical treatment of dysphoria, a condition whose sufferers you once claimed to have the utmost sympathy for while opposing its treatment. To force people into the wrong bodies is to view them as less-than-human.

Children have the right to identify with any religion or gender they choose. If that religion or gender requires them to physically alter otherwise healthy parts of their body, then the choice should not be left up to them.

Trans people aren't choosing their gender like a religion. Gender and religion are not comparable. Gender isn't  a party line requiring people to alter "healthy parts of the body" the way religions dictate certain behaviors. And those body parts are not healthy, hence why their presence on trans people's bodies leads to often suicidal levels of distress, and if one transitions after their birth puberty has already completed, particularly if they're a trans woman, the unchangeable features from their birth sex leave them exposed and clockable to violent transphobes who will try to kill them for using the bathroom. Transitioning is medically necessary. Circumcision for religious reasons isn't. They are not the same.

Admit it. You've carved out an exception for trans people in an otherwise consistent philosophy of libertarian principles. Why you did that, I don't know (but I have my speculations), but you did it. Your hardline opposition to the liberty of trans youth is not ideologically consistent.

I have given you my answer to this multiple times. I am not going to waste the time it takes to type it out again, especially if you continue to be too dense to understand what I am saying.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

I have given you my answer to this multiple times. I am not going to waste the time it takes to type it out again, especially if you continue to be too dense to understand what I am saying.

Says the person who is too dense to realize A) transitioning is medically necessary and B) expanding access to hormones for minors does not equate to genital surgery.

Any argument you make in favor of promoting any type of currently restricted liberty for minors — and I agree with you on religion — is going to be less credible while you continue to carve out an exception for trans minors on farcical grounds.

[John Dule]

Says the person who is top dense to realize A) transitioning is medically necessary and B) expanding access to hormones for minors does not equate to genital surgery.

I never denied either of those things.