Children don’t want to fall down stairs. You can help them not fall down stairs instead of trying to force them. It’s unclear to me if you know what “force” means. Here’s the dictionary:
2 coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence: they ruled by law and not by force.
A standard classical liberal conception of force is: violence, threat of violence, and fraud. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. E.g. physically dragging your child somewhere he doesn’t want to go, in a way that you can only do because you’re larger and stronger. Whereas if children were larger and stronger than their parents, the dragging would stop, but you can still easily imagine a parent helping his larger child with not accidentally falling down stairs.
They do, however, want to move in the direction of the stairs, and you cannot “help them not fall down stairs” without forcing them not to move in the direction of the stairs.
You are trying to reject a philosophy based on edge cases without trying to understand the big problems the philosophy is trying to solve.
Let’s give some context to the stair-falling scenario. Consider that the parent is a TCS parent, not a normie parent. This parent has in fact heard the stair-falling scenario many times. It is often the first thing other people bring up when TCS is discussed.
Given the TCS parent has in fact thought about stair falling way more than a normie parent, how do you think the TCS parent has set up their home? Is it going to be a home where young children are exposed to terrible injury from things they do not yet have knowledge about?
Given also that the TCS parent will give lots of help to a child curious about stairs, how long before that child masters stairs? And given that the child is being given a lot of help in many other things as well and not having their rationality thwarted, how do you think things are like in that home generally?
The typical answer will be the child is “spoilt”. The TCS parent will have heard the “spoilt” argument many times. They know the term “spoilt” is used to denegrate children and that the ideas underlying the idea of “spoilt” are nasty. So now we have got “spoilt” out of the way, how do you think things are like?
Ok, you say, but what if the child is outside near the edge of a busy road or something and wants to run across it? Do you not think the TCS parent hasn’t also heard this scenario over and over? Do you think you’re like the first one ever to have mentioned it? The TCS parent is well aware of busy road scenarios.
Instead of trying to catch TCS advocates out by bringing up something that has been repeatedly discussed why don’t you look at the core problems the philosophy speaks to and address those? Those problems need urgent attention.
EDIT: I should have said also that the stair-falling scenario and other similar scenarios are just excuses for people not to think about TCS. They don’t have want to think about the real problems children face. They want to continue to be irrational towards their children and hurt them.
Do you not think the TCS parent hasn’t also heard this scenario over and over? Do you think you’re like the first one ever to have mentioned it?
Do you not think that I am aware that people who believe in extremist ideologies are capable of making excuses for not following the extreme consequences of their extremist ideologies?
But this is just the same as a religious person giving excuses for why the empirical consequences of his beliefs are the same whether his beliefs are true or false.
You have two options:
1) Embrace the extreme consequences of your extreme beliefs.
2) Make excuses for not accepting the extreme consequences. But then you will do the same things that other people do, like using baby gates, and then you have nothing to teach other people.
I should have said also that the stair-falling scenario and other similar scenarios are just excuses for people not to think about TCS.
You are the one making excuses, for not accepting the extreme consequences of your extremist beliefs.
Of course you can help them, there are options other than violence. For example you can get a baby gate or a home without stairs. https://parent.guide/how-to-baby-proof-your-stairs/ Gates let them e.g. move around near the top of the stairs without risk of falling down. Desired, consensual gates, which the child deems helpful to the extent he has any opinion on the matter at all, aren’t force. If the child specifically wants to play on/with the stairs, you can of course open the gate, put out a bunch of padding, and otherwise non-violently help him.
i literally already gave u a definition of force and suggested you had no idea what i was talking about. you ignored me. this is 100% your fault and you still haven’t even tried to say what you think “force” is.
I ignored you because your definition of force was wrong. That is not what the word means in English. If you pick someone up and take them away from a set of stairs, that is force if they were trying to move toward them, even if they would not like to fall down them.
I suppose you’re going to tell me that pushing or pulling my spouse out of the way of a car that was going to hit them, without asking for consent first (don’t have time), is using force against them, too, even though it’s exactly what they want me to do. While still not explaining what you think “force” is, and not acknowledging that TCS’s claims must be evaluated in its own terminology.
At that point I’ll wonder what types of “force” you advocate using against children that you do not think should be used on adults.
I suppose you’re going to tell me that pushing or pulling my spouse out of the way of a car
Yes, it is.
Secondly, it is quite different from the stairway case, because your spouse would do the same thing on purpose if they saw the car, but the child will not move away when they see the stairs.
At that point I’ll wonder what types of “force” you advocate using against children that you do not think should be used on adults.
Who said I advocate using force against children that we would not use against adults? We use force against adults, e.g. putting criminals in prison. It is an extremist ideology to say that you should never use force against adults, and it is equally an extremist ideology to say that you should never use force with children.
Children don’t want to fall down stairs. You can help them not fall down stairs instead of trying to force them. It’s unclear to me if you know what “force” means. Here’s the dictionary:
A standard classical liberal conception of force is: violence, threat of violence, and fraud. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. E.g. physically dragging your child somewhere he doesn’t want to go, in a way that you can only do because you’re larger and stronger. Whereas if children were larger and stronger than their parents, the dragging would stop, but you can still easily imagine a parent helping his larger child with not accidentally falling down stairs.
They do, however, want to move in the direction of the stairs, and you cannot “help them not fall down stairs” without forcing them not to move in the direction of the stairs.
You are trying to reject a philosophy based on edge cases without trying to understand the big problems the philosophy is trying to solve.
Let’s give some context to the stair-falling scenario. Consider that the parent is a TCS parent, not a normie parent. This parent has in fact heard the stair-falling scenario many times. It is often the first thing other people bring up when TCS is discussed.
Given the TCS parent has in fact thought about stair falling way more than a normie parent, how do you think the TCS parent has set up their home? Is it going to be a home where young children are exposed to terrible injury from things they do not yet have knowledge about?
Given also that the TCS parent will give lots of help to a child curious about stairs, how long before that child masters stairs? And given that the child is being given a lot of help in many other things as well and not having their rationality thwarted, how do you think things are like in that home generally?
The typical answer will be the child is “spoilt”. The TCS parent will have heard the “spoilt” argument many times. They know the term “spoilt” is used to denegrate children and that the ideas underlying the idea of “spoilt” are nasty. So now we have got “spoilt” out of the way, how do you think things are like?
Ok, you say, but what if the child is outside near the edge of a busy road or something and wants to run across it? Do you not think the TCS parent hasn’t also heard this scenario over and over? Do you think you’re like the first one ever to have mentioned it? The TCS parent is well aware of busy road scenarios.
Instead of trying to catch TCS advocates out by bringing up something that has been repeatedly discussed why don’t you look at the core problems the philosophy speaks to and address those? Those problems need urgent attention.
EDIT: I should have said also that the stair-falling scenario and other similar scenarios are just excuses for people not to think about TCS. They don’t have want to think about the real problems children face. They want to continue to be irrational towards their children and hurt them.
Do you not think that I am aware that people who believe in extremist ideologies are capable of making excuses for not following the extreme consequences of their extremist ideologies?
But this is just the same as a religious person giving excuses for why the empirical consequences of his beliefs are the same whether his beliefs are true or false.
You have two options:
1) Embrace the extreme consequences of your extreme beliefs. 2) Make excuses for not accepting the extreme consequences. But then you will do the same things that other people do, like using baby gates, and then you have nothing to teach other people.
You are the one making excuses, for not accepting the extreme consequences of your extremist beliefs.
Of course you can help them, there are options other than violence. For example you can get a baby gate or a home without stairs. https://parent.guide/how-to-baby-proof-your-stairs/ Gates let them e.g. move around near the top of the stairs without risk of falling down. Desired, consensual gates, which the child deems helpful to the extent he has any opinion on the matter at all, aren’t force. If the child specifically wants to play on/with the stairs, you can of course open the gate, put out a bunch of padding, and otherwise non-violently help him.
We were talking about force before, not violence. A baby gate is using force.
i literally already gave u a definition of force and suggested you had no idea what i was talking about. you ignored me. this is 100% your fault and you still haven’t even tried to say what you think “force” is.
I ignored you because your definition of force was wrong. That is not what the word means in English. If you pick someone up and take them away from a set of stairs, that is force if they were trying to move toward them, even if they would not like to fall down them.
I suppose you’re going to tell me that pushing or pulling my spouse out of the way of a car that was going to hit them, without asking for consent first (don’t have time), is using force against them, too, even though it’s exactly what they want me to do. While still not explaining what you think “force” is, and not acknowledging that TCS’s claims must be evaluated in its own terminology.
At that point I’ll wonder what types of “force” you advocate using against children that you do not think should be used on adults.
Yes, it is.
Secondly, it is quite different from the stairway case, because your spouse would do the same thing on purpose if they saw the car, but the child will not move away when they see the stairs.
Who said I advocate using force against children that we would not use against adults? We use force against adults, e.g. putting criminals in prison. It is an extremist ideology to say that you should never use force against adults, and it is equally an extremist ideology to say that you should never use force with children.