Should Paternalism Be Illegal
👁 36
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles?page=4 : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles?page=5 : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/search?text=paternalism : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/search?text=danger : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles?page=8 : 👁 1
![[avatar]](/pictures/favicon.png)
by Blender Dumbass
Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film "Moria's Race" and the lead developer of it's game sequel "Dani's Race".
Information or opinions might not be up to date.
Sheiny was in Mendel's house that day. She was looking at some random things on her computer. You know... Getting into a yet another rabbit-hole on Wikipedia. She clicked on a link to an article about Paternalism. And on the right side, beside the text of the article, there was a picture with a caption "Child on a leash". The picture is depicting a child with a rope tied to her torso, which is held by an elderly woman. This image infuriated Sheiny to such an extend that for the next few minutes she could not even talk. How dare they? ↩ Reply
Here is the image in question. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Mendel? ↩ Reply
...she called him. She could not believe that this is even legal. Mendel came and she showed him the picture. He didn't immediately realized what was the problem. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Is she a dog? ↩ Reply
And that's when Mendel understood what was the problem. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well, perhaps this baby likes to run away too often or something. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: So what? What is this supposed to be? ↩ Reply
Mendel: I don't know. It looks weird. You are right. ↩ Reply
Sheiny read a little bit of the text. There was a quote of some person named John Stuart Mill. It went: ↩ Reply
It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood.
↩ Reply
Sheiny: I'm being thoroughly offended here. ↩ Reply
Mendel: You are nowhere near as young as the baby on the picture, relax. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: No look at this. "This doctrine", he is talking about freedom as I can tell, "is meant to apply to humans being in the maturity of their faculties."... ↩ Reply
She took a deep breath in an anticipation of the next quote. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: "We are not speaking of children". So what should it mean? If I'm below 18 years of age, I'm not even human? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well, what if the kid will go away and get lost? Forever. They probably don't want it to happen. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: It's his god damn right to get lost. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well, what if he doesn't want to get lost, but gets lost by mistake, because he is not smart enough to not get lost? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Then teach him. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Yeah, but... It takes time to teach kids things. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: What do you mean? Just tell him. That's all it takes. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well, this baby here doesn't know how to talk. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: How do you know? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well, forget this baby. Imagine a baby that doesn't know how to talk. You know, small kids are often carried in carriages, or on hands. Not walking freely around the place. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: A carriage is useful to carry around a baby that's tired. But a leash? ↩ Reply
Mendel: And what about the belt in the carriage? It's so the baby would not run away. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: No! It's like the belt in the car. It's so the baby will not fly away with a sudden stop. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Oh really? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: If it's about not running away, then this is an injustice! ↩ Reply
Mendel: It's not you that's on the leash. Relax. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: But... Even with that. I'm not free like you are! I can't legally work. I can't drive a car. I can't fuck. I can't smoke. I can't vote. What the hell is this even? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well, perhaps you should grow up first to do all these things? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: You are one of them! You are fucking one of them! ↩ Reply
Mendel: One of whom? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Them! You know. Adult, fucking, ah... ageist, elitists that put leashes on their kids because they are kids. And if the kid has to say something, they say "Grow up first". ↩ Reply
Mendel: My god... ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Fuck off... ↩ Reply
Mendel: You can't possibly, in your age, know every danger that's out there. How can somebody sane allow you to just wonder about? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: And you are so smart that you know "every danger"? I bet $50 that even I know more dangers than you do. ↩ Reply
Mendel: So you are telling me that we need to let stupid people to endanger themselves? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: We already letting stupid people that are older than 18 to endanger themselves all they want. What is the difference, then, to let those below 18 to have the same freedoms? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well parents don't want their babies gone. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: It's not their god damned business! ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well, then who's responsible for the baby? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: The baby is responsible for the baby! ↩ Reply
Mendel: I know you are upset. You want to do something and ... I don't know... the system is not allowing to do what you want to do. While you see other people do that freely. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Exactly! ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well... What's then, the problem to just wait a little bit? You know. You are not forever 9 years old. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Do you know why I started doing pornography? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Because you wanted to? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Because I needed to. Because we didn't have enough money. Because somebody had to do something to be able to buy food. Okay. I couldn't have waited for 9 more years. Could you wait 9 years without food? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well... there is probably some orphanage that could have... ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Orphanage! We see that the kid only needs a job to be able to eat. But instead of giving him a job, what we do? Orphanage! We put him to prison. No... Freedom for somebody that young just won't do. Right? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well, there is a reason why kids are not allowed to work. Like at the factory that I work in. You know how easy is it to cut off a finger or something? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: You have a boss right? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Yeah? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: What's he doing all day long? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Sits in the office on the computer. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: I can sit in an office on a computer. Or can't I? I can program. Or can't I? Why is it illegal for me to get paid if I program? ↩ Reply
Mendel: You can, I don't know, sell something you programmed. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Well, yeah... Illegally. Because if I sell something. There should be a receipt and a tax and bunch of other things. I cannot even open a bank account. My bitcoin has to go through Mr. Humbert. Because I can't get bitcoins into cash in my age. What's the reason for that? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well use your mom's account or something. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: I know that there are ways to get around the system. But I'm talking about a fundamental injustice here. Why you can get things done straight, on your own, and I can only do it though somebody else? ↩ Reply
Mendel: What do you want me to say? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: I want you to agree with me. That's what I want you to say. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Sheiny... Damn... For example... I heard this thing that's happening right now. Parents are not allowed to tell kids that ... ah... gender swap operations could be bad for them. So they do those operations if they want to do them. And then kids ... ah ... get all kinds of bad side-effects that even they didn't want to happen. But it was already too late. You know. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: I see an injustice here. ↩ Reply
Mendel: You are telling me that we should ignore their well-being and do whatever they say. And... ↩ Reply
Sheiny: No! ↩ Reply
Mendel: Sorry? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: I see an injustice here. What do you mean "parents are not allowed to tell"? This is an injustice. People should have the freedom of speech. If they see a problem they should be able to tell that there is a problem. Or they should be able to tell anything they like actually. But in this case. They should be able to tell. To argue. You know. ↩ Reply
Mendel: But what if the kid ignores their warning? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Well if he still wants to do it, despite all of the discouragement, despite realizing the danger, it is his god damned right! ↩ Reply
Mendel: Alright. But what if they don't speak the language? What if you can't discourage them? Because they are too young to understand your words. And they will do something that most likely they will regret doing. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Like small babies? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Yeah... Like... Very small babies. Like the baby on that photograph. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: This baby will then, not be able to communicate that she wants to do a gender swap operation. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Yeah. But she can run away. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: To explore, yeah... Babies like exploring. But they come back when they are done. ↩ Reply
Mendel: What if she goes onto the road to explore something? Like there is a great chance that she doesn't want to be hit by a car. She just doesn't know about the car. Or she assumes that she can just run away from the car. Should we allow a small toddler to just freely go onto the road like this? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: It's illegal to hit a baby with the car. ↩ Reply
Mendel: She is small. The driver doesn't see. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Well if she wants to... ↩ Reply
Mendel: She doesn't want to. She just doesn't see the car. You see the car. Like is it okay to save her from the car? Not even like a baby. You see a person standing in front of a car that's about to hit that person. Any age. Is it not okay to come and push that person away from the impact? Or something? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Well then it's not a baby problem. It's not age related at all. ↩ Reply
Mendel: It kind of is. Think about it. Kids are smaller, weaker and dumber. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: I'm small, weak, but not dumb! ↩ Reply
Mendel: Inexperienced. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: I'm sorry. ↩ Reply
Mendel: You never... I don't know... Been to prison. I've been to prison. I know how it is. And you don't. I'm more experienced. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: You never programmed. I programmed. And my programs work. I'm more experienced. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Ah! Well that baby in that theoretical, hypothetical situation doesn't even know how to talk yet. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: There are old people with extreme autism or a down syndrome that do not know how to talk. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Fine! Let's say we are talking about dumb people in general. Is it not okay to guard them at least a little bit? Take a drivers license for example. It's not discriminating about age or any other thing. It just requires you to have basic knowledge about how to drive the car. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: It does discriminate against age. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well, let say it would not. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: Well in this case one mistake of yours can harm somebody else that didn't want to be harmed. Which is a problem. But if you want to crash your own car into your own wall causing harm to yourself. You should be free to do it. ↩ Reply
Mendel: So a mistake of a parent to let the kid wonder about, can harm that kid. Isn't that the same thing? ↩ Reply
Sheiny: You can harm the kid by not allowing him to go. If the kid truly wants to go. I see it's a kind of a double edge sword. You are fucked both ways. So I think better don't have kids at all. ↩ Reply
Mendel: How about that. As soon as they can talk enough so you can verify that they understand the dangers, it's not okay to stop them. But before that you should stop them. Like with a driver's license. You have to acquire a skill. In this case a skill to communicate that you understand the dangers. And I'm not talking about kids. I'm talking about the whole range. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: And so the duty of the parent afterward is to simply explain the dangers? ↩ Reply
Mendel: Yes. ↩ Reply
Sheiny: But who is responsible for judging if the child understands the dangers or not? Like, most proprietary software users do not understand the dangers of the software that they are using. But lawyers claim that clicking the "I agree" button is enough. ↩ Reply
Mendel: Well, that's a good question! ↩ Reply
Happy Hacking!!! ↩ Reply
Find this post on Mastodon
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/surveillance-1000.png)
![[thumbnail]](https://forg.madiator.cloud/BlenderDumbass/DanisRace/raw/branch/main/SettingUI/banner.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Kimi_%28film%29.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cb/TF2SteelPoster.jpg/250px-TF2SteelPoster.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/10/Dominoposter.jpg/250px-Dominoposter.jpg)
