Comment on Who is ultimately responsible for the well-being of children? by hyokkim

Parent Post: Who is ultimately responsible for the well-being of children? · In Reply To

hyokkim · 9/8/2025, 6:48:02 PM · permalink

You are lying; here is the proof.  
  
''Not so simple as all that. Though we'd like to think it is.

One person imagines that someone who doesn't vaccinate is killing their children even as they subject their own children to trans surgery.

I'd simply ban Islam or any other religion which practices child mutilation... which is what I consider both vaccination and circumcision to be.

Ultimately it's just a question of what boundaries we've had impressed on our sensibilities.'' - saarnok  
  
You are deciding what is and what is not acceptable for every parents out there.   You are just in denial.  
  
''I still advocate for stopping bank robbers... because I do not approve of bank robbers and robbery.''  
  
You don't approve of people consenting to sexual mutilation/gender surgery to their children, how are you going to stop them?  
  
You don't approve of Islam, how are you going to ban it?  
  
''If I approved of bank robbers and robbery, then I'd not want the government/people involved in stopping them.''  
  
So there is your lie; I did not say I do not want the government/people involved in stopping them.     
  
''I don't approve of lots of things parents do, but those things are not deliberately harmful.''  
  
So, you are going to decide what is and is not deliberately harmful?  
  
So, the children were taken from the parents, who's going to take care of them, you?  
  
''You're not providing any standard for how a society can determine whether there should be intervention in someones actions. If you provided some principle of how we can sort out where the lines are, that would be helpful.

I don't even know why you'd object to having your position characterized this way.

Either you're fine with people murdering/prostituting/mutilating kids and think no one should intervene or you're not.''  
  
I believe I had in other posts, multiple times.   I believe in OTNI; outside OTNI, I believe it is best overall, not perfect, the least imperfect solution is to let the parents be responsible for their own children.    For the same reason, why I believe let the woman decide if she wants to have her baby killed before being born, and if she decided to have the baby born, and then let her be responsible for the upkeep, not the father, not the government, not the tax payers, unless it involves OTNI.

4 bumps

saarnok · 9/9/2025, 3:16:50 AM · permalink

I don't know what OTNI means, and a web search didn't reveal it either. So... no point in addressing that.  
  
"So there is your lie; I did not say I do not want the government/people involved in stopping them. "  
  
You seem to have. And even in this response you've done it again. "So, you are going to decide what is and is not deliberately harmful?

So, the children were taken from the parents, who's going to take care of them, you?"  
  
Yes. If that's what it takes. But, what you're saying here is simply a question of practicality. So, what do we do once we've determined a bank has been robbed or a murder has been committed? Do we wring our hands about the "responsibility" associated? No. We figure out some sort of practical solution and implement it. Using that as a stopping point is denoting that the problem isn't big enough to concern ourselves with. In short, that we don't care.  
  
But, this little sneaky switcheroo of trying to inject "responsibility" into the equation. That's devious. Worse than a lie. It's a deliberate alteration of the discussion to avoid the principles at hand.  
  
Responsible simply means "your problem". You're responsible for the cleanliness of your floor. You're obligated to not harm other people deliberately. That doesn't make you responsible for them whether you're responsible for them in the first place or not.  
  
Let's suppose a scenario where you have slaves. You would be responsible for their well being or lack thereof, but you'd be obligated to not deliberately harm them. If you had employees you'd be responsible for all the attendant concerns of employees at work and obligated to not deliberately harm them. If you have children, you're responsible for them and obligated to not deliberately harm them.  
  
Now, let's address the matter of deciding for every parent what harm means: Harm is measurable. It exists in the real world, it is not a statistical construct. Just as if you are attacked: We can count the bruises or stab wounds or gunshots, measure the length of the incisions, measure the levels of poison administered, etc., etc.  
  
It's not subjective. It's not simply a declaration that your male has been brainwashed into believing he's female and you're abusing him by refusing to call him a girl.  
  
Possibly the most absurd question is "how do you ban Islam?" Really simple. Islam is banned. Done. Don't like it? Get out. Judaism is banned. Don't like it? Get out. Circumcising Christians are banned. Don't like it? Get out. Anyone who practices such things is imprisoned, fined and or executed.  
  
It's no different from any other crime. The fact that we can't prevent every single crime has no bearing on whether or not we should tolerate it. I can't eliminate every gopher digging on my farm... so I do nothing? Of course not. I can't eliminate the possibility of a leak in my roof ... so I do nothing? Of course not.  
  
Either you've not clearly stated your position, or you have. You quite simply have not, even when goaded to do so allowed the possibility that parents should be held legally liable for harming their kids. In fact you've spent considerable time implying that it's too much bother, that you don't care about kids and neither does anyone else. Essentially, you're making the case that attempting to address the issue is a bit like intervening to prevent people from controlling vermin in their homes.

3 bumps

tajudeen_bin_tijani · 1/21/2026, 8:17:41 AM · permalink

1 bump

hyokkim · 9/9/2025, 6:09:01 AM · permalink

''I don't know what OTNI means, and a web search didn't reveal it either. So... no point in addressing that.''  
  
OTNI = Optimal Totalitarian National Interest  
  
"So there is your lie; I did not say I do not want the government/people involved in stopping them. " - Hyok Kim

''You seem to have. And even in this response you've done it again.''  
  
You're lying again; you only report your impression; not exactly what I had said.  
  
"So, you are going to decide what is and is not deliberately harmful?'' - Hyok Kim  
  
That was a question, and I mean what I said; are you going to decide what is and is not deliberately harmful for all the parents out there, Big Brother?   Who the fuck are you?   Who has appointed you as the ultimate judge to decide whether what parents are doing to their children is deliberately harmful or not?  
  
''So, the children were taken from the parents, who's going to take care of them, you?" - Hyok Kim  
  
''Yes. If that's what it takes.''   
  
You have the resources to take care of all the children taken from their parents to raise them properly?     What if you don't?   How are you going to get the resources?  
  
''So, what do we do once we've determined a bank has been robbed or a murder has been committed? Do we wring our hands about the "responsibility" associated?  
  
Yes, that's what we should do; let the bank, investors, and the depositors responsible for the robbery; let them improve the security procedure.  That is their problem, neither mine nor taxpayers.   This will make banks, investors, and depositors, more careful about the kind of bank they want to get involved with.   
  
''No. We figure out some sort of practical solution and implement it. Using that as a stopping point is denoting that the problem isn't big enough to concern ourselves with. In short, that we don't care.''  
  
Who is this 'we'?   Why the fuck should anyone care unless they are the bank management, investors, and/or depositors?     
  
''But, this little sneaky switcheroo of trying to inject "responsibility" into the equation. That's devious. Worse than a lie. It's a deliberate alteration of the discussion to avoid the principles at hand.''  
  
Why the west is going down the toilet; there is no accountability for people who are too lazy to solve their own problems.   Why should I be responsible for somebody else's problem, unless it's a matter of OTNI?  
You're projecting your 'switchroo'; people should be responsible for their own problems, not passing the buck to the people who are not responsible.  
  
''Responsible simply means "your problem". You're responsible for the cleanliness of your floor. You're obligated to not harm other people deliberately. That doesn't make you responsible for them whether you're responsible for them in the first place or not.''  
  
You're talking non-sense; why should I be responsible when I was not responsible for them in the first place?  
  
''Let's suppose a scenario where you have slaves. You would be responsible for their well being or lack thereof, but you'd be obligated to not deliberately harm them.''  
  
Why fuck not?  If the slave was lazy, dishonest, manipulative, he should be deliberately harmed to my satisfaction.   After all, he's my slave, and he is not earning his keep, not carrying his weight!   
  
''Now, let's address the matter of deciding for every parent what harm means: Harm is measurable. It exists in the real world, it is not a statistical construct. Just as if you are attacked: We can count the bruises or stab wounds or gunshots, measure the length of the incisions, measure the levels of poison administered, etc., etc.

It's not subjective. It's not simply a declaration that your male has been brainwashed into believing he's female and you're abusing him by refusing to call him a girl.''  
  
Why the fuck should I care?  It's not my children, but his!  Why the fuck should you care?     
  
''Possibly the most absurd question is "how do you ban Islam?" Really simple. Islam is banned. Done. Don't like it? Get out. Judaism is banned. Don't like it? Get out. Circumcising Christians are banned. Don't like it? Get out. Anyone who practices such things is imprisoned, fined and or executed.''  
  
You are going to do what if they refuse to get out?   What if they refused to be imprisoned, executed?    Who's going to do the imprisonment, and execution?  
  
''It's no different from any other crime. The fact that we can't prevent every single crime has no bearing on whether or not we should tolerate it. I can't eliminate every gopher digging on my farm... so I do nothing? Of course not. I can't eliminate the possibility of a leak in my roof ... so I do nothing? Of course not.''  
  
Those are your farm, your roof; you're talking about other people's children, not 'your' bank, but other people's bank.   Why the fuck should you care about other people's children/bank?  
  
''Either you've not clearly stated your position, or you have. You quite simply have not, even when goaded to do so allowed the possibility that parents should be held legally liable for harming their kids. In fact you've spent considerable time implying that it's too much bother, that you don't care about kids and neither does anyone else.''  
  
I have clearly stated my position multiple times: Not my kids, not 'my' bank, not my problem unless it involves OTNI.  
  
''Essentially, you're making the case that attempting to address the issue is a bit like intervening to prevent people from controlling vermin in their homes.''  
  
No, I am against intervening trying to control other people dealing with their own children; you are the one asking for the intervention to prevent people from dealing with their own children as best they see fit.  Again, you are being manipulative, and dishonest.

1 bump

Signature