CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
When all you can get out of the breast is a snack, then you should stop and start eating regular food.
For example, if the woman depicted was built like Dolly Parton, she should be able to provide enough milk for the 3 year old and his friends. In that case, it should be strongly encouraged ;)
Yes, regardless of social implications. For the exact same reason that babies should be weaned from dummies (or pacifier) and bottles. It can interfere with tooth growth, causing abnormalities (it can cause a cross bite or an over bite that can extend to the second set of teeth). It can also cause a higher rate of tooth decay.
There's a reason why they say until 3, exactly the same reason for discarding dummies and bottles.
Relating a situation of a female teacher to a mother is really a far stretch. Unless the student was the child of the teacher, that story is irrelevant.
Wow, iamdavidh has reached new heights in idiocy, even though breast feeding is a natural occurrence of motherhood, are you actually considering breast feeding as a act of incest?
Since iamdavidh is the ultimate planner, what is the appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Central Planner please enlighten us with your INFINITE KNOWLEDGE!!
So, from your infinite knowledge, let me get this right, breast feeding for babies is a natural occurrence of motherhood, but a 3 year old whom breast feeds is a act of incest.
WHOM those decide that 3 years old is too old to breast feed is a central planner and control freak.
And in your infinite knowledge when should a child be weened off?
I didn't propose a law dip shit. I gave my opinion.
Yes, I think it's creepy.
I think at that age the child is developing socially and remaining this attached to the mother is unhealthy longterm.
Breast feeding at that age is not about the child's health, it's about a mother being over-protective and her separation issues, I believe. I believe these instances of children breast feeding through their toddler years reflects the mother's need to feel some sort of self-worth, and she is seeking it by being the means of sustenance for the child when instead she should be nurturing a sense of independence at this point. Nurturing yes, but nurturing independence and self.
You can disagree with that, but you cannot claim I'm trying to control anyone. She can breast feed the child till he's seven if she wants. I can point out that it is creepy if I like.
You need to get over your idea that I'm some kind of control freak. It taints every argument you have with me and makes you look like a moron. Argue on the merits of what I say in a particular debate, not through the prism of the shadow government plotting against you that you seem to think I support in all the bs debates you make up.
There is no partiuclar age that a child should be weened off, that is up to the mother. It is the mother making a choice for what she thinks is best for her child.
I didn't propose a law dip shit. I gave my opinion.
Good, calling it a act of incest was disgusting and distasteful.
You can disagree with that, but you cannot claim I'm trying to control anyone.
Fair Enough
It taints every argument you have with me and makes you look like a moron.
Doubt It.
Argue on the merits of what I say in a particular debate, not through the prism of the shadow government plotting against you that you seem to think I support in all the bs debates you make up.
This debate had nothing to do with the government.
There is no partiuclar age that a child should be weened off, that is up to the mother. It is the mother making a choice for what she thinks is best for her child
Yea, cause we all know the mother always knows whats right for their children... ::cough:: Casey ::cough:: Anthony ::cough,cough::
a vast majority of mothers have her child's best interest.
Do you have any sound reason to which you base this bold claim on?
Even if it is true, and the vast majority of mothers have their child's best interest at heart, are we to then assume that with good intentions comes the 'know how' as well?
Pushing out a baby doesn't grant some kind of enlightenment on how to raise a child in the most beneficial manner to the child’s development. Heartfelt love and caring? maybe. Child psychology/sociology/physiology? not so much.
Do you have any sound reason to which you base this bold claim on?
Are you serious? Millions of children grow up in safe caring homes with sound good morals. Love is the key element.
Even if it is true, and the vast majority of mothers have their child's best interest at heart, are we to then assume that with good intentions comes the 'know how' as well?
If mothers are not the best for know how, who is?
Pushing out a baby doesn't grant some kind of enlightenment on how to raise a child in the most beneficial manner to the child’s development
Straw man, nobody said that birthing a child comes sense of enlightenment on how to raise a child, the point is that there is no one way to raise a child.
Are you serious? Millions of children grow up in safe caring homes with sound good morals. Love is the key element.
That is arguable.
I will admit that most parents have good intentions, and love; I’m not completely daft. My point in asking my question was mainly rhetorical. I wanted to hint that it is a bold claim to make, based on anecdotal evidence.
At any rate, is it enough to just have good intentions or the best interest of the child? Or is there something more?
If mothers are not the best for know how, who is?
If a mother is not the best for knowhow, then someone who is the best for knowhow is.
Straw man, nobody said that birthing a child comes sense of enlightenment on how to raise a child, the point is that there is no one way to raise a child.
Okay maybe that was a little much I admit; an exaggeration. But I think we can agree that parents often times develop love for their children, and that can lead to them having their child’s best interest at heart, but ‘good intentions’ is not the same as ‘knowhow’ nor does it even lead to knowhow.
And I agree that there is no one way to raise a child; included in those many ways are methods that are detrimental to the child’s development, good intentions aside. Other methods have been shown to work exceedingly well in raising a healthy child, both physically and mentally. There may be many different methods of parenting, but there are nonetheless beneficial/detrimental ways, or 'right ways,' and 'wrong ways.'
I’m reminded of the large amount of children being taught eating/exercise habits that are detrimental to the child’s health and future (not intentionally, I’m sure the parents love their children, but that is not really the issue is it?).
There is no particular age that a child should be weened off, that is up to the mother. It is the mother making a choice for what she thinks is best for her child.
And I can disagree with her judgment... truly, as much as I love my mother I could write a book about shit she's been wrong about. Mother's are not infallible.
This debate had nothing to do with the government.
Agreed. Now name a non-governing body which would have a "Central Controller," otherwise you first and several times since for no apparent reason other than your preconceived notions of me, have brought government into the debate.
Considering she is human, how is that really a surprise? Humans make errors in judgement, I was unaware of anything being infallible.
Now name a non-governing body which would have a "Central Controller,"
Companies have central planners, but they don't plan for other people. They plan for the future of the company.
otherwise you first and several times since for no apparent reason other than your preconceived notions of me, have brought government into the debate.
Please, exact quote in this debate where "GOVERNMENT WAS MENTIONED."
Though many women have biological issues beyond their control where they stop producing milk, cannot produce enough, produce bad batches or simply cannot breastfeed at all. All which can happen regardless if the woman is trying to breastfeed or not.
(Note: I want to clarify, I am on the "no" side, I do not object to this).
YESSSS!!!!!!!!! whats the piont of having your boobs being sucked on when youre kid is old enough to be in school and feed himself?? And besides i think that ummm... it would be kinda awkward for your 15 year old kid to come down and say there hungry ;)
Yes but as the child develops it will see it this way and also as you say they'll see it as food ; it would be conflicting for them, and if their peers find out the child might be bullied.
What is the appropriate age? If someone goes over this age, are you going to have them arrested? The mother can stop breast feeding at any age she chooses.
Nah, not arrested. A fine is sufficient enough to do the job. And like someone already posted, in other countries, it is illegal to breastfeed someone over the age of three. So I suppose 3 is the appropriate age.
Well, being arrested is what is going to happen eventually, because the mother probably will ignore the fine and continue what she thinks is best for her child anyway. THEN WHAT? The whole idea of freedom is allow people make the decisions for their own lives and those who are they are responsible for.
Are you joking? Since when has fines not proven effective? You must not have speed limits in your country, because anyone who has been pulled over for speeding and fined in my country usually thinks twice about doing it again. They are expensive, not to mention, you insurance goes up too.
Are you joking? Are fines really that effective? Speeding occurs constantly, government just picks those times when to pull people over not to mention the number of people who ignore paying the fine. Government doesn't put people in jail for not paying speeding tickets. Speeding tickets like breast feeding fines are just to fatten government budgets. Even if she would pay the fine, she will continue to breast feed. I've paid speeding tickets, I still speed.
You are comparing speeding to a mother who breast feeds?
Hell yeah the government put people in jail for not paying speeding tickets. I've personally seen two people arested for that very thing. And NO, I'm not comparing speeding to breast feeding. You totally are either mis-representing my statement, OR is too lazy to read the posts. It was an example about the effectiveness of fines.
I've personally seen two people arested for that very thing.
Ok, I totally believe that.
Actually, you were comparing the use of speeding fines to the use of breast feeding when YOU SAID "Since when has fines not proven effective." This is not a example, it was use of comparison that breast feeding fines will just be as effective as speeding ticket fines. How do we know it is a comparison, because the topic is about breast feeding.
AN EXAMPLE would be something something like this. Suzy was disgustingly breast feeder her child at the age of 6, and her neighbor say this disgusting act, and called the cops, she was fined $1000 for taking care of her child. She was made an example of this heinous crime.
Congratulations, you're a moron. Nobody cares.
The fact that even if mothers would pay the fine, breast feeding would continue along with millions of drivers who pay speeding tickets will continue to speed.
So, I presume that you have never sped yet you claim to be GENERAL LEE.
"I've personally seen two people arrested for that very thing.
Ok, I totally believe that."
Before I switch majors to Computer Engineering, I was a Police Cadet for three years.
"So, I presume that you have never sped yet you claim to be GENERAL LEE."
I got to post a picture of that thing some time. It's an orange (ish) Dodge Charger RT 6 speed V8. I got the Wolo Dixie horn in it, and 01 magnets in the side as well as a Dixie flag vinyl on the roof. It's tight!
I don't know much about breasrmilk but I know that it is very important for a growing child but I also know that too much of everything is bad so I think that preferably at the age of three,a cgild should be weaned off breastmilk.
Since when did you see a full sized animal being fed by it's mom. Oh wait, you don't. It's plain and simple, it isn't natural. There is a time when a kid needs to start eating and drinking. Breast feeding is only to get the baby started, not to make him live on it for the rest of his life.
No because as long as there is milk actually coming out , then I guess its fine because its going to use .
But also , yes , because the child needs to learn to drink actual liquids like water , juice , and other stuff . Plus its also just .....wrong .....the child will grow up perverted :/
You have to understand the word "perverted." Perverted is a perceptional view....it depends on different people. If a society do allow this, they don't see it as perverted.
There was this one video on youtube. It was a dancing competition. And it was this little girl dancing to beyonce. She was dressed and danced in a way where America would call "slutty" and "wrong." But to Europe, it is just a little girl dancing to one of their favorite songs. And to the little girl, those dance moves where you smack your butt are just silly dance moves to her.
Things becomes perverted when it comes to a perverted mind.
So overall, i have to say that perceptions isn't written in a black permanent marker for everybody to follow. In fact, as stated by google, perversion is sexual behavior that is considered to be abnormal or unacceptable. To you breast feeding a child is perversion but not to others. And i can respect that. If you read my first comment, i too find it "ew."
A child can breast feed AND eat solid food and drink other liquids it not one or the other. No one knows what "causes" a person to be perverted, plus "perversion" is subjective. Some people are gay are they perverted? Some consider finding the pregnant form attractive is perverted, or having sex with more then one person at once or sodomy or oral these are all examples of perversion to someone. In my opinion have an obsession with breast is really not that big a deal.
Many people are freaking out about the breastfeeding a 3 year old Times cover. Sure it's a bit odd in the United States, but it's not harming the kid or the mother, the benefits only continue. It's not child molestation just because he's 3.
I think they're learning breasts aren't just sexual, in fact it seems this way they're learning breasts provide food first and then learning society finds them sexually appealing.
Anthropologists concur that different types of mammals use different methods for determining a weaning period. The main two methods are body weight/body size and the appearance of the molar tooth. Not the age of their offspring. But when the math is done, in human years that's somewhere between 1.5 - 7 years.
Even if we were the only ones who did it, so what? There really isn't a danger to drinking breastmilk that isn't there when they were an infant.
They prefer to drink breastmilk, why does it need a more valid reason than that? Socially, they should be drinking out of sippy cups or regular cups by then. Would you care if they were drinking their mothers breastmilk in the cup instead of cow's milk?
The way I see it, sure it's odd, I wouldn't be letting my kid breastfeed beyond 2, but if they preferred my milk, I'd pump it out for them. But if that mom and child have no problem, isn't it their prerogative?
I have to say, I think I would much prefer someone down-voting AND disputing my post than simply down vote without a dispute. Could you at least tell me why you disapprove of my post?
The correct age is really determined only by free people who make these decisions based on subjective values. In this case, the mother and her mother choose to breast feed until 6, which is perfectly fine. Society may view a three year child breast feeding as disgusting, yet there is nothing wrong with it as long as it has no sexual implications. Free people making the best decisions for their own personal life, which is the foundation of human action.
Absolutely Not, free people making decisions for their own individual lives.
So if something is just, it is always appropriate?
Your own example goes against that idea: people are completely free to talk in the library, it is only fair that they are able to, yet you believe it's inappropriate.
Of course, people are free to talk in the library and it is fair to be able so but in a respect matter, what is inappropriate to be loud in the library.
So do you want a rock concert in the library, because that would only be fair.
That's the question I was trying to get PrayerFails to answer, yet he seemed somewhat reclusive in his responses. I believe that things can be fair, yet inappropriate.
The word Amen has more than religious connotations. The word is defined by an online dictionary as "an expression of concurrence or assent". In other words, it means "I agree with you". In fact I agree that there is an appropriate age to stop breastfeeding. However, I disagree that the gov. should stick it's oar in and legislate.
The first memories that people have are from time around 3 years old. That is the UTMOST age when breastfeeding may still be allowed but after that it will be VERY VERY WRONG, and should be forbidden. A person must NOT have memories of him/herself clinging to a breast and feeding!
Honestly, you need to read my original comment... Just in case you'll miss it I'll spell it out for you: I AM NOT THE ONE WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT GUNS, YOU DID!
Perhaps this will make you see how stupid you are.
I think you are just trolling here, the only thing that makes the most sense. But on the other hand, I would not put it past you if you actually were that stupid.
You wrote "That is the UTMOST age when breastfeeding may still be allowed but after that it will be VERY VERY WRONG, and should be forbidden."
Definition of forbid from the Merriam Webster dictionary:
"to proscribe from or as if from the position of one in authority : command against "
The only "authority" over all of the potential breastfeeders is the government. So, you're proposing a law. What is the consequence of disobeying a law regarding child abuse and child sexualization? It's A GUY WITH A GUN TAKING THE CHILD.
You may not have said the word "GUN" but you were calling for the use of one all the same.
I don't get it, what is the deal with you and GUNS?
If it were against the law, then first there would be warnings and even fines, if still will not correct herself then the child would be taken away.
You do realize what you are suggesting is that there would come guys who would simply start pointing their guns at the mother while taking away the child?
Guys with guns??? WTF is your deal with guns?
If you like guns so much, stfu about them and go get one!
If I had called for the use of one all the same then I would have put the word GUN into at least one of my sentences.
And I'd suggest you use dictionary.com, it is better than the one you used.
The deal is that when people like you make off the cuff statements like, "there should be a law" or in your case, "it should be forbidden," they are sanctioning the eventual use of violence against others.
The fact that there are intermediary steps between the act and the action of threatening the woman with a gun does not absolve the fact that it WILL be done eventually if she does not comply with what YOU have ordained yourself ruler by forbidding it.
You have been made uncomfortable by the fact that I am showing you the truth behind your position. Nobody likes being called a thug, even if that's what they are.
Here's how it goes down when she resists your fiat declaration that it should be forbidden:
Neighbor complains.
She receives warning 1.
Neighbor complains again.
She receives warning 2 with a $50 fine.
She doesn't pay.
She receives a summons and $250 fine.
She doesn't attend the summons.
A social worker is dispatched to her home.
She tells the social worker to leave her alone.
The social worker demands to see the child.
She declines.
The social worker makes a call, law enforcement officers are dispatched.
The police officer demands she open her door.
She refuses.
The police officer kicks down the door and points a gun at her.
Congratulations Lord Protector, you have saved all the land from the mothers lovingly feeding their children.
You've been showing the truth behind my position alright - the truth that I am right. In fact, I have not been made uncomfortable by anything. I don't even get where you took that. The only truth that is being shown is your own stupidity.
If it were a law... Using drugs is against the law. You know what happens if someone is caught using them and resists? Yeah, that's right. Violence. So thanks, for contradicting yourself.
And by the way, smoking is wrong too. Smoking is basically using drugs, it too has negative side effects. Why is that not illegal and drugs are?
A person should not remember him/herself breastfeeding, as I said in my first post. You do get that?
You do understand that breastfeeding a child over 3 years old is wrong? Therefore, if it exists, it should be made illegal, which basically means it should be forbidden, should not be allowed. Get it?
The police officer kicks down the door and points a gun at her. Points a gun at her? Again with the gun... Seriously now! Can't you think of anything else?
What they would do is NOT pointing a gun at her, unless she actually tries to kill her child to "prove" something. They would grapple her and put her face down toward the floor, and then safely extract the child... But honestly now, it would never get that far. It is easier to stop breastfeeding the child who is clearly above that age. That is what the mom would do. You want to know why she would stop it? Because the alternative is losing her child. Unless that is exactly what she wants.
"the truth that I am right" - typical statement from a person without any evidence or logic to support their argument.
"using drugs is against the law." EXACTLY! What do we get with drugs? People that voluntarily choose to harm their own bodies which they themselves alone are responsible for. What do we get with laws against drugs? Drug cartels, violence, gangs, and the abuse of non-violent innocent people by police. You've provided the best possible evidence that there should not be a law.
Smoking is "wrong?" Who made you God? Who appointed you as arbiter for what is right and wrong? For me, smoking is RIGHT and if you try to forcibly restrain me from doing something I choose to do to my own body that has nothing to do with you, I'll excercise my right of self defense and use whatever method of force necessary to get you to leave me alone including lethal methods.
Why should a person not remember a time of loving, sharing and being joined with the person that gave them life?
I do NOT understand that breastfeeding a child over 3 years old is wrong. You've made an assertion of that, one that is NOT supported by any evidence. Evidence actually shows that people who are physically nurtured by their parents including a large amount of touching grow to be less violent and more intellectually adept. Evidence shows that violence is higher in every society that makes sexuality and other natural biological activities "hidden" or "wrong" in comparison with societies that share and understand the reality of being Human. Therefore, since it's good for the children and good for the society, it should be endorsed, utilized and supported. Get it?
Ok, so it's all good that she gets battered and grappled to satisfy your opinions.
You believe that it's a good thing to threaten mothers with taking away their children to get them to live their lives the way you want to dictate they do. I wonder how you would feel if Sharia law were to take hold here and they dictated that you must clothe your daughter to satisfy their whim as to what they think you should do. If you oppose Sharia being imposed upon you, then you must be against imposing your whim upon mothers as well. Failure to do so is inconsistency and self-righteousness.
"the truth that I am right" - typical statement from a person without any evidence or logic to support their argument.
You can stop that right now. You haven't given any real evidence or logic yourself either.
For me, smoking is RIGHT
Using drugs is wrong and smoking is right? They are both drugs and they are both bad for health. Therefore their use is wrong, from health perspective.
Why should a person not remember a time of loving, sharing and being joined with the person that gave them life?
Evidence actually shows that people who are physically nurtured by their parents including a large amount of touching grow to be less violent and more intellectually adept. Evidence shows that violence is higher in every society that makes sexuality and other natural biological activities "hidden" or "wrong" in comparison with societies that share and understand the reality of being Human.
You do understand that we are talking about breastfeeding here, not ANY other kind of care. The act is right, natural. But... From here three questions.
Do you think a person should remember himself/herself clinging to a breast and sucking milk out of it?
Do you remember doing it?
If not, how would you feel about it if you did remember?
If I remembered myself breastfeeding I would try as hard as I could forgetting it and not remembering. It may be a natural act, to a reasonable age, but it is not something a person should remember doing.
So a child, 4 or 5 years old, goes to kindergarten, and is breastfeeding. A child 7, 8 years old, goes to second grade, and breastfeeds still. Let's make it extreme, a 12 year old kid who breastfeeds. You think that is NOT wrong?
Considering that first memories are recorded from time around 3 years old, therefore that is the utmost time when breastfeeding should be stopped if hadn't before.
Who appointed you as arbiter for what is right and wrong?
I know very clearly what is right and wrong. And where it comes from and why. Basically, it all comes from the fact that we exist. If you want to know more about that, then begin a new debate.
When it comes to "right and wrong" or "morality" I must assume that all men and women have equal rights. I cannot dictate their actions or force them to do anything because I cannot be sure that I am right and they are wrong. I can, however react and defend myself or others from people that would use dictates or force for the same reason.
I don't give a rats ass if it's bad for my health for me to smoke. It's MY BODY and if I WANT TO DO IT, it's my RIGHT to do it.
I do remember suckling and I have no averse feelings about it. Your personal perspective and mine are irrelevant. Neither you, nor I, have the right to force our opinion of right or wrong upon someone else that is not forcing their opinion of right or wrong on anyone else.
I cannot dictate their actions or force them to do anything because I cannot be sure that I am right and they are wrong.
Is law right or wrong? How can they know? How can they force it upon all of us?
Who can be sure about what is right and what is wrong? No one?
Dictating others actions has always existed, still does, and probably always will. There's negative and positive dictation. Some people are too stupid to know better on their own.
I don't give a rats ass if it's bad for my health for me to smoke. It's MY BODY and if I WANT TO DO IT, it's my RIGHT to do it.
Fine by me if you don't care about your own health. Just shows that you don't know better.
Those who try to make a suicide and are saved while still is possible. Why not respect their decision and let them die?
What would all drug users say about the same? As is well known, the use of drugs is against the law. And law is the opinions of those who created it. So, those opinions are forced upon them.
Neither you, nor I, have the right to force our opinion of right or wrong upon someone else that is not forcing their opinion of right or wrong on anyone else.
So, we have the right to force our opinions on the government?
Your personal perspective and mine are irrelevant.
Is law right or wrong? In our existing system, most all of it is wrong.
How about this, is the violation of another person's self control wrong? I believe it is. It requires one simple premise, we are equals under the law.
How can they know? They obviously don't. They have prevented gay marriage, sent men and women to die and murder, they have kidnapped people for having vegetation in their pockets, they have imprisoned people for printing coins and delivering mail.
How can they force it upon all of us? Sheep like you that give them power.
Who can be sure about what is right and wrong? Logical premises and the scientific method can prove a lot of right and wrongs.
Dictating others actions has always existed, and at some point it included slavery. We realized we were wrong then, we can realize we were wrong again.
If someone does wish to commit suicide, yes, I support their right to do so. I would offer alternatives, but interfering makes them my slave.
Yes, it is your OPINION being forced upon drug users, and I resent it. If you don't want to use drugs, don't use them.
No, we have no right to force our opinions on the government, because the government is nothing more than a group of people. I will not force my opinion on what others will do except to prevent them from forcing their opinion on me or someone else that I am an advocate for.
What is the point of debating?
Actually, this is an intriguing question. If you believe that your opinion should be forced upon others, why are you debating with me? Why not simply force me to see it your way. You obviously believe in voluntary communication and convincing, why is it that you refuse to use that same methodology when it comes to breastfeeding?
Is law right or wrong? In our existing system, most all of it is wrong.
That is true.
How can they force it upon all of us? Sheep like you that give them power.
Sheep like me? When did I say I support them? Never pops to mind.
Governments consist mostly of idiots who only care about money and power and thus cause corruption and stagnation and thus lead humanity in the wrong direction.
Logical premises and the scientific method can prove a lot of right and wrongs.
I work with logical premise, and that also tends to include science.
Since a large number of humans are not capable of coming up with good and right solutions themselves, or simply do not care about anything but their own well-being, it is necessary to have a leading factor. But not the current, very stupid kind of leading.
It requires one simple premise, we are equals under the law.
The current law treats us as sheep, as meat, as we are nothing, as if we were just some tools to be used and discarded when no longer needed.
Not one person is equal to another, we all have our differences, but it would still be right to treat others as equals when conducting with them. And still everyone should also be considered at their individual level.
Yes, it is your OPINION being forced upon drug users, and I resent it. If you don't want to use drugs, don't use them.
Actually, it is fine by me if they use them. It distinguishes the lower ones from the rest. An easy way to get rid of or just separate weak links.
I will not force my opinion on what others will do except to prevent them from forcing their opinion on me or someone else that I am an advocate for.
Their opinion is forcing their opinion. If you prevent them doing it you are forcing your opinion on them.
If you believe that your opinion should be forced upon others, why are you debating with me?
Actually, distinguishing the weak links is far better than forcing opinions on them... Keep humanity strong and healthy, both mind and body.
Showing people the right way so they would consider it, see it, see the error in themselves, and perhaps correct themselves. How can that be wrong?
Why not simply force me to see it your way.
You do realize that forcing my way upon you would be getting physical in a bloody way? Would you resist me? I think so.
why is it that you refuse to use that same methodology when it comes to breastfeeding?
As I have stated and mentioned the reasons. Above the age of 3 breastfeeding is wrong. The sooner children become independent the better for them. Every mentally fit mother should understand it, at least here where I live they seem to. But yes, distinguishing weak links...
And I'm not a mother myself, never can be, for wienering reasons...
A lot of people are not capable of recognizing right and wrong above their personal "need", therefore they act stupidly and wrongly. If they can't themselves, then someone must show them and hope for correction, or the weak link thing...
You state, "a large number of humans are not capable of coming up with good and right solutions themselves, or simply do not care about anything but their own well-being, it is necessary to have a leading factor."
I claim that you are one such human. That your self-righteousness and belief of some "angels" that will lead mankind from its own destruction is your lack of respect for other people's freedom to satisfy nothing other than your own well-being. You truly believe that by oppressing others, by forcing your will upon them that you have their best interests at heart, but it's a false claim very much like religious zealots that are out to "save" the rest of us.
Considering that you might be wrong just as much as the person who wishes to do x y or z might be wrong, you have no right to force your will upon them.
You write, "it would still be right to treat others as equals when conducting with them" yet you do not propose actions that do this. Your proposal treats mothers that wish to breastfeed to the age of 4 or so as lesser people, that need to be taken care of. I suppose that's what you mean when you followed, "And still everyone should also be considered at their individual level."
It's nothing more than self righteous aggrandizement. You have no right to act in a way to initiate violence or coercion or threats or fines against others. The word INITIATE is crucial to this statement.
You wrote, "Their opinion is forcing their opinion. If you prevent them doing it you are forcing your opinion on them." Preventing someone from forcing their opinion on others is significantly different than initiation of force. Self defense and defense of others is readily justified, aggression is not.
You wrote, "Showing people the right way so they would consider it, see it, see the error in themselves, and perhaps correct themselves. How can that be wrong?" It is NOT wrong, and that's exactly my point. You've chosen to debate, to use a non-violent, non-aggressive method to interact with me on this. Why not do the same with women that wish to breastfeed past your preferred age? Isn't that better than "forbidding" it?
You wrote, "You do realize that forcing my way upon you would be getting physical in a bloody way? Would you resist me? I think so." yet you do not acknowledge the violence that would inevitably occur with a ban on breastfeeding past the age you prefer.
Your recommendation that children never remember suckling to me seems contrived. I am sure that the majority, if not all adults that can recall suckling look back at it with fond memories, with great appreciation for the love they received as children.
Calling those that don't see things your way "weak" is one of the first of the dehumanizing tactics that was used to justify many abuses of people throughout history. Please don't repeat the mistake.
You can claim whatever you want, it does not make it true.
That your self-righteousness and belief of some "angels" that will lead mankind from its own destruction
??? What fucking "angels" are you talking about? Have you completely lost your mind?
Self-righteous? This is not about myself... At least now you know.
is your lack of respect for other people's freedom to satisfy nothing other than your own well-being.
Did I ever say it? No. It also cannot be inferred from what I have said. Go ahead and make some more things up.
My well-being? It should be clearly obvious that I am not debating nor arguing about my own well-being.
You truly believe that by oppressing others, by forcing your will upon them that you have their best interests at heart
I truly believe? When did I say that? Never pops to mind, again.
I believe nothing. It is a very stupid word.
but it's a false claim very much like religious zealots that are out to "save" the rest of us.
It is something you claimed, not me.
... you're not getting a thing I'm saying. Seriously, you aren't.
If I'm getting this correctly then in your mind everyone should be completely free and be able to do whatever they want, no restrictions at all? Even if that means raping, murdering, stealing, scamming, using drugs, smoking, beating up others because they are different, brainwashing children into religious crap, and so forth? All that is detrimental to humanity... And so far, this seems to be exactly what you are going at.
You wrote, "Showing people the right way so they would consider it, see it, see the error in themselves, and perhaps correct themselves. How can that be wrong?" It is NOT wrong, and that's exactly my point. You've chosen to debate, to use a non-violent, non-aggressive method to interact with me on this. Why not do the same with women that wish to breastfeed past your preferred age? Isn't that better than "forbidding" it?
It does include the same method but if that fails and they do not see the error, stronger methods should be applied.
Luckily there aren't that many mothers who are so stupid as to breastfeed too long. There are a few exceptions but that's it.
The point is. Over 3 years? No! If yes then there is something wrong with the mother or perhaps even the child.
Your recommendation that children never remember suckling to me seems contrived. I am sure that the majority, if not all adults that can recall suckling look back at it with fond memories, with great appreciation for the love they received as children.
A grown-up person should not remember him/herself suckling. I am very certain that most would agree with me, at least here where I live.
"For the love they received as children?" There are other ways of showing love, like teaching your child to become independent, as by that age it should be, which means the end of suckling.
Calling those that don't see things your way "weak" is one of the first of the dehumanizing tactics that was used to justify many abuses of people throughout history. Please don't repeat the mistake.
Not my way. "Weak" is, more or less, not seeing what is right and what is wrong, but you clearly know nothing about it, and you are not getting anything I'm saying either...
You can claim whatever you want, it does not make it true.
I would say the same to you.
What fucking "angels" are you talking about?
The expectation that government will be run by people that aren't just as fallible as you claim the majority of people are is an expectation that some special exceptional people (Angels) will become politicians.
[a lack of respect for others' freedom] cannot be inferred from what I have said. is directly shown when you state, it should be forbidden. equally it shows that you truly believe that you believe it since you wrote it.
everyone should be completely free and be able to do whatever they want, no restrictions at all? Even if that means raping, murdering, stealing, scamming, using drugs, smoking, beating up others because they are different, brainwashing children into religious crap, and so forth?
No, I clearly indicated that the initiation of force is wrong and it is right to use force to intervene when someone initiates force. It's called the Non-Aggression Principle. So on that list, the acts that are initiation of force are: raping, murdering, stealing, scamming, and beating up others.
It does include the same method but if that fails and they do not see the error, stronger methods should be applied.
What if you're wrong? You have chosen to authorize others to initiate force against someone that was NOT initiating force against you or anyone else in order to impose your OPINION.
No, I clearly indicated that the initiation of force is wrong and it is right to use force to intervene when someone initiates force. It's called the Non-Aggression Principle. So on that list, the acts that are initiation of force are: raping, murdering, stealing, scamming, and beating up others.
Scamming is not done by force... you talk people into losing things.
My views are toward a healthy humanity.
So you are saying that it is only wrong if someone initiates force? Basically saying it is okay to use drugs, although they are very unhealthy; that it is okay to brainwash children into "believing" things that do not exist, things that are not real, basically messing up their minds; not to mention smoking that is unhealthy, and should be forbidden. Even if it is detrimental to humanity but is not done by direct force it is okay by your standards?
The point is improving humanity, not letting it sink into a hole. That means, since there are wrongs (also the ones not done by direct force), it is necessary to have restrictions. There are wrongs because there are many people stupid enough not know better by themselves.
What if you're wrong?
If someone does something wrong, is told about it, and does not stop it. You think that person should just be allowed to continue, basically showing everyone else that that wrong is okay to do?
Fraud is obtaining someone's property without their consent, and therefore theft. Theft is an act of aggression. For example, if person A buys a car from person B with 80k miles on it but the odometer was rolled back to 10k miles on it then person A has had 70k miles of usage that have been stolen from him.
Your views are toward what you THINK is a healthy humanity and your vanity makes you think that only you are right.
I am not saying that the only things that are "wrong" are those that are the initiation of force. I'm saying that I believe that the use of force against another person is wrong unless that person has consented to the use of that force. That those that use force upon others have indicated that they do not ascribe to the non-use of force and have invited it upon themselves.
So, when you come to take away my cigarettes and try to force them from me I will feel no remorse whatsoever in using lethal force upon you because you have indicated that you have no regard for not using force.
Let me ask you, do you enjoy sports? Those should be forbidden, they cause unnecessary injuries and even deaths and for what? Entertainment?
Do you like TV or Movies? They both waste a TON of resources, while we have children starving in Ethiopia. They are a blight on humanity and we should forbid them.
I'm telling you, you're wrong to eat meat, and I'm going to forcibly take your cows and fish and chickens from you.
I am not wrong.
See how abusive that was? You're equivalent to that.
So you are saying that lying is aggression? Although similar, scamming and theft are different.
Your views are toward what you THINK is a healthy humanity and your vanity makes you think that only you are right.
I've given some examples. You think that would not be healthy for humanity?
Have I said that I think only I am right? Nope, I have not.
I am not saying that the only things that are "wrong" are those that are the initiation of force.
And how would you try to correct others from making those wrongs? First you tell them, if that does not work, other methods are needed.
So, when you come to take away my cigarettes and try to force them from me I will feel no remorse whatsoever in using lethal force upon you because you have indicated that you have no regard for not using force.
I'd say you are stupid to be a smoker in the first place.
If nothing else works, only one option remains - the use of force. And that final option can be used for different outcomes.
Let me ask you, do you enjoy sports? Those should be forbidden, they cause unnecessary injuries and even deaths and for what? Entertainment?
This is a very stupid example.
And no, i do not enjoy them, at all.
But whether I like them or not does not matter. They are good for people, they increase and keep up physical health. Those who get injured, it is their own fault they could not be more careful.
Entertainment is also healthy because it lowers stress.
Do you like TV or Movies? They both waste a TON of resources. They are a blight on humanity and we should forbid them.
Another very stupid example.
TV and movies are good for people. TV has programs and series that educate people, give good information, make people think over pretty much anything. Movies are the same. Even though there are stupid and pointless ones.
They can also help lower stress. But sitting all day long watching at a screen is bad.
, while we have children starving in Ethiopia
Yeah... I'm not gonna respond to that... You'll go nuts if I did.
I'm telling you, you're wrong to eat meat, and I'm going to forcibly take your cows and fish and chickens from you.
Okay... I thought you could not get any more stupider. Look at who was wrong (pointing at myself).
I am not wrong.
You proved yourself wrong with your comment.
See how abusive that was? You're equivalent to that.
You know, truth tends to hurt, I know it from experience. But you seem incapable of accepting it, bad for you.
No, making a contract to sell a product and having the product be something other than what was stipulated is theft. For example, if I sell you a wallet for $45 and say that there's $40 in it and you agree, then later you find that the wallet has $20 in it, I have in essence stolen $20.
"I've given some examples. You think that would not be healthy for humanity?"
Anyone that claims it can know what is best for humanity is a zealot, like you. I claim that I have no right to force upon someone else what I believe is right or wrong unless that person has indicated that they do not accept the non-initiation of force by initiating force on someone else.
"Have I said that I think only I am right? Nope, I have not."
Yes you have. You wrote, "You've been showing the truth behind my position alright - the truth that I am right," and "I'm not wrong." It's a small leap in semantics, but the fact is that I indicated that I disagree, you indicated that you would use force to achieve your ends. I indicated that I would use force to prevent you from forcing your ends. The former is an act of an aggressor, a willful person who will force their opinion on others and is, in fact an acknowledgement that you believe that ONLY you are right.
"And how would you try to correct others from making those wrongs? First you tell them, if that does not work, other methods are needed."
Ostracism is the only moral position i can accept. I will not threaten them to get my way.
"I'd say you are stupid to be a smoker in the first place." So be it, as long as you won't force your opinion upon me, I could care less.
"If nothing else works, only one option remains - the use of force. And that final option can be used for different outcomes."
Yes, imposing your OPINION on other people. Welcome to dictatorship.
My examples weren't any more "Stupid" than yours. You have arbitrarily determined some STUPID reason why breastfeeding should be banned. Your STUPID opinion on memories which I HAVE and enjoy as being harmful is STUPID and lacks any consideration of ME.
I have cited FACTS that certain sports produce injuries and death that could be avoided. It is STUPID to support them continuing simply because physical exercise is good. People can jog, run, do yoga, and so on.
Entertainment may be healthy in reducing stress, but so does smoking marijuana, which AFAIK you want to forbid. Even so, reducing stress can be accomplished by meditation and communal chanting. It is a FACT that movies and TV are wastes of resources when an alternative stress remover exists. This is bad for humanity. So I decree we should ban it.
Prove me wrong, prove that the net result of the entertainment industry and sports aren't bad for humanity.
If you can't, I propose we ban both immediately.
"You know, truth tends to hurt, I know it from experience. But you seem incapable of accepting it, bad for you."
You are apparently incapable of accepting it now. The TRUTH is that you're nothing more than a brute, an abusive dictator who is willing to hurt people to get your way, even hinting that you advocate eugenics.
In your own words: "...3 years old... is the UTMOST age when breastfeeding may still be allowed but after that it will be VERY VERY WRONG, and should be forbidden. A person must NOT have memories of him/herself clinging to a breast and feeding!"
"You know what happens if someone is caught... and resists? Yeah, that's right. Violence."
"Some people are too stupid to know better on their own"
"...get rid of... weak links"
"A lot of people are not capable of recognizing right and wrong... If they can't, [hope for correction] or the weak link thing."
"If nothing else works, only one option remains - the use of force. And that final option can be used for different outcomes"
Your logic follows all tyrants, all abusers, all self righteous zealots that abuse people under a banner of helping.
No, making a contract to sell a product and having the product be something other than what was stipulated is theft. For example, if I sell you a wallet for $45 and say that there's $40 in it and you agree, then later you find that the wallet has $20 in it, I have in essence stolen $20.
It is theft through lying, not the general theft where things are just taken.
Anyone that claims it can know what is best for humanity is a zealot, like you. I claim that I have no right to force upon someone else what I believe is right or wrong unless that person has indicated that they do not accept the non-initiation of force by initiating force on someone else.
I do know what is best for humanity, actually not exactly "best" but better than what is currently. There isn't just one way, there are a few or several more but I'm not gonna write a whole book here...
You ignored my question. Like a "nice" little politician would.
Yes you have. You wrote, "You've been showing the truth behind my position alright - the truth that I am right," and "I'm not wrong."
In those sentences, can you see the word only? I sure can't.
As I said, "nope, I have not."
Ostracism is the only moral position i can accept. I will not threaten them to get my way.
So, first you tell them and hope for correction. If that does not work you threaten them with exclusion or banishment? How is that not aggression? And if they decline it, resist it?
So be it, as long as you won't force your opinion upon me, I could care less. Yes, and if you can't see the wrong in that, how could you see it in other instances?
Yes, imposing your OPINION on other people. Welcome to dictatorship.
If what I explained is dictatorship then how are our current governments not with their laws against drugs? Before claiming you know what dictatorship is, perhaps you should do some more research on it.
My examples weren't any more "Stupid" than yours. You have arbitrarily determined some STUPID reason why breastfeeding should be banned. Your STUPID opinion on memories which I HAVE and enjoy as being harmful is STUPID and lacks any consideration of ME.
They are not stupid. Also, not my problem you are messed up in the head...
I am very certain most people would rather not remember that, at least here where I live. This actually says a lot, the people here where I live are, on average, much smarter than elsewhere (although everything else is not that great, the educational system is, compared to other countries).
I have cited FACTS that certain sports produce injuries and death that could be avoided. It is STUPID to support them continuing simply because physical exercise is good. People can jog, run, do yoga, and so on.
Sports games increase physical coordination, agility, speed, etc. They could do it with other exercises, but as are others, so are those different methods for exercising. You think jogging has not caused any injuries? What would you say about martial arts? I personally can't do any myself, but I will definitely learn at some point.
Moving altogether is dangerous, some could actually walk off a cliff and drop dead, or they walk into sight of a hungry predator. Breathing is also, you could breathe deadly gases and vapors. So is yawning - a bug could fly down your throat and choke you to death.
As I stated the first time, very stupid example.
Entertainment may be healthy in reducing stress, but so does smoking marijuana, which AFAIK you want to forbid. Even so, reducing stress can be accomplished by meditation and communal chanting. It is a FACT that movies and TV are wastes of resources when an alternative stress remover exists. This is bad for humanity. So I decree we should ban it.
Drugs may reduce stress but they also cause other damage, and addiction very easily.
"meditation" I sort of do it.
"communal chanting" Well, that is stupid.
Do you also think reading books and stories is stupid? Or listening to music?
So we should ban people from choosing acting as a career? And script writers should also be restricted from writing?
Prove me wrong, prove that the net result of the entertainment industry and sports aren't bad for humanity.
There is bad effect from those, Because there are people stupid enough not to see it themselves. But not as the net result.
So, you are saying there should be no entertainment "industry" and sports? How would you go about changing all that? Aggression?
If you can't, I propose we ban both immediately.
Okay, let's ban them! And if they resist you use force?
You are apparently incapable of accepting it now. The TRUTH is that you're nothing more than a brute, an abusive dictator who is willing to hurt people to get your way, even hinting that you advocate eugenics.
As I stated, you are incapable of accepting the truth. It seems to be true, as you begin calling me things that I am not. The truth is what you know about me is just scratching the surface.
Me a brute? Clearly not.
I am a dictator? I did not know that, thanks for letting me know!
Do you even know what "abusive" and "dictator" mean? Considering you used them hints that you don't.
As to eugenics, there are undesirable traits among humanity, traits which have a negative effect (genetic diseases for one). Do you disagree? Would express your stupidity if you did.
Your logic follows all tyrants, all abusers, all self righteous zealots that abuse people under a banner of helping.
You clearly know nothing of my logic. And as I said, this here is just scratching the surface. You should better stop calling me things, makes you look very stupid.
I have shortly explained what is healthy for humanity and you seem to deny it...
A copy-paste: "Some people are too stupid to know better on their own" (like you with your smoking) You think that is false? Hints at your stupidity if you do.
"It is theft through lying, not the general theft where things are just taken."
Agreed
"I do know what is best for humanity, actually not exactly "best" but better than what is currently."
There are a lot of Muslims that "know" what's best or better than what is currently. I'm sure you won't mind them passing laws forbidding women from wearing clothing other than a Hajib. You're just like them.
"You ignored my question. Like a "nice" little politician would."
Which question?
"In those sentences, can you see the word only? I sure can't."
As I said, "[The fact] that you would use force to achieve your ends...is an act of an aggressor, a willful person who will force their opinion on others and is, in fact an acknowledgement that you believe that ONLY you are right.
Anyone that disagrees with YOU is forced to have their opinion subjugated to YOUR opinion and that makes it apparent that YOU think that ONLY YOU are right.
"So, first you tell them and hope for correction. If that does not work you threaten them with exclusion or banishment? How is that not aggression? And if they decline it, resist it?"
If I, and others ostracize someone and they initiate force, they have shown that they do not accept the use of force against them, so yes, I would use force. Again, the response to force with force is not the same thing as initiating it.
"If what I explained is dictatorship then how are our current governments not with their laws against drugs?"
It IS dictatorship, albeit not the government form, an extension of the term dictating. They dictate that we cannot use drugs.
"Before claiming you know what dictatorship is, perhaps you should do some more research on it."
I'm using the term as a concept of the word dictate, not as the form of government.
"They are not stupid."
If they aren't then neither are mine. You have no proof of harm, whereas I do.
"I am very certain"
Great, we should force other people to do what you want because you're certain. How nice for everyone else that is certain that you're wrong.
"the people here where I live are, on average, much smarter than elsewhere"
Ah, far be it for a zealot to suggest that someone else might be more enlightened.
"You think jogging has not caused any injuries?"
Not on par with football, rugby, hockey, MMA etc. You're not seriously equating the two are you? Obviously you are because you suggested that someone might walk "off a cliff...breathe deadly gases...yawn [and] choke... to death [on a bug]"
How ridiculous can you get?
"As I stated the first time, very stupid example."
You show it's ridiculous by referencing absolutely negligable risks when there are known risks and guaranteed damage from what examples I provided. Pathetic.
"Drugs may reduce stress but they also cause other damage, and addiction very easily."
Escapism is addictive. Physical addiction to marijuana has been disproven. Damage from marijuana has been shown only in smoking of it.
communal chanting... is stupid."
Glad to see you're just as self righteous in other things.
"Do you also think reading books and stories is stupid? Or listening to music?"
It doesn't matter if I do. I won't force others to not do them, unlike you.
"So we should ban people from choosing acting as a career? And script writers should also be restricted from writing?"
Obviously I was stating those positions to show how abusive your position was. I don't believe we should ban either, nor should we ban mothers from feeding their children at some arbitrary age that offends you.
So, you offer as proof that the net result of the entertainment industry and sports is not bad for humanity the following quote, "[it's bad,] but not as the net result."
"So, you are saying there should be no entertainment "industry" and sports? How would you go about changing all that? Aggression?"
"Okay, let's ban them! And if they resist you use force?"
I wouldn't ban them. It was an exercise showing the abuse of your position.
"Me a brute? Clearly not."
You propose to forcibly seize children from mothers that wish to breastfeed past an age that you deem appropriate. Yes, sir, that clearly is a brute.
"I am a dictator? I did not know that, thanks for letting me know!"
Glad to help.
"Do you even know what 'abusive' and 'dictator' mean? Considering you used them hints that you don't."
Abuse: to hurt or injure by maltreatment.
Dictator: person who makes pronouncements, as on conduct, fashion, etc., which are regarded as authoritative.
You satisfy both definitions. You wish to hurt, injure, and maltreat those that defy your pronouncements which you regard as authoritative.
"As to eugenics, there are undesirable traits among humanity, traits which have a negative effect (genetic diseases for one). Do you disagree? Would express your stupidity if you did."
You mean traits like motor neurone disease from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis? I assume you'd suggest we should've prevented Stephen Hawking from ever coming into this world.
"You clearly know nothing of my logic."
I have shown exactly how your logic follows the same as all oppressors. You dictate what is right and is wrong for others, you deny their humanity by calling them weak, you are willing to use force to achieve your ends.
"You should better stop calling me things" or what? You'll prohibit it? Use force to make me stop?
My copy paste showed clearly how abusive you are. Deny it all you want, the facts speak for themselves.
There are a lot of Muslims that "know" what's best or better than what is currently. I'm sure you won't mind them passing laws forbidding women from wearing clothing other than a Hajib. You're just like them.
Clearly you misunderstood everything.
Which question?
"You think that would not be healthy for humanity?" Was the question. It's a yes or no question.
As I said, "[The fact] that you would use force to achieve your ends...is an act of an aggressor, a willful person who will force their opinion on others and is, in fact an acknowledgement that you believe that ONLY you are right.
Anyone that disagrees with YOU is forced to have their opinion subjugated to YOUR opinion and that makes it apparent that YOU think that ONLY YOU are right.
Which part of "In those sentences, can you see the word 'only'? I sure can't." can't you understand?
If I, and others ostracize someone and they initiate force, they have shown that they do not accept the use of force against them, so yes, I would use force. Again, the response to force with force is not the same thing as initiating it.
In this particular case you would be the one initiating force.
If they aren't then neither are mine. You have no proof of harm, whereas I do.
There are different kinds of harm, not only physical.
Great, we should force other people to do what you want because you're certain. How nice for everyone else that is certain that you're wrong.
I think you missed most of the sentence... I'll copy-paste it: "I am 'very certain' that most would agree with me, at least here where I live."
Ah, far be it for a zealot to suggest that someone else might be more enlightened.
You might want to check the definition of zealot next time you intend to use it. You make yourself sound stupid, not that that's something new...
You calling me a zealot. In that case aren't you one also? You sure seem to be.
Not on par with football, rugby, hockey, MMA etc. You're not seriously equating the two are you? Obviously you are because you suggested that someone might walk "off a cliff...breathe deadly gases...yawn [and] choke... to death [on a bug]"
How ridiculous can you get?
You initiated the ridiculous example, not me.
There is mountain climbing. Have people not died doing it? Let's ban it! Breathing deadly gases and vapors... plenty of examples of its danger. Would you suggest wearing gas masks, all the time? Choking on a bug... well, you began the ridiculous example, I just added to it.
You show it's ridiculous by referencing absolutely negligable risks when there are known risks and guaranteed damage from what examples I provided. Pathetic.
You did notice that you began with this ridiculous example?
Construction is a risky job. Why not ban that too?
Life is a constant risk! Would you suggest banning it? Pathetic.
Escapism is addictive.
Escapism suggests that there is something mentally wrong with the person...
Physical addiction to marijuana has been disproven. Damage from marijuana has been shown only in smoking of it.
Doesn't matter if it is physical or mental addiction, they are both bad.
Only through smoking? As in lungs are messed up?
Glad to see you're just as self righteous in other things.
Glad to see you are still as stupid.
It doesn't matter if I do. I won't force others to not do them, unlike you.
(reading books and stories, listening to music) When exactly did I say I would force others not to do them? I have trouble recalling this particular instance... Perhaps because I never did? Does this sound familiar?
Obviously I was stating those positions to show how abusive your position was. I don't believe we should ban either, nor should we ban mothers from feeding their children at some arbitrary age that offends you.
You think feeding a 6 year old is not wrong? If so then your mind is a mess. Just saying.
I wouldn't ban them. It was an exercise showing the abuse of your position.
You don't seem to understand a single thing I'm saying. You seem to think if I would, given a chance, ban some things, I would ban everything? You realize how stupid that sounds?
There is no abuse in my position. As I have stated before, some people are too stupid to do things right on their own. You would let them go their way, do things the wrong way?
Well, there is really no right and wrong, but since we do exist... I doubt you'll get this.
You propose to forcibly seize children from mothers that wish to breastfeed past an age that you deem appropriate. Yes, sir, that clearly is a brute.
That who tries to save someone from making a suicide is also a brute? The ones who make laws are also brutes?
Call me what you want, it won't make it true.
Abuse: to hurt or injure by maltreatment.
Dictator: person who makes pronouncements, as on conduct, fashion, etc., which are regarded as authoritative.
You satisfy both definitions. You wish to hurt, injure, and maltreat those that defy your pronouncements which you regard as authoritative.
And you don't fall under this particular definition of "dictator"? You sure seem to.
I don't satisfy both statements. You may think I do, but that doesn't make it true, again.
You know what maltreatment means? I do.
You mean traits like motor neurone disease from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis? I assume you'd suggest we should've prevented Stephen Hawking from ever coming into this world.
This is getting far beyond the initial topic (been there for a while really), and no. No because he had and has a great mind.
But basically, yes.
I have shown exactly how your logic follows the same as all oppressors. You dictate what is right and is wrong for others, you deny their humanity by calling them weak, you are willing to use force to achieve your ends.
You just proved you know nothing of my logic.
What exactly do you mean under weak? You make it sound so simple when in reality it is far more complicated. I don't envy your simple life, although life is simple.
It does not follow the same as all oppressors, for one I am not stupid as they were. If they had my mind and the following of so many people they would not have failed, nor would they have fucked up everything else the way they did.
You dictate what is right and is wrong for others,
I dictate? I have only expressed my thoughts, opinions, ideas, etc.
I do know what is right and wrong. And I've shortly explained this before, at least I think I did.
you deny their humanity by calling them weak, you are willing to use force to achieve your ends.
In what way do I deny them their humanity? And who exactly do I call weak, as you seem to claim being an expert of me?
Humanity is relative. So you should specify what you mean under it, or don't use it.
Force may only be used if everything else fails and if in the end it is beneficial.
or what? You'll prohibit it? Use force to make me stop?
My copy paste showed clearly how abusive you are. Deny it all you want, the facts speak for themselves.
Well, look at who can copy paste.
That copy paste showed nothing other than you can do it.
The only fact is that you simply aren't getting a thing I'm saying and that you claim to know me when in reality you don't. The facts speak for themselves... I'll let you figure out the end yourself, doubt you can or will but still.
As I said somewhere up there, you can call me however you want, it does not make it true. But if you were wise you would not call me anything I clearly am not (the things you called me). Just makes you look mentally incapable.
THANK YOU!!!!! The last thing i want to think about is being 6 years old sucking on my moms breast, that would be ummm very disturbing!!! Honestly i dont want to depend on my motheres breast when im hungry.
You didn't ask if there should be a law to stop women from breast feeding children after a certain age, you asked if there is an appropriate age to stop breast feeding. Now tell me, when do you think would be the appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
I totly agree with people making their own decisions but this the development of a child and i think its not only disgusting but damaging on the childs mental development especially for a boy
I don't believe there is a "correct" age to stop breastfeeding. I also don't believe it has to be a hard stop. Is three too old? I don't think so...but certainly by the time a child is in Kindergarten, they should be weened from the breast.
True, to some people such as nummi, freedom scares them because of making independent decisions. These people like being told what to do; hence, they have no brain to think for themselves.
to some people such as nummi, freedom scares them because of making independent decisions.
You have nothing smart to say and thus you go for insults? Clearly shows you have a lot of mental growing to do.
These people like being told what to do; hence, they have no brain to think for themselves.
Care to clarify what you mean under "these people"? Are you racist? You seem to be.
The fact that you said "These people like being told what to do" proves you don't know me.
Oh... you are religious. Rather typical, you can't think of anything smart to say and thus you go for insults. The pointless book of your's tells you how to live your life and I am the one who likes being told what to do? When I use my own mind for thinking, not repeat the same old and pointless crap over and over again? You are so stupid.
As you are religious, you are the one who has no brain to think for yourself, because you take this bible nonsense as reality. How about actually trying to think for yourself and not repeat the same crap over and over again? Have you tried that? Of course not because if you do you will go to your nonexistent "hell". Moron.
I don't have a brain to think for myself? So who came up with all that stuff above? Care to clarify that for me?
The fact is you know almost nothing about me and as I have stated before, it's best not to claim to know someone you clearly don't.
The topic of debate depends. Im not a psychologist but if there is any psychology that is programmed in our head from the start of birth that will guareentee you trauma by drinking milk from your mother's breast all your life....then i will support yes.
I can't guareentee this but what if i decided to get breast feeded from my own mom. The thought not only grosses me out but the way society has taught me, i would feel immense "wrong." But is it really wrong?
I say if there isn't any trauma connected to this and the child becomes fuctional to society, i will allow it. Though because of how i was raised, i will never allow my children (future children) to be breasted feeded if they are five, or if they are 15. I will never allow it because the thought "ews" me and i do feel the aura of "wrong." If you don't think so, then that is your opinion and i respect that. :)
Edit. I do have to say what if a 15 year old drank from her mother's breast, is it wrong? No, if there is no harm to the mother or child. And that is what i believe we have to resort to when we think about these things...harm. Does it cause harm? If it did cause harm, then yes, it is wrong. And what do we mean by harm? Nipple bruises...lol. Well, the harm i generally mean is psychological harm. If there is any psychology harm, then i vote against it. I wouldn't worry about small physical harm like bruises because that to me is not major. And sometimes things that cause phsyical pain is good for you, like excercise.