I argue it does indeed constitute a form of child abuse. What then should be done about it is a DIFFERENT QUESTION. Perfectly fucking clear now?
No, of course not.
If I say, "I think death is warfare should be considered murder", and you said "But that would imply setting a life sentence for doing something most people in our society consider honorable", would you be stuffing a strawman?
False equivalence. First, for it to be analogous to what I said you would have to say, “I think killing in warfare should be considered a form of murder.” We have different degrees of murder (first degree, second degree) and different shades to what constitutes murder (intent; premeditation; heat-of-the moment; etc)—and likewise different sentences/punishment for same—but what you are arguing is not about punishment; it’s about the moral classification and how we don’t classify it as the equivalent of murder, but we should because of....whatever the rest of your argument would be. THAT then is the topic; why it should or should not be considered a form of murder NOT how it should be punished. That is a separate issue.
As written, however, the response you have me giving would in fact be a strawman, because I would then be saying to you, “You are arguing that killing in warfare should be punishable with life in jail” when in fact you argued no such thing. You were asking about a moral imperative; I was saying you were arguing about punishment.
The fact that I added onto the end “for something most people consider honorable” stuffs even more straw, because that means I am saying that you argued punishment should not be inflicted unless most people agree the act was dishonorable. So we’re so far away from what you had argued as to be completely off track. You were NOT arguing about punishment; you were NOT arguing that punishment should be tied to mass opinion about what is (or is not) honorable. YOU were arguing that killing in warfare should be considered a criminal act in a moral sense the same way we classify murder (which in turn raises questions of how we classify murder and different forms of killing, etc).
Or to put it more directly, punishment (or what a group of people consider “honorable”
has nothing to do with the question of whether or not killing in war should be morally classified as premeditated murder. If every person on the planet thought there was “honor” in killing your innocent child, does that have any bearing on whether or not killing your innocent child is morally justifiable? What has “honor” got to do with the act of killing your innocent and/or whether or not the killing of your innocent child was morally justified?
Why would it even occur to me, when you say "x is child abuse", to assume that what you mean is "x is child abuse, but I don't think it should be criminalized".
I DO think it should be criminalized, because it is a form of abuse. That has absolutely nothing to do, however, with how it should be punished. You are the one that jumped on your high horse and falsely declared I was arguing we should take children away from their parents and rape and murder every human on the planet
Or hyperbole to that effect. And you did so—imo—deliberately to avoid dealing with the actual question of whether or not cult brainwashing constitutes a form of child abuse, or, in short, whether or not it is child abuse.
Determining what constitutes a form of child abuse is one thing. Determining what should therefore be done once that qualification has been made is a different thing.
Can you seriously not comprehend that?
What should we do about this child abuse, in your opinion?
Other than properly labeling it as such and educating the citizenry accordingly? I don’t know. But, again, that is an entirely different question than the one I am positing.
I understand why you are trying to reframe the question. I’m just not interested in allowing you to do so in order to avoid the issue I am raising. You don’t think cult brainwashing is a form of child abuse. Noted.[/QUOTE]
Rape and murder everyone on the planet?
I merely made the assumption, when you call something child abuse, that you mean it should be dealt with in a fashion similar to all other
kinds of child abuse. Which, if the perpetrator insists on continuing to visit on the child after remediation have been attempted, almost always results in removal from the home and criminal charges for the parent. If you wanted to invent a new form of "child abuse lite" that only results in a stern talking to or something, you should have said so.
As a practical matter, this would require a totalitarian solution if applied to the current population of the US as it is currently constituted and under its current laws concerning abuse.
And if you are going around calling people child abusers, but literally have no idea what we should do about it, well...
I don't think you've thought through the implications of calling someone a child abuser, and I stand by that judgment. Don't throw criminal charges around unless you are certain you're okay with how they will stick.