• Seleni
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 months ago

    Kids back then were seen as property of their parents (in case you were wondering where that idea comes from when it pops up now and again today), and thus technically their discipline was also the province of their parents.

    • samus12345
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      But isn’t beating someone up also a violation of their rights?

      • Seleni
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Kids didn’t have rights, any more than a dog or horse or chair did. They were seen as property. Both by the law and by custom.

        • samus12345
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          In this case, the rights refer to the adult who “owned” them.

          • Seleni
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Right, hence him saying ‘I know I haven’t any right to do this’. He was infringing on their rights, with them not present to object.

            • samus12345
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Yes, and he’s also infringing on their rights when he beats them up, yet has no problem with it.