Polygamy that involves child abuse - Holmes, Randman, CS?

Sound familiar?Quotes from Holmes?Nope.NAMBLA. Let me make this perfectly clear.
This is not an attack on Holmes. (Nor, btw, was my previous comment.)
This is an attack on a position.
The position taken by Holmes in this thread and the position taken by NAMBLA and other pro-pedophile organizations are identical.Look at Holmes' post directly above this one! Holmes, you need to explain to me the difference between laws of which you would approve ("laws which restrict the sexual behavior of children") and those of which you would not.(Prediction: "Just so long as there's consent.")You can play the hero fighting for Truth, Justice and The American Way all you like, Holmes. Standing up for unfairly maligned people like NAMBLA. That's ... lovely.As you do so, please pay particular attention to your definition of consent. Particularly with regard to 7 or 8 y.o. children.(All quotes from wiki.)

The problems involving this cult extend beyond child abuse and 'hate the world' philosophy common to religio-suicidal endeavors such as Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians, or the Jim Jones Guyana episode. One problem that has not been addressed is how the 'church' has taken tax rebates and food stamp money from the American taxpayer under false pretenses.From The Independent

quote:

---

Long-time observers of the FLDS say the confusion is part of a long-standing strategy of trying to wrongfoot the authorities. In fact, the FLDS has long had an overt policy of trying to sting the government for everything it can - in the form of food stamps, tax breaks and subsidies. An FLDS member will generally declare his first marriage and take the tax benefit, then let his subsequent wives claim welfare as unemployed single mothers. Down the years, the church has earned hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds this way, a process it describes derisively as "bleeding the beast".

---

This cult has managed to perform the ultimate sin in the eyes of the US Government and that is not polygamy or pedophilia, but rather they have come between the IRS and 'its' money.Also, I think that once a given cult decides it overtly requires government subsidies, then it loses any absolute right to privacy, or indeed secrecy.Besides I personally do not like my tax money going to any pedophile cult anymore than I like it going to Haliburton or Blackwater.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Ah still the old game, eh? Sorry but trying to make my "position" look bad by showing how "scary people" might use similar arguments, is the same fallacy as trying to make me look bad.In another thread, on the topic of scientific evidence related to harm to children, and specifically addressing sex and age, I directly criticized NAMBLA's misunderstanding of the science.I have also stated in several different threads how, regardless if science showed children thrived on sex, I would still support laws which would undercut NAMBLA's goals. Not because I hate them, or people like them, and think the world will die if they get their way... it's just that I'm a relativist and don't think their belief system gets the free wheeling uber-protections they desire.See the problem with you is that you have consistently ignored one important fact: you are only addressing one half of my position. You asked what I'd say if cultures tried to enter the US which had marriage ages (and so sexual ages) below our present limits. I said I would not care.What you want to cover up is my answer to the exact opposite question. What if a culture came in, or heck the one that exists now, which wants to prevent their children from having sex up till 18... hell let's say 20?My answer would be the same... I would not care. I would support laws to help parents and children protect themselves according to their own cultural traditions, permissive or restrictive.If you went looking for actual quotes which represent my arguments you may find them in Ginsburg, note this is not Allen Ginsberg, rather it is Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I pulled much of my position from some reviews and discussion she had on the topic, which I found quite convincing.Perhaps you would like to write her regarding your opinion on her support for NAMBLA. Wrong. While I do respect a child's right to consent... and realistically the world wouldn't collapse if we had such a weak rule as you just laid out... I am sympathetic that most parents want an ability to create and raise their children within a specific belief system. Parents do have rights which are stronger than those of their child to choose what they want to do.Also, parents generally want to be free from worry outsiders will come along and bother their children. With no laws around, outsiders (predators or not) will have more access than most parents (and indeed perhaps many children) would be comfortable with.To be frank, I am for instituting similar rules pertaining to more than just sex. I won't claim "truth", just reason and scientific evidence. If you replace those into the above sentence, then I am not just playing it, I am living it. Only you have mentioned NAMBLA. From a doc I saw on some of their members I'd say some of them have some serious issues. Your original question was about members of different cultures. Are you claiming they are all NAMBLA members or something?If you want to extend this to "pedophiles" in general, including different cultures which hold lower age restrictions than we do, then I guess I do think they (assuming we are discussing non violent types) are unfairly maligned. Most people in the west (and the US in particular) seem to hold very unrealistic concepts about this topic, or such people... and that includes children's sexuality.You have yet to present any evidence in support of your position, except bigotry. Now I'm not asking you to like such people, but there is simply no evidence that children are inherently harmed by sex. Culture and historical... hell let's add psychological... analysis bears that point out. Thus fear of such people is unfounded in large measure.That's just like what happened with homosexuals. The same tactics you are using is what was used against them. Actually I guess I can say "us", since I am bi and had to live through the same kind of crap arguments you are using now.A little bit of realism goes a long way to solving problems. Surreal passionate diatribes against minorities cause more problems than they solve. Only people unclear on current science would use age based "consent" as a major factor in constructing sexual laws. Perhaps you can present evidence for what your definition of "consent" is and how that is linked to harm (in anyone, much less children).

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

That is an extremely interesting point I'm going to have to take some time to think over.Then again, if we allowed the marriages they couldn't claim all those single mothers.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Unfortunately, angla, nothing has been done for over 5 decades and -- I suspect -- nothing will be done. Now that's quite an expenditure! 20K per student. 80%. It gets even better.Jeffs predicted the end of the world (4 times!), so what did these tax money grubbing pervs do? Reagan went on ad nauseum about ghetto welfare queens.Check this out. Mom with 5 kids (and most women have at least 8), no income, no spousal income (and remember ... these women file as "single") = $28,225/year.Each husband is required to have at least 3 wives (or he doesn't get into heaven). A three-wife, 15-child family = $84,675/year.Now THAT'S a welfare queen.Not that she gets to keep the money. All monies and all property belong to the FLDS church.A church with a 100 million dollar "trust fund".But let's leave aside their perversity and greed for a moment.Let's talk genetics. And by "handful", the author means 13. Worldwide. Ever. Uh oh. What's this? There's that pesky money again!But, like I said earlier, nothing will be done. (All quotes from http://www.thehopeorg.org/taxes.html.)

I never said consent had anything to do with AoC laws.I said: Define consent. I said: Define the laws you are talking about. And, of course, you passed the buck.Typ-i-cal.

Let's unpack this...You said I need to explain the difference between laws I would approve and those I would not, then as I do so I have to pay attention to my definition of consent particularly as it related to 7 or 8 yos.Remember that was your full statement, and here it is again... That makes a presupposition about my position, and it also delivers a connotation that definitions of consent, as related to age, are important. If they are not why would I have to pay particularly close attention to either?Now I will repeat my answer...Only people unclear on current science would use age based "consent" as a major factor in constructing sexual laws.Further, within my post I did suggest differences between laws of which I would approve and those I would not. Now perhaps you could have more questions based on where I started, but to say you saw nothing is to criticize yourself not me.Perhaps you should read it again, and ask specific questions related to the types of laws (or basis for laws) I had set out. As a note, I have until sometime around midnight tonight. I'm not sure if I will have any time tomorrow to respond. And after Monday it begins to get worse. By the end of the week I will certainly be gone as I thought I would have been at this time. Yes, actually I will pass the buck (back to you). Set out your proposed laws and give some sort of evidence based rationale for your position. I posed similar questions to you earlier, and you have yet to answer.AbE: Looks like time is almost up.I just realized that this whole sexual law issue is also OT. It was a nice maneuver to get us discussing me... like I have to prove I'm not a member of NAMBLA, or that my position would help them... rather than discussing the topic, and your lack of answers (besides bigoted non sequiturs).If you have a problem with my position, you take it up with Ruth Ginsburg. You can also take it up with scientists who study human sexuality and problems stemming from sexual abuse. But if you want to carry this further with me, wait till I come back and start a new thread.As far as this thread goes, I have answered how the context is different than faith healing and so why Jeffs and many others at the FLDS deserve prosecution... for raping minors... a position directly conflicted with your insinuation about my allegiances.If I don't get back within this week, goodbye and I hope you can improve your ability to argue a position before I return.Edited by Silent H, : AbE

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This is the full extent of your "definition". IOW, bupkus.You don't like AoC laws. Fine. "Set out your proposed laws and give some sort of evidence based rationale for your position.""I support tradition." is not a law.
"I support tradition." is not a rationale. You have cited nothing in this thread that supports this statement.Answer this: Is consent important re: marriage?
Answer this: Is consent important re: sexual activity?If so, you need to define consent. Bull.Show me the quote.

Not a pumpkin yet, so you get a reply in the nick of time... Not quite. I admit I did not set out a full definition. Mainly because it would be somewhat lengthy to explain. So I set out a general basis. Your quote did not even capture all of it. It was that nice big section under your question. While that most certainly can be a rationale, it isn't mine regarding such laws. I agree it is not a law.My rationale for laws regarding sexuality, which is the same for any law, is the preservation of rights for all citizens. This includes protecting people from harm, as well as ensuring their right to the pursuit of happiness. Families, not states, are the source for morality. Thus laws would center on providing families (and children) powers to fight predators, rather than the state mandating arbitrary criteria beyond the interests of the family and which make no sense beyond a single, temporary culture.From this it gets more detailed. Since this is all I need to show your accusation is incorrect, that's what I'm giving. Oh that is true. I have been in two threads at EvC devoted to the topic, as well as a couple which veered in to it. I don't have the time to repeat all of it again here. I was making a statement based on all the data I have gone through in the past, which showed why your request made no impact on my position.I am not unclear on current science, thus I would not use such criteria to formulate sex laws. Yes and yes, but they would not be the major basis for laws restricting sex or marriage with minors. Obviously if something were against consent (simple) then that would be illegal, but there is more than that which can make it so.Simple consent defines standard rape. The other conditions go toward statutory rape... which is what we'd generally be discussing in the cases you asked about. Remember you started it with the whole "if a 13 yo agreed to marry a 54 yo?"So I don't need to define consent, particularly with consideration toward specified ages, as I'm not trying to make that the basis for sex laws... However, given your stereotypical responses, you do for your position. Clue: that's why it's lame, you can't move beyond your cultural box. Of course you can prove my assessment wrong by detailing (or just give me the basis) for your laws, which indicate how consent related to age is not an issue.What I find amusing is that this demand of yours undercuts the claim in your previous post. Try my first post to you... #95. I checked and its still sitting there.Like I said in my last post. This sex law issue is a giant red herring for the topic. If you want to continue it, wait until I get back and open a whole new thread. I hope you learn how to construct a valid argument, as well as understand your citations, before I get back.Ciao.Edited by Silent H, : clarity

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Portion of a girl's testimony that helped landed Jeffs in Jail.These girls relent to the sexual abuse because they don't know they have a say in anything. They are traumatized from the day their born to accept their destiny.You cannot say this kind of control and coercion towards anybody is right let alone an innocence little girl.One Polygamous husband, ex-FLDS stated blatantly "it's all about sex". It's not about love, or doing God's will, it's sex. Simple as that. These girls are being raped, not made love to, because they don't know they have a voice and can speak out about it. They don't know anything outside the compound and the police that police the compound are just as corrupt as them.You cannot excuse this behaviour or the "Parent's judgement" on the matter. It's child abuse and child exploitation and the Parents are the guilty ones. So to argue for them and say these parents shouldn't have the kids taken out, damn right they should and they should get an eye opener that life on the compound isn't all there is for them and this is UNACCEPTABLE behaviour. They need to escape, but they won't. So if they're not going to do the responsible thing for them and their kids, then, they risk losing them.What would be worse? Having them have to rebound from something they don't think is wrong? Or having them stay there to live a life of rape, incest, beatings, threats...and then the agony of watching their own kids go through the same things as the cycle starts over, and watching their sons be torn away from them?You know as soon as Jeffs is done there, someone else will take his place. Unless you nip it in the bud, it will be a never ending cycle.You can check out the rest of the report here:FLDS case: The testimony led to charges against the sect's leader

Several reasons why I haven't been responding. (1) Been too busy lately to sit there and compose long messages. (2) Been giving myself time to understand the mentality behind what I'm seeing. (3) Not sure if my responses matter at all.I'm beginning to think I understand where you are coming from and why sometimes you seem to be in sync with us but sometimes you are not.I think you are taking the automation approach to these legal and moral questions. This is how automation works. You come up with a line of reasoning that works for some circumstances. You assume that this line of reasoning must work for all circumstances. From this point on, you automatically apply this line of reasoning to all circumstances that remotely resemble the original circumstances you dealt with.My problem is this. I see each situation as a different situation that requires at least a slightly different approach. Yes, normally I would say that minority "right" must be protected from the majority will. Yes, normally I would agree that we must respect cultural differences even if these differences can be viewed as wrong by the norms. Yes, normally I would agree that freedom of religion requires a hands-off policy in order to ensure freedom of religion.That said, there are situations where automation (or whatever the hell you philosophers describe it) just doesn't make any sense. A small minority religious group could come up with ways to take advantage of this line of reasoning that would normally work in most cases. They could teach their females from early childhood that being raped by much older men is ok and that it is the only way to heaven. They could teach their females from early childhood that complaining about it or call for help would land them in eternal hell. They could teach them a lot of things from early childhood that (and I know it bothers you when I say this) are just plain wrong and evil. All of this coupled with the fact that children naturally cling to their parents no matter how abusive they are. This is biological!Going back to what I would call the automation method. Yes, normally I would say that imposing the majority will on a small minority group is immoral not to mention illegal. But this doesn't give immunity to the small minority that does obviously evil things.Bare with me for a second here. I don't mean to compare you to the inquisition. All I'm about to do is compare your method with just one aspect of the inquision, so please bare with me.The Vatican at one point declared that the inquisition "could not draw blood". This led to inquisitors coming up with all kinds of horrible ways to torture and kill people without literally drawing any blood. My favorite example was simply burning people alive because that didn't draw any blood at all. There was also the stretcher.Your method at approaching these issues is like arguing to the world's end that these methods must be ok because the text literally said inquisitors could not draw any blood and since there was no blood drawn the whole torture thing must be ok.Holmes, I know evil when I see it. I know wrong when I see it. Yes, I am also aware that these are the same lines of words used by christians today to describe homosexuals. We must, however, look at each individual case and ask ourselves if the people involved, mainly the children, have any choice in the matter.I was raised a fundamentalist christian. I know what it's having been raised and told from very early on about the damnation of hellfire. I can confidently say that when I was 18 I would have done things I knew to be wrong just so I could avoid hell. These 13, 14, etc. year olds were raised to not question the men in power or they'd go to hell. You really want the rest of us to sit back and wait for the remote possibility that they'd break out of that mentality and come to us for help?Like I said many times before. People like these girls in this religious sect and people like Madeline in households that promote faith-healing never had much of a choice. They were isolated from the rest of the world. How on Earth can we expect them to have any kind of informed say about their own safety? And like I said many times before, we will probably never know what Madeline really wanted simply because she was isolated from the world by her parents. For all we know, she could have been crying bloody murder as she slowly and painfully died from her very curable condition. We don't know.Anyway, I saw some of Percy's words and realized that I, too, am no longer interested debating this with you and get bogged down in details. You can take this however you want it. Reply if you wish. I guess we will have to simply agree to disagree.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Let me know when you're ready. Insisting that you are correct without any evidence is ... very Buz-like. Translation:
Yes, consent is important.
But I don't have to define consent.
You define it for me. I can't remember the last time I laughed out loud at a post.Thanks, Holmes. Allow me to refresh your memory. You did not ask me to define consent.
You did not ask me to define a law.

Hello again,The quote was unnecessary as I agree that she was manipulated and raped. There are others besides herself, including a nephew of Jeffs.I have said and it dazzles me that I must continue to say this... I agree that an investigation was warranted and rape has been committed.Jeffs and some others used the fear of hell to silence victims. That to me is just the same as using a gun, given that these people were devout and would treat the threat the same way.The only thing that quote did for me is wonder why if she was willing to have an affair... which would certainly send her to hell as well... she didn't just leave the compound and get a divorce? But that doesn't change the facts. This is where we are in disagreement. You simply cannot punish a whole group of people, for the actions of some.This is what is supposed to separate our nation from other nations. It also separates free thinkers from bigots. They are all individuals and not a "them" who are all guilty because they look and act funny to us.You never answered my question about how you would feel if an anonymous caller accused your community of engaging in criminal acts, and so they come to take away your children.The police were right to begin an investigation, and remove children as needed... not en masse. But they DO think it's wrong. Your own quotation points that out. However they are coerced to keep quiet.Where they don't think something is wrong, then there is usually no problem When they do they must have the protection to break free. Where some jerk is running an intimidation racket, proactive investigations beyond the initial case is warranted.That said, you do NOT, have the right to take away all their children regardless of whether anything was committed, especially when these were not the kids at risk anyway and foster care is likely to cause more problems.You don't seem to care what pain these people go through (including the kids) as long as it is not the potential pain you know some have gone through. I think that is short-sighted as well as illegal.In any case, we can leave it at this if you want. Our positions differ largely in the details of how something should be carried out, rather than that there is a problem which needs to be dealt with.This is my last day for quite a while I expect (got sudden good news which means I'm back to work). If you're not around when I get back, it was nice chatting with you. I like your writing style.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You say your a relativist. Yet you seem to draw lines in the sand in places - as would an absolutist. For example, you frequently invoke "consent" as a line in the sand not to be crossed.Don't get me wrong, I think you display the courage of your convictions more than most (however abominable those convictions might be to whomever). Yet in this you seem to fall at some last fence or other...Could you enlighten me?

Hello Taz, your description of my technique is not correct. It is similar, but the differences are crucial.I can sort of see where you would get that image, given that you'll see consistent applications of principles across different topics. I do recognize that different situations require different approaches. I suspect that we may differ on what constitutes a different situation. You appear to believe that you can tell what is right and what is wrong and that makes a difference.But in your favor, you are right that I may try to fit as many cases under similar approaches as I can, with tweaks here and there. None of this would be acceptable in the system I use. Each involve patent admissions of coercion and abuse of another. It doesn't matter if the kid believes they will go to hell for telling. While that might explain why a kid would not tell... it is coercion plain and simple. They just use an invisible gun.I'm not sure how many times I have to state that I am not making a 1st amendment case, which argues the 1st amendment trumps everything. Even the right to familial sovereignty protects parents only so far. You have said all I would have to say against your position. Except that I would add that children should not be the key to unlock civil liberties.Children largely have no choices. I would rather see the parents making the mistakes rather than the state. This case is exhibit A that I am right on that count. A state just grabbed a whole community's children, despite their not being in the age range where they'd face any threats, despite not having a witness, despite not all being named, despite testimony from experts (of the state) that the children will suffer within foster care.I'm still shocked any freethinkers here are not siding with me on this. Collective punishment is illegal. I think the relatives that phoned in the issue would be able to tell us whether that is true or not. In any case, I'm not one for guilty until proven innocent. So worse case speculations don't mean much. neither am I for damning families for living in isolated communities with very different belief systems.Your argument largely consists of an idea that if children only had exposure to the world you grew up in, they'd think like you. While that might be true for some, it will probably not be true for all, and in any case if you grew up in their world (and not isolated within your own) I guess you'd feel like them. I will take it like Percy... a cop out. But that's ok. People have certain entrenched positions which are not open to evidence nor reason. If discussion won't budge it, might as well stop.The only thing I'd suggest is to note your own words. You can recognize that your statements are identical to fundies. That should tell you something. They could go on and make the same claims you did, including needing to protect kids. For example if children were not raised in a home with two daddies, they likely would know that was wrong. In such a home they will be facing additional dangers they wouldn't in a regular home. In fact how many kids may be upset that they did not get to grow up in a normal family like most other kids? Where are they off?All this said, we can largely agree to disagree. I think you may be missing some facts to support your case (and thus I can't agree to disagree on that), but where we differ on general principles... I can't say you are wrong, just different.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard