Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Polygamy that involves child abuse - Holmes, Randman, CS?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 121 of 126 (463896)
04-21-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by iano
04-21-2008 6:42 PM


Re: Sheer pot luck...
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.
Ah yes, excellent question. That is a difference between morals and laws.
Well I guess I should start by saying that even as a relativist I could say that I don't like when people are forced to do something, but you are right that I could not say a society which allows such things to happen would be wrong... I just wouldn't like them.
To get to your observation. Our system of gov't is constructed on a theory of individual rights. Unlike most gov'ts (and all else at the time it came into being) it promoted the individual as the primary source for gov'tal power, rather than the reverse.
Because of this, consent (in its simplest form: assent) is a boundary between one person's desires/actions and your rights. The usual example is my right to swing my arms around ends at the tip of your nose. If you consent to a boxing match with me, my swing can go through your nose.
Given that I like this form of gov't I promote it quite avidly, and defend its principles. Some belief systems which promote the group over the individual will have to make changes to work within this nation, rather than expect our foundations to change to fit their beliefs. That is a line I am willing to fight for.
What upsets me in threads like this or the other, I find people within my own culture wanting to strip the foundations of our system to fit their own moral compass. While arguing as if they are supporting individual rights, their solution is to make the state more important. Big mistake, and one the founding fathers warned about. It's a seductive error.
I hope that answers your question.

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by iano, posted 04-21-2008 6:42 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by iano, posted 04-21-2008 7:36 PM Silent H has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 122 of 126 (463898)
04-21-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Silent H
04-21-2008 7:15 PM


Re: Sheer pot luck...
That is a line I am willing to fight for.
What upsets me in threads like this or the other, I find people within my own culture wanting to strip the foundations of our system to fit their own moral compass.
Leaving aside the fact that the foundations weren't laid by God but by mere people-who-held-a-view, what's the essential difference between the moral compass you fight for (involving consent) and the moral compass your opposite, the moral absolutist - of whatever hue?
Other than in the details, I mean.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Silent H, posted 04-21-2008 7:15 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Silent H, posted 04-21-2008 10:17 PM iano has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 123 of 126 (463911)
04-21-2008 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by molbiogirl
04-21-2008 12:18 PM


I don't like herring (red or other)...
Let me know when you're ready.
Why? You made an accusation and I defined my position enough to refute that accusation. What else did you need me to define it for?
Insisting that you are correct without any evidence is ... very Buz-like.
But I did neither. There is plenty of evidence at EvC that I am quite clear on current scientific knowledge regarding this issue. I simply did not regurgitate it. As it stands I did not insist I was "correct", just that I am familiar with the subject. Enough, not to make lame mistakes.
What's brilliant is you use this charge when you have not given one shred of evidence for your position. When I made some statements regarding harm, all you did was say "hey look that's what NAMBLA and other pro-pedophilic movements say!" Is everything they say wrong? If so, how and why? I think they support abortion, sex ed in school, and condom usage... does that mean they're citing facts in support of those issues make those facts wrong?
Like I said, your position is lame. All you have is guilt by association, and blank assertions. Ppppppht!
Translation: Yes, consent is important. But I don't have to define consent. You define it for me.
What a crappy translation service you use. Perhaps you ought to just read it, as it is in English.
Simple consent (that is: assent) is the defining line for rape, or in the case of marriage, coercion. Do you really need me to define simple consent?
It is important for those situations. What you asked about was statutory rape, and marriage of a minor. Those are special cases where simple consent is no longer sufficient. And as I said, no other types of consent are necessary to consider for those cases. Other issues come into play, and they are more important when drafting the laws.
It is only people trying to insist that those special cases are illegal because there is no consent, who have to play all sorts of games to pretend like that is so. Then you get into different definitions or types of consent.
Your prediction, which failed, was that I would settle on simple consent period. I don't. There are other criteria to be used.
Get your head out of your cultural box.
You did not ask me to define consent.
You did not ask me to define a law.
I said SIMILAR question, not word for word exact. You asked if X was ok? I ran down my answers both from a moral side and from a legal side.
Then I turned it back to you. If you were going to discuss the legal side then you'd end up doing the above, right? If not, why would I have had to as you followed up on my legal position?
And here's the deal, you didn't answer it then, and you still haven't answered it with this last post.
Let me know when you are ready to address the topic of this thread, and quit with the red herrings.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by molbiogirl, posted 04-21-2008 12:18 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 124 of 126 (463913)
04-21-2008 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by iano
04-21-2008 7:36 PM


Re: Sheer pot luck...
Leaving aside the fact that the foundations weren't laid by God but by mere people-who-held-a-view, what's the essential difference between the moral compass you fight for (involving consent) and the moral compass your opposite, the moral absolutist - of whatever hue?
Oh, I did not make myself clear enough. I meant I was willing to fight for the legal line, which is to say a legal compass, not to enforce my moral compass.
When running a state, we are in essence creating rules between us for organizational purposes. Our system heavily limits the importance of the state, prizing instead individual liberty. That is a legal concept, not a moral one.
I would agree that other nations can succeed using different legal concepts, but I am willing to fight to maintain the concept I enjoy, which happens to be the foundation of the state I was raised in. I mean I have to live somewhere, and there are only states to choose from, so... I fight to preserve the legal system I want to live in.
Moral absolutists (the ones I'm complaining about anyway) maintain that law should reflect moral principles rather than legal ones. In that case the state has "failed" when it allows something unpleasant to happen according to their belief system. And that's why kids are so easy to use. Put one in jeopardy and people lose sight of legal principles which ensure the practical sovereignty of the individual, and power shifts to the state.
So to recap...
Legal issues revolve around adjusting the practical balance of power: between state and individual, as well as between individuals themselves. Moral issues revolve around what is right or wrong, pretty much regardless of any specific practical concerns.
In the US the balance of power should be toward the individual. My argument has been that... since minors are not given the same level of rights as adults... the parents should have the power, rather than the state. Individual rights are maximized, and mistakes contained, by allowing parents to make decisions as care-givers for their children.
In this particular case, some adults are abusing that authority to harm children and cover up the harm. They clearly know what they are doing is resulting in something the kids do not want, and are coercing them into silence. That is on top of the other differences in the setting I mentioned to molbio.
None of my arguments are based on moral questions. Just the balance of rights. This is likely why my position contains unpalatable conclusions for many people.
Did I explain myself better this time? (AbE: I just want to note that this last question was not sarcastic. I read that last post and understood where my words left room for confusion on legal v moral. I hope I worked it out better here.)
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by iano, posted 04-21-2008 7:36 PM iano has not replied

Sasha
Junior Member (Idle past 5818 days)
Posts: 1
From: Bristol, Virginia
Joined: 04-22-2008


Message 125 of 126 (464026)
04-22-2008 10:28 PM


Comment.
I hope you know, that the originally posted article was biased . Here’s an e-mail I sent someone that would help analyze the bias:
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any descriptions of the raid itself. So this is the closest I could come: the article was written locally right after it happened; the end makes it suspicious:
Page Not Found - The Salt Lake Tribune
This is the least biased local article documenting the general situation:
The Salt Lake Tribune - Utah News, Sports, Religion & Entertainment
And this is a nationwide article. It focuses on hospitalization, but it has other good information:
http://news.yahoo.com/...0413/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat
Then I included these two biased articles for comparison and said lots of things about the actual analysis of bias that I do not wish to quote:
Newsday | Long Island's & NYC's News Source - Newsday
The Salt Lake Tribune - Utah News, Sports, Religion & Entertainment
Here’s one that shows that the fake phone call was made by the Obama delegate for that region:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/192369.php
And so after that, it started getting out of hand. Here’s an article that says that the judge is even refusing to allow mothers to stay with the children they breastfeed. This sparred several sites to get the children back to their families, and even one petition:
petition: Free the Innocent FLDS
Edited by Sasha, : No reason given.
Edited by Sasha, : Elaborated on omission of material from e-mail.

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 126 of 126 (469075)
06-03-2008 4:14 PM


Theme has a new topic - This one closing down
Newly hatched - Texas child abuse case.
Adminnemooseus

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024