FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Authorities remove 400 children from Polgamous Cult Compound (Page 14)

  This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16   
Author Topic: Authorities remove 400 children from Polgamous Cult Compound
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Frequent checks to make sure everything okay could be just perfect.
You think that would be perfect? That's revolting.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, please. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
Frequent checks to make sure everything okay could be just perfect.
You think that would be perfect? That's revolting.
I think a little intellectual leeway is warranted, Squicky.

Probably, kat doesn't believe that the situation is "perfect."

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I know you're searching as hard as you can to come up with a reason to insult me. If that lame and dishonest deliberate misinterpretation is all you can come up with, maybe you should reconsider.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
And if this descends into another Kat vs. Squick cage match, I swear, I'm going to LEAVE HATRACK AND NEVER COME BACK!

And it'll be all your fault. You'll miss me.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Scott R:
I disagree and I think you're conflating two things.
It is a strawman when you misrepresent your opponent's position in order to have an easier time countering it. It is not a strawman when you try to understand a person's motivations in order to understand why they might put forth a particular argument or use a certain style of rhetoric.

Obviously, you cannot use this kind of analysis to defeat an argument, but you can use it to understand why a discussion flows in a certain way.

In the end, we all do this to some extent or another. We know how a 'Lisa' thread flows in comparison to how a 'Blayne' thread flows, we know why discussions about Israelis and Palestinians are often unproductive, and why ID/Evolution threads go they way they do.
Better to be aware of it and fine-tune/correct our perceptions as necessary, rather that approach every discussion with every person as a clean slate.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Good point.

I have no interest in conversing with you, Squick.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
you should reconsider.
"Look. I know too little too late. I know that there are things you say and do that you can never take back. But what would you be if you didn't even try? You have to try. So, after a lot of thought, I'd like to reconsider.

Please. If it's not too late...make it a CHEESEBURGER!"

Thank you, Lyle Lovett

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Would you agree that regarding that situation as perfect would be revolting?

It's the constant bias that's really bothering me here. I don't get why you two seem to want so badly to cover over what these people have done, to distort the facts and relevant laws, and to keep describing the situation in statements so ridiculously slanted.

Constant monitoring so that the parents and other adults of the community don't have the opportunity to push these kids into being raped (besides being extremely impractical) is incredibly far from a perfect solution. There are enormous problems with it. It's abusrd and revolting to suggest that their aren't and it is unfair and disrespectful to those who disagree with it.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Better to be aware of it and fine-tune/correct our perceptions as necessary, rather that approach every discussion with every person as a clean slate.
Why is this better? I don't grant your reasoning at all, man.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish
Member
Member # 11579

 - posted      Profile for Ish   Email Ish         Edit/Delete Post 
It's funny, and all though I haven't read this entire debate.. A few points of interest if I may:

Circa Michel Foucault: politics, philosophy, culture: interviews and other writings 1988:

It was only around 1810 that people even started thinking about sex as a legislatable action (meaning something that should be regulated) and it was not earlier than the late 19th or more probably, the early 20th Century that the idea to create laws around sexual activity really gained any momentum.

(Note: there have been a few laws dealing with consent in England as early as 1275, though the reasoning behind these laws had more to do with men selling their "brides" to brothels for profit instead of marrying them and then getting a "better" bride rather than the girls actual welfare.)

In fact, there is no clear cut federal law prohibiting sexual actions with "minors" (here said to mean anyone not of the voting age). There are several laws dealing with the transportation or using of interstate and foriegn movement of peoples and or things in connection with sexual act that can be charged as illegal. Meaning, if it's proven in your own state you did a naughty thing, you could also be charged federally if the person was under the age of 18 and you had them or money or other objects brought to you for the purpose of sex.

(Side note: there is also a provision to deal wih similarly aged minors and there promiscuous activities, 12 years of age is the breaking point and no partner can be younger than that but as long as there is less than a 4 year gap, the federal charges can be dropped.)

Thats a round about way of saying it falls on the states. And our country is all over the place, from 13 years of age with parental permision (which these men obviously had) to 17 in texas for ANYTHING.

So, looking at it from a legal perspective, no, they don't have the right to even touch the girls, thats obvious.

BUT

And I say this as a fun factoid, not as opinion swaying information, lets see... up until 1988, there were no real clear cut laws (or even a hint of them) in Texas until Texas Penal Code Section 21.11 was ratified in 1973. So a little more than 35 years ago was our first real look at kids under 17 and thinking maybe we oughta protect them? Wow... and look what thirty years has given us.

Not to mention we are one of the FEW countries with such a STRICT distinction on underage sexual acts. In most countries, as long as you are married and over the age of 12 (apparently this number is used in most countries due to the falling age at which menstruation is begun, this is an average and the "safe" number) you are green lighted.

Some countries nearby have even more fuzzy lines:

Mexico: 12 - 18 depending on state, though the federal gov may chose to take action if state does not.

Canada: Country wide age is 16 with close age expemptions where 12 is the minimum age and the partner can be no more that 2 years older than the youngest partner. However, if the couple is married, NONE of these rules apply, unless the couple files for divorce under "sexual abuse" claims that can be proven.

Japan: Age 13, though many prefectures turn a blind eye to "almost there" activities performed by 12 year olds who are "promised" to a young man or family friend. While the laws in certain areas of japan vary, the federal law is very lax comparitively.

England:
Age of Consent has been 16 since the 1800's


And it hovers around 14 - 16 in most countries arcross the world.

Interesting how we think in different countries and how quickly we change our minds about things... In 1908, it would have been at least somewhat understandable to be 12 or a little older and be at least promised to a man, if not already being groomed for your wedding day.

Posts: 44 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It's the constant bias that's really bothering me here. I don't get why you two seem to want so badly to cover over what these people have done, to distort the facts and relevant laws, and to keep describing the situation in statements so ridiculously slanted.
Please show me where I've done this. I see where I've been mistaken; I know I've had to correct several of my opinions as I've gained understanding of the facts, and I've tried to be open about that.

I do think I'm slanted; but anyone with an opinion is necessarily slanted. I don't think I'm ridiculously slanted, however.

quote:
Would you agree that regarding that situation as perfect would be revolting?
Yes.

I don't think kat was saying that the situation as a whole could be considered perfect. I think she was saying, imprecisely, that having a social worker check up on the family and monitor them and make sure that the children were not being actually abused would work better than removing them from their homes and putting them in foster care.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Scott,
Two examples are how I have to keep mentioning that kids have actually been raped and the law thing. I had to drag that out of you and then you dismissed a pretty significant piece of how this all could play out - that also disagreed with your earlier assesment of how things should be - as unimportant. You don't seem to grant that there are legitimate concerns on the other side at all.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't believe your version of events is correct.

Will you please demonstrate using things we've actually said?

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think she was saying, imprecisely, that having a social worker check up on the family and monitor them and make sure that the children were not being actually abused would work better than removing them from their homes and putting them in foster care.
That's a legitimate point of discussion. Presenting an obvious flawed solution as perfect is not.

This is what kat has been doing throughout this thread. For example, the "No one is helped by correcting one evil with another thing." There's been this attempt to cast the situation as obvious absolutes as opposed to a trade off between valid competing interests and she's said some things that, taken literally, are pretty terrible in the course of this.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't believe your version of events is correct.
I never expected you to.
quote:
Will you please demonstrate using things we've actually said?
That sounds like a hopeless waste of time.

Go back and count how many times I had to inject that children were raped.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There's been this attempt to cast the situation as obvious absolutes as opposed to a trade off between valid competing interests and she's said some things that, taken literally, are pretty terrible in the course of this.
Do you think it was valid to take them literally?

I do not.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Do you think that it was valid to present them as she did?

I do not.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish
Member
Member # 11579

 - posted      Profile for Ish   Email Ish         Edit/Delete Post 
Boy, if you take everything literally, you are
gonna be in a world of hurt when you start reading traffic signs and learn about the Penal code...

ALL OF IT is up for interpretation and discussion, there is no such thing as literal in justice, because then the system would be PERFECT!

lol, well to be honest, some of the things said were harsh, but looking back I can clearly see the objective tone or wording and the explanitory nature of statements, where other times it seems like people were attacking them as serious arguments to be brought to the table.

Posts: 44 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
If there is no refutation to the argument, then you nitpick the delivery.

Get over it. You know I'm right.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
I don't believe your version of events is correct.

I never expected you to.
quote:
Will you please demonstrate using things we've actually said?
That sounds like a hopeless waste of time.

:shrug:

Your impression of what I've said is mistaken. If you're frustrated with this conversation, I don't want you to feel like you have to continue it.

quote:
Go back and count how many times I had to inject that children were raped.
I'm not sure why you feel you "had to" inject those things. As far back as page 9, I noted:

quote:
If the state's data is correct, than I think it's obvious that there was abuse going on, and that this was an unsafe environment for those children. If their data is correct, I'm gratified that they moved in and cleared out this harmful situation.
This was a bit before you entered the conversation. It was also a bit before we found out CPS had made so many gaffes.

Last page, I said:

quote:
It's obvious that CPS had some reason for removing some children. They maintain that at least 5 girls were/are being sexually abused.

Whether or not their findings pan out will be seen in the future. I assume that the evidence they have on the 5 girls is valid; I wonder why they have apparently not made any arrests, however.

I believe it is essential to the health of our current society that the state have some powers to remove children from parental custody.

In short, I recognize the danger that the FLDS doctrine (as it's been relayed to us) appears to present to children. I recognize that the CPS had good reason to remove at least 5 children from that environment.

I think that my arguments here have made that clear; I'm sorry that you've not understood. I wish I had made it more clear how abhorrent I find the situation at the YFZ ranch, as it's been reported.

I do not think that the doctrine alone, nor the mere teaching of that doctrine merits the response CPS engaged in. I agree with the appellate court's decision, insofar as I understand it.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
kat,
When you said that no one benefits from an evil done to prevent an evil, I addressed that as the poorly reasoned statement it was.

Here, your presentation and approach is actually largely the issue. There are legitimate competing interests here. There are parental rights and then there is the state's interest in the health and welfare of children. You have consistently presented things as if only the parental rights were important, blatantly ignoring, even in the face of me explicitly bringing it up, the children being raped.

Your perfect solution is not practical and, even if it worked without a hitch, it still exposes the children to harm.

One might legitimately argue that this harm must be allowed to prevent other violations of parental rights. Declaring that it is a perfect solution and pretending that there are not valid concerns from the other side is not.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
Better to be aware of it and fine-tune/correct our perceptions as necessary, rather that approach every discussion with every person as a clean slate.
Why is this better? I don't grant your reasoning at all, man. [
Thats a much longer conversation, and one that partially related to the politics thread actually. But here's an obvious example.

You exclaimed:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
And if this descends into another Kat vs. Squick cage match...

Why NOT treat this as a clean slate? Why assume that Kat and Squick aren't having a normal disagreement over the issues and that there is some relationship between their previous "cage matches" and current events, erm, man?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post 
I am not religious and I agree with ScottR and katharina. The foster care system is bad. Children being "married" before the age of consent is bad. But these are hardly the only two options. I think the goal should be for the kids to be returned to the community and for underage marriages to stop happening. I don't feel like the current actions by CPS are the best means of promoting this goal.

I think that CPS should be actively involved in this community. It should be made clear to the community that underage marriages will not be permitted and whenever evidence of one arises, the man will be arrested and if necessary, the children relevant to that situation will be put in protective custody.

I'm not sure why this is a controversial position. Would people really rather destroy the community and send 450 kids to foster care when the means to push reform on them is very much available?

Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
I wish I had made it more clear how abhorrent I find the situation at the YFZ ranch, as it's been reported.

I wish you had, too.

If it isn't "as it's been reported" how do you think those girls got pregnant? Not, how can we prove it happened, but how do you as a rational person think it happened?

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
I wish I had made it more clear how abhorrent I find the situation at the YFZ ranch, as it's been reported.

I wish you had, too.

If it isn't "as it's been reported" how do you think those girls got pregnant? Not, how can we prove it happened, but how do you as a rational person think it happened?

I'm having trouble understanding your question. I read it as, "If the girls in question are not pregnant because some older man raped them, how did they become pregnant?"

My answer would be, "I don't know. We should ask them nicely."

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why NOT treat this as a clean slate? Why assume that Kat and Squick aren't having a normal disagreement over the issues and that there is some relationship between their previous "cage matches" and current events, erm, man?
[Smile]

Good catch. I don't always live up to my own standards, and I do tend to be condescending.

Nonetheless, despite my hypocrisy, it's still a good idea to try and treat each thread as separate from the others.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
And this is where I think you don't understand or are dismissing the nature these kinds of communities. Do you really think that any but the the most extraordinary girl brought up in this kind of community would tell you?

And that may be where our views of the world differ enough that we see this situation in completely different ways.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Scott,
Looking at it, all the cases where someone tried to claim that people were trying to take the kids away just because of the parents' beliefs came from kat. I mistakenly thought you were in there as well. My impression of what you said was wrong and I'm sorry about that.

edit: Actually, I think I was keyed off of this:
quote:
If the government can take away children for the ideology that their parents teach-- without actual action on that ideology-- then we have given the government far too much power.
from you. I can see this as meant as a hypothetical instead of an attempt to describe the actual situation, but I took it as the latter at the time.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Squick's representation of what my posts and statements meant is baloney.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanecer:
I am not religious and I agree with ScottR and katharina. The foster care system is bad. Children being "married" before the age of consent is bad. But these are hardly the only two options. I think the goal should be for the kids to be returned to the community and for underage marriages to stop happening. I don't feel like the current actions by CPS are the best means of promoting this goal.

I think that CPS should be actively involved in this community. It should be made clear to the community that underage marriages will not be permitted and whenever evidence of one arises, the man will be arrested and if necessary, the children relevant to that situation will be put in protective custody.

I'm not sure why this is a controversial position. Would people really rather destroy the community and send 450 kids to foster care when the means to push reform on them is very much available?

I have a few big objections to this. First, I don't think that CPS monitoring would be sufficient to prevent the problems here. Second, I don't think CPS will be able to get them to give up the idea of polygamous, underage marriage, so we're talking about a commitment of constant monitoring for as long as the group exists. Third, I believe that there are more problems in this community and how they treat their kids other than they have institutionalized raping them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
And it'll be all your fault. You'll miss me.

Not really.


My aim has gotten better. [Big Grin]

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
First, I don't think that CPS monitoring would be sufficient to prevent the problems here. Second, I don't think CPS will be able to get them to give up the idea of polygamous, underage marriage, so we're talking about a commitment of constant monitoring for as long as the group exists.
If it doesn't work despite exhausting every other option, then I could agree that it might be appropriate to remove all the children. I think it's worth try though.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Ish, when you say that there were no laws regulating sexual activity prior to the 1800s, what do you mean by that? Are you simply opposed to modern Age of Consent laws, or are you seriously suggesting that legislation against homosexual behavior, rape, etc. are all recent phenomena?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I read it as, "If the girls in question are not pregnant because some older man raped them, how did they become pregnant?"

My answer would be, "I don't know. We should ask them nicely."

_____

And this is where I think you don't understand or are dismissing the nature these kinds of communities. Do you really think that any but the the most extraordinary girl brought up in this kind of community would tell you?

And that may be where our views of the world differ enough that we see this situation in completely different ways.

Given the scenario, why would the state even be involved? The nasty old men aren't responsible; if they aren't, maybe it was the horny, unmarried teen boys.

Does CPS assume that every teen pregnancy is a result of statutory rape?

I'm not understanding your objection, kmboots. And just because I may disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand the situation.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Does CPS assume that every teen pregnancy is a result of statutory rape?

I'm not understanding your objection, kmboots. And just because I may disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand the situation.

Questions like that are exactly why I think that you are dismissing the situation. For example, this community held Warren Jeffs as their leader - until he was jailed as an accomplice to rape. Don't you think that is a consideration in understanding the situation? You seem to want to ignore that and pretend that this is not a factor in understanding what has happened and what will continue to happen to these girls.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
No one is dismissing the situation. We are giving emphasis to different sections of the discussion though, as our differing personalities warrant.

It is concerning to me that civil liberties have been dismissed, apparently without due process. The evidence for this statement is provided in the appellate court's decision.

The state has shown evidence that five children were or are being sexually abused. Without demeaning the horror of these girls' ordeal, I am currently more concerned about the ~450 other children and parents who've had their civil rights abused. CPS' actions potentially-- if ingrained into their policies and culture, or if those policies are adopted in other agencies-- have the potential to affect more people than the FLDS' depravities, I believe.

So the weight of my concern lies in the actions of the state. I am not discounting anything. I am giving more weight to what I believe is the greater problem.

I commend and share your anger about the situation. Please stop asserting I don't.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Squick's representation of what my posts and statements meant is baloney.

Bologna.

And in any case you should be grateful for that, bologna can be quite tasty in the right sandwich.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Scott, by "dismissing the situation" I don't mean that you are diminishing the gravity of what has happened to these girls. I mean that you seem to want to assume that these particular cases should be treated the same as cases that do not occur in these types of communities.

"We should ask them nicely", for example, seems to imply that you think that a closed commnity would be as willing to talk to authorities as people not in closed communities.

Suggesting that horny teenage boys are as likely to be responsible as middle aged men for the pregancies seems to indicate that the history of this particular group should not be considered.

The various suggestions from others that monitoring would be a sufficient protection seem to leave out of the equation that the whole community has a stake in seeing these girls "married" according to their rules.

Does that make more sense?

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish
Member
Member # 11579

 - posted      Profile for Ish   Email Ish         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Ish, when you say that there were no laws regulating sexual activity prior to the 1800s, what do you mean by that? Are you simply opposed to modern Age of Consent laws, or are you seriously suggesting that legislation against homosexual behavior, rape, etc. are all recent phenomena?

I'm not suggesting, I'm telling you that these laws (the ones against minors engaging in sexual acts) have not been in place until very recently. Though you are right to assume (though I don't recall ever making mention of homosexuality) that laws against homosexuality have been in place since biblical times. Rape however is a fairly new concept. A womans body has been a possession as recently as the 1920's (even more recently is some areas and countries). The idea that a man should be charged for touching her inapropriately if she is not married was rarely brought up unless the woman was of high status in the community. For the most part silence was the best option, otherwise the woman might recieve backlash or be tainted as unclean or unworthy of a husband.

But I am ranting on the wrong subject, this isn't the rape of an adult we are talking about here, who can choose and decided, tis the rape of a child who has been brainwashed to think it's okay that this discussion... discusses.

I tried to give a very objective statement on the matter. Though who knows, I may not agree with the united states age of consent laws. Or I may be extremely for the regulation of sexual acts by the government. Thats not the point I was making.

The idea was simply that, over such a short amount of time, it seems the views of society on sexual acts has changed from one of a taboo conversation that is left to the persons and their partners (be it consensual or otherwise) personal bussiness and only discussed when sitautions present them to government forcefully and demand attention.

A widely recognizeable example of this would be the Jack the Ripper case. While young woman were raped and abuse and silently tormented in a sexual manner for ages in the 18th century london propper, it was only when the crimes of one became so grotesque and prominent that many officials and judiciaries even recognized the existence (openly mind you, though I'm sure many of them had first hand experience in private) of these prostitutes.

Today is a different matter entirely. Sexual matters are on the forefront of our mind and dictate many of the legislative movements we see today. We've become a society fixated by sex. Driven by it, one might say, and to this point it seems many have forgotten that it wasn't so long ago that many of these crimes we are strongly opposed to today were and in some places still are, rarely recognized or prosecuted.

It's just an interesting contrast I always like t point out when people try and "justify" modern law: It wasn't always this way, so are you positive that this law is correct?

Assuming that a law is just or that a provision in our governmental penal code to do a certain thing does it the best possible way is the death of change and democracy. So we must constantly ask ourselve whether or not the laws are right.

Unless this discussion is feoting the State of Texas's Laws on Age of Consent.

Then it's a whole different ball game.

Posts: 44 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
roxy
Member
Member # 3416

 - posted      Profile for roxy   Email roxy         Edit/Delete Post 
I wonder how many of you actually know where they (the FLDS) people stand? This is their RELIGION. I really don't think they'll ever stop living polygamy. I do, however, believe that their children mean more to them than anything else. I have met a few fundamentalist mormons, though none as extreme as the FLDS, and they are genuine, good people. They believe strongly in their lifestyle, but their religion doesn't specifically tell them to marry off their 14-year-old daughters. I don't know of any other polygamist group that marries off young girls, but I'm not exactly knowledgable on that subject. I hope that the FLDS in Texas will at least make a compromise and agree to stop the underage marraiges. Maybe then we could come to a point where we could all co-exist. Remember, this is their religion. They have a right to practice it.
Posts: 358 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"We should ask them nicely", for example, seems to imply that you think that a closed commnity would be as willing to talk to authorities as people not in closed communities.

In general, how do you go about prosecuting against a community? Where do you stop? Ghettos, for various reasons, are as much as a closed community as the YFZ ranch.

The appellate court has already ruled that the attitude you seem to be suggesting, and the actions that CPS actually took against the community, were not legal.

Do you disagree with the appellate court's decision? I keep asking this question, and neither you nor Mr. Squicky have answered directly.

quote:

Suggesting that horny teenage boys are as likely to be responsible as middle aged men for the pregancies seems to indicate that the history of this particular group should not be considered.

Well if the old guys aren't responsible, and we're not assuming spontaneous generation... what kind of answer do you want me to give, kmboots?

Was your question--

quote:
If it isn't "as it's been reported" how do you think those girls got pregnant? Not, how can we prove it happened, but how do you as a rational person think it happened?
rhetorical? I couldn't tell. That's why I reiterated it and asked for clarificaton.

quote:

The various suggestions from others that monitoring would be a sufficient protection seem to leave out of the equation that the whole community has a stake in seeing these girls "married" according to their rules.

How far are you willing to push the prosecution of a community? One thing we should have learned in the past eight years of the bush administration is that once a power is given to the executive, it's very difficult to take it away.

Are you seriously suggesting blanket treatment because of ideological belief?

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
There was an interesting episode of CBS' 48 hours last night. The thrust of the video was to tie the beliefs of the people at YFZ ranch to Warren Jeffs.

The program was not able to show sexual abuse within the YFZ ranch. The bishop they interviewed flat-out denied that the marriage records (purportedly kept and completed by the ranch) the state was presenting as evidence of older men marrying younger women were valid.

Apparently, a couple days ago, Warren Jeffs claimed to NOT be the prophet his people think of him as; his lawyers claim depression.

The 48 hours program was a bit sloppy-- it made a lot of tangential accusations that did not touch the child sex abuse allegations. Things like Jeffs' sect being 'the American Taliban,' and repression of individuality. It felt, honestly, like a hack job-- anyone who can do X could certainly do Y.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Huh. I watched that part of that program* and got an entirely different impression.

*only part because I was getting both creeped out and really angry at the guy being interviewed and it was before bed and I didn't want nightmares.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
What impression did you get, kmboots?

I'm by no means arguing that Jessop (the bishop in question) is a saint; I thought he was a belligerent and defensive.

But he definitely denied that the records about the five underage girls were valid.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Do you disagree with the appellate court's decision? I keep asking this question, and neither you nor Mr. Squicky have answered directly.
I didn't see my opinion of the appellate court's decision relevant to anything I said.

I really don't know if it was correct. I don't know the law nor many of the relevant facts involved. From what understanding I do have, it looks like the Texas CPS far overstepped their authority.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Achilles
Member
Member # 7741

 - posted      Profile for Achilles           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
There was an interesting episode of CBS' 48 hours last night. The thrust of the video was to tie the beliefs of the people at YFZ ranch to Warren Jeffs.

The program was not able to show sexual abuse within the YFZ ranch. The bishop they interviewed flat-out denied that the marriage records (purportedly kept and completed by the ranch) the state was presenting as evidence of older men marrying younger women were valid.

Apparently, a couple days ago, Warren Jeffs claimed to NOT be the prophet his people think of him as; his lawyers claim depression.

The 48 hours program was a bit sloppy-- it made a lot of tangential accusations that did not touch the child sex abuse allegations. Things like Jeffs' sect being 'the American Taliban,' and repression of individuality. It felt, honestly, like a hack job-- anyone who can do X could certainly do Y.

Network News isn't doesn't do much in the way of effective reporting anymore. It's getting harder and harder to find good objective investigative reporting in general today.
Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Scott, I got the impression that, in addition to being belligerant, he was clever and lying. I also thought that, when asked if he would want to have to give DNA samples and so forth, the reporter should have answered, "If I were part of a group that advocated sex with minors, yes."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Scott, I got the impression that, in addition to being belligerant, he was clever and lying.
Boy, I didn't see clever; and I'm not going to judge on his deceptiveness.

quote:
when asked if he would want to have to give DNA samples and so forth, the reporter should have answered, "If I were part of a group that advocated sex with minors, yes."
Okay. Would you allow warrantless searches of your property?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Again, I am running into the same problem that we had before. This is a different situation. These people advocate sex with young girls. Their leader is in jail for that. They live in one large compound where it is easier to hide things. I think that they should be under some degree of scrutiny.

For example, I think that because of the way the Catholic Church has handled the sexual abuse scandal, we need to be absolutely transparent than ordinary about priests and their dealings with children. Our history demands that even though it is not part of our doctrine.

FLDS not only has a history that demands such transparency, they also have a doctrine that demands it.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2