Polygamist Pedophiles and Papal Pontifications by deadlockvictim

Quote:
Look, IMHO all religions are cults. Anyone who encourages others to believe in invisible friends, invisible enemies, or both is not helping them out in terms of mental health. The only thing separating the Catholic Church from the FDLS from Muslims, Protestants, and Buddhists is that certain religions are socially accepted in certain areas and others are not.

I respect your opinion, but you must understand that people who think the way that you do are just part of the ever increasingly large cult of Big Brother. Nobody wants to see that their own way of thinking has the possiblity of being flawed, and I'm not directly saying that yours is, but I'm just pointing out that your belief here is no less strong than the belief of a Christian, Muslim, Buddist, or an Orthodox Jew. If it wasn't, you woudn't even bother posting it here and aruging about it.

Quote:
NEW YORK — A passenger who left his seat to pray in the back of a plane before it took off, ignoring flight attendants' orders to return, was removed by an airport security guard, a witness and the airline said. The man, who wore a full beard... stood near the lavatories and began saying his prayers while the United Airlines jet was being boarded at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Wednesday night, fellow passenger Ori Brafman said.

You might think this man was Muslim, but he was an Orthodox Jew. As I said, IMHO they're ALL loony-tunes.

True, many people might, but I think you know that I would try to learn a bit more about it before automatically jumping to the Bushite response of "Down with the Muslim!" I might not want a Muslim running our country at this time, but I wasn't one of the guys going to the 7/11 after 9/11 stabbing Muslims with a kitchen knife.

Quote:
But my understanding was that pedophilia was part and parcel of their belief system and that sooner or later, no matter how much "good" they may have been doing, eventually ALL girl-children would be subject to that practice. I don't think there was any way to "weed out" the "bad actors" because they were ALL supporting the same belief system.

AFA what 'really" happens there... most people in that cult like being there. Most of the kids will feel terribly disrupted. Even people who left voluntarily, feeling that they'd be "damned to hell", not knowing anything of the outside world, have profound "homesickness". Boys more so than girls, but that's to be expected because boys were treated a lot better. One boy who was exiled for breaking some minor law - which BTW reserves the girls for the old farts- said that he greatly missed the feeling of "family", that you knew that no matter where you went there would always be a hot meal and a seat at the table for you (prepared, of course, by women).

I think these people are reacting to the sick, uber-competitive culture that we've created. It's too bad that their only options seems to be exploitation by some pedophile.

Here's the laws of consent in this country. It even suprised me because I grew up in Illionis and I thought the whole world lived by the 18 years old rule: http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm

Now if they're doing it younger, then hey, get Hero over here to prosecute the shit out of them. I don't belive the entire "cult" was doing this, but you've bought into it so whatever.

While we're at it, we should probably make the entire island of Japan a prison. You want to talk about a sexually messed up population, go over there for a week or two... All I got to say is, used schoolgirl panties in vending machines...

http://www.snopes.com/risque/kinky/panties.asp

Of course, I belive snopes as much as I believe FOX or MSNBC, but if that shit is really happening there on top of the giant robotical monsters that wreak havoc on Tokyo on a daily basis, I think our tax dollars would be better spent fighting Mothra.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 4:56 AM

PIRATECAT

48 day cares close in california. Audit by the state had pervs living in 48 of them. They go where the kids are. Evil can't stand the innocent. Time to lock and load.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 5:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
48 day cares close in california. Audit by the state had pervs living in 48 of them. They go where the kids are. Evil can't stand the innocent. Time to lock and load.

That's right Piratecat.

I'd say "Amen Brother!" but somebody might nail me to a cross if I did.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 5:04 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I wasn't saying that every individual Catholic should be sued for the actions of a few priests. The Catholic church should have the same liability as any other group or corporation. When a corporation gets sued for wrongdoing by one of their employees, all the stock holders in the corporation are punished when a huge reward goes to a plaintiff.

Corporations are legal entities that, among other things, afford special liability protections for the investors. Stockholders are not personally liable (which means they can't be personally sued or lose their assets) for the actions of the corporation. Its called the corporate veil and it can only be piered in the most narrow of circumstance.

For example. You own a grocery store and a fella slips and falls on spilled milk that your employee admits spilling and choosing not to clean up. You could be sued and potentially lose everything...not just the store. However, if you incorporated your business then your personal assets would be shielded from the same risk.

Quote:

As far as your bad neighbor argument goes, I might have some liability if we are both in the same homeowners association. If the neighbor doesn't comply with City laws, and then abandons the property, the City will then come after the HOA.

No, the City can only pursue the homeowner, the association has no legal requirement to force compliance with City codes (although I could see some kinda situation where the association adopts rules in conflict with the City code in which case the argument is between the three parties). The only responsibility the HOA has is for the common areas that it holds as its own property (jointly owned with the whole association). A good HOA will adopt a rule madating compliance with City codes so that the HOA and the City will be on the same side or any conflict.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaykayf:
just so you all know FLDS member are NOT Mormons, sorry this just bugs the b-jesus outta me...

You are absolutely right... I never intended to give that impression in this thread. I apologize if you got that inference from me.

These are Fundamentalists who take an extremely literal view of the Bible - or at least the parts that suits their needs...

I was merely referring to a couple of articles that appeared in my local newspaper - that they ran on the same day and that they were basically covering the same topic.

Edit: by Bible I am referring to the Book of Mormon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 5:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
However, if you incorporated your business then your personal assets would be shielded from the same risk.

Gotta love LLC's man. It's why the new management of my apartment complex never salted and I couldn't drive my LTD boat that gets 4 miles to the gallon out of my complex for a month when the ice was 2 1/2 inches thick. Even had a neighbor curse when my bro almost slipped on the ice but caught himself. When my brother said "What!?" when he recovered, the guy said "I was hoping somebody would crack their head open so they could sue those bastards".

Gotta be nice to know that if you have the money to pay good lawyers that you can shield yourself from the liability to take care of the people that you would otherwise be obligated to worry about their well being. Kudos to Congress for passing whatever laws that wreaked that travesty on mankind....

Limited Liability Corporation indeed.....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 5:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
and I'll even buy the booze.

dude... i'm drinkin Chivas....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 6:16 AM

EMPIREX

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by EmpireX:
We sue doctors and lawyers for malpractice. Why not a church leader?
I have no problem suing church leaders for covering up criminal actions or even charging them with a crime. But we don’t sue the entire medical field or the entire legal field for the malpractice of a single doctor or lawyer or even a handful of doctors and lawyers. So why is it that you want to talk in terms of the “Catholic Church” or the “Church.” Isn’t it possible that you’re painting with too broad of a brush. Do you really think every Catholic or even every Catholic minister covered it up?

Of course not. Of course not every Catholic or priest assisted in the coverup. That would be a ridiculous thing to even suggest. But when a church official - granted power by a church- a CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVE of the church - assists in the coverup of a CRIME, then I feel that church is partly liable for putting such people in positions of power.

"Can you, for a moment, imagine how depressing it is to teach one thousand years of masculine ineptitude? Why do you think there are so few women historians? I'll tell you why. Because history is not such a frolic for women as it is for men... History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. History is women following behind with a bucket and a mop." - Alan Bennett, "The History Boys"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 6:32 AM

EMPIREX

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
What you and Jongs say is all well and good Signy. You know what I think about believing everything the corporate run media says. The truth is, you and I will never in our lives know what really happened there. We will hear testimony that damns them, but I'm sure there was a lot of good that happened there too and it probably wasn't a "cult", but there was nothing stopping some people in a world separated from the mainstream from taking advantage of that situation.

Frem is right, and there should have been a way to do that descreetly and weed out the bad guys. This would have served two very important purposes.. 1) Keeping this travesty of an embarrasment and media circus from being something that people turned around and bashed the "cult" out of existance, and MUCH more importantly 2) try to solve this in a way where it wasn't the behemoth of a tragic uprooting of those children's lives. I for one, don't buy that the entire operation was an infringement of personal liberties and I believe that in all likely hood, the REAL bad guys have been made the poster children for the church. I'm not saying that the horror stories you regurgitate aren't possible, but I'm saying that they're not probable. Regardless of that though, even if they were all monsters, I think there would be a better way of handling this. There were too many of them to flee. Nobody was going anywhere. This could have been handled through them and the people that you two have so much trust in, in our Government.

Instead, they chose to go Waco on them. True... there aren't any burning skulls of children this time, but if I was a gambling man, I would bet my savings on the fact that half of those girls are going to grow up to be strippers and call girls now. But I'll tell you what... if I'm wrong in 12 or 15 years or so, I'll let you tell me I was wrong all night and I'll even buy the booze.

Regards,
~6SJ

The thing is, these kids are being brought up in a culture of pedophilia. It's not just accepted, it's the NORM. I'm sure if you asked any of those kids, they would say, "Yes, we're very happy!" (At least the boys are.) And it might be true or it might be because it's all they've ever known so it's all perfectly normal to them. Ask a kid who's been abused (physically, mentally, or even sexually) if they still love their parents. I'm willing to bet 9 out of 10 would say "yes."

"Can you, for a moment, imagine how depressing it is to teach one thousand years of masculine ineptitude? Why do you think there are so few women historians? I'll tell you why. Because history is not such a frolic for women as it is for men... History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. History is women following behind with a bucket and a mop." - Alan Bennett, "The History Boys"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 7:07 AM

And the shitstorm shall begin.

They sent em STRAIGHT to the feeder system.
" Dan Adams, president of Cal Farley's Boys Ranch, which is 35 miles northwest of Amarillo, confirmed Tuesday that 27 of the FLDS adolescent boys are now in temporary foster care at the ranch."

While CFBR has a habit of keeping their own hands relatively clean, they are linked with one of the feeder systems, and were it not for BACA* speaking up for them, they'd be on our current watch list.

One thing is for absolute sure - we're not gettin the whole story here, not from anyone.

The State and media have made it into a three ring circus, counting on press hysteria to garner popular support - and the FDLS members have wisely clammed up from behind a wall of laywers and I don't blame them.

The State can not only not produce the supposed 16yr old caller in the first place, apparently they cannot even produce a record of the call itself, which is suspicious on the face of it.

None too pleased with the whole mess, there's a lotta stuff I can't really share but basically ain't nobody in this whole mess any kind of honest or innocent except the kids, who are gettin the really short end of a stick that was pretty short to begin with.

Sorry for bein short with the details, but there's a lot going on here that is best settled without making a circus of it, and also legal and privacy issues to take into account.

It's only holy hell of a mess, and the only thing I can say right up front and public is that the State did indeed overstep their boundries both moral and legal, and are counting on refuge in audacity and the media circus to smokescreen that little problem for them.

-Frem
*BACA = Bikers Against Child Abuse.
http://bacausa.com/

Not sure I've mentioned them here before, but they're allies, and good people.
If they say CFBR is in compliance, that's solid - but we're gonna watch anyway cause they are linked with folks who are not.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 8:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by EmpireX:
Of course not every Catholic or priest assisted in the coverup. That would be a ridiculous thing to even suggest. But when a church official - granted power by a church- a CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVE of the church - assists in the coverup of a CRIME, then I feel that church is partly liable for putting such people in positions of power.

ok, but doesn't this go right to the top... the Vatican, the Pope..?
You can take me to task for my limited knowledge of Catholicism, but I have always thought that very little that goes on in the Catholic church gets past the chain of command.. so, in a sense, isn't every priest, archbishop, bishop and indeed, the Pope complicit to some degree ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 8:40 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Gotta be nice to know that if you have the money to pay good lawyers that you can shield yourself from the liability to take care of the people that you would otherwise be obligated to worry about their well being. Kudos to Congress for passing whatever laws that wreaked that travesty on mankind....

The govt started this idea back in the mid-1800s. Large scale industry was vital to the national interest. Railroad were a business, so was steel, and so on and all of which was needed to make this country great.

Large scale industry was expensive, more expensive then the existing entrepreneurs could afford. There were several ways to address that. One was govt control, but as the Railroads learned, that was inefficient. Another was govt subsidies, which created corruption. Finally there came about the idea of the corporation, a legal enitity with the characteristics of the individual. This allowed numerous investors to combine their individual resources creating large scale capitalization required for things like factories.

But why, you the fella with the extra cash laying around, should I risk everything I have on your risky Iron Horse venture way out across the praire in some other state (and subject to that state's laws and courts)? Well, we'll make it easy, says economists and Congress, we'll afford you protection from liability, tax benefits, and make a corporation a legal entity (essentially a legal fiction). That way your risk is reduced to the point that you'll give your extra money to some fella named Morgan or Rockefeller and they'll hand you a piece of paper making you legal owner of one or more shares in the Company.

Naturally there was and is abuse of the system, but we have laws addressing that as well. However, should any of you be lucky enough to be reading this on an IBM, Dell, Apple, etc, then you'll understand why it was necessary.

I note for the record that the fellas who invented the Airplane were important, but it was the fellas like Howard Hughes, William Boeing, Allan and Malcom Lougheed (Lockheed), Robert Gross, and Glenn L. Martin that invented aviation. It was that same "travesty of mankind" that allowed them to do it.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 9:22 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And the shitstorm shall begin.

I can say right up front and public is that the State did indeed overstep their boundries both moral and legal

Right....'cause in your demented vision of an anarchist society 13 year-old girls would all be knock-up fodder.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 9:48 AM

Interesting history but it dodges the central question. There has never been an argument that a corporation should be LEGALLY considered a person --- how could it own property or make contracts if it wasn't -- it's weither these legal entities have the same rights, obligations and protections as real people?

I would argue that in the US corporations have found a sweet spot, they are treated as people for all rights and protections but not as people for their obligations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 9:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And the shitstorm shall begin.

I can say right up front and public is that the State did indeed overstep their boundries both moral and legal

Right....'cause in your demented vision of an anarchist society 13 year-old girls would all be knock-up fodder.

I think we brought this up before. It's one of those issues that sits in the space between ideology and practical implementation that we can never get an answer to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 9:51 AM

ESTEAD

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
All of this could have been handled with a few interviews and a quiet conversation with the sects leadership in an attempt to secure their cooperation with cleaning house - followed by discreetly arresting the perps, rather than a stonewalling from the FBI and local officials, followed by an overblown show of force by the USDOJ.

Aren't you making a huge assumption that the sect's leadership are not included amongst "perps" in this case?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 10:51 AM

>>Aren't you making a huge assumption that the sect's leadership are not included amongst "perps" in this case?

Not necessarily, estead, I most certainly didn't mean to convey the idea that the leadership wasn't suspect - just that they could have gone in and handled it discreetly, shown the warrant around, explained that they needed to take this person, or these folk, into custody, and they needed to take testimony from these other folk, and done so firmly but respectfully.

I mean, you can ALWAYS resort to force if that doesn't work, but at least have the cursed decency to try discretion and respect first.

The way this has been handled has been not only disrespectful to the suspects (remember, innocent till proven guilty) and witnesses, but also has been so to the victims - and that is unacceptable.

There is also that by doing it in this fashion and disrupting day-to-day operations by simply rounding up everyone, it provided the handy excuse to just take ALL the kids and steal them, regardless of any particular parents guilt or innocence.

*I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT*

Just to make sure my fundamental issue here is abundantly clear, that's what it is.

Oh, and Jongstraw ?
Again, innocent till proven guilty.

First, they did not have sufficient PC to obtain a warrant without a record of that call, so where is that record ?

Is there an official statement from that witness ?
If so, where is it ?

Till they can show this stuff, the State has no proof they didn't just shovel a load to get a warrant, which means they got no effective case.

Second, do you REALLY think it was necessary to send in a tactical strike team with a goddamn M113 armored personnel carrier to serve the warrant ?

They overstepped themselves completely, and it stinks to me that they were LOOKING for an incident or excuse, and that's just bullshit.

Now, that being said...

We're aware of two *OTHER* cases WITH proper witness testimony and credible charges, that the State *declined to prosecute*, so I am well aware that some of the accused are likely guilty of the crime, but being that this is still, for the moment, America - they get their day in court same as anyone else, cause the State not only has to prove their guilt, but that the State did not themselves violate procedure and break the law in the process of the case... which, they did.

That fact, combined with the two previous failures to prosecute, AND the fact that neither of those two previous cases was referred in the warrant process, nor being addressed now, gives me a suspicion that other motivations are at work here - one of which seems an attempt by the USDOJ to clean up the local police depts that were a little too sympathetic to FLDS to actually do their job, without actually, you know.. ADMITTING the corruption.

If you have such a problem with folks committing such acts, why don't you go help PROTECT.ORG close the incest loophole, yes ?
http://www.protect.org/articles/illinois.shtml

And maybe if you're feeling curious, how bout going back and lookin up which folks slid those loopholes there in the first place and perhaps reconsider your opinion of them in respect to that information.

Knee-jerk reactionary bullshit is the LAST thing we need relative to this issue, Jong - and you need to stop chomping on the bait held out in front of you by the media and think about WHY they want you to leap without looking too close.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
>>Aren't you making a huge assumption that the sect's leadership are not included amongst "perps" in this case?

Not necessarily, estead, I most certainly didn't mean to convey the idea that the leadership wasn't suspect - just that they could have gone in and handled it discreetly, shown the warrant around, explained that they needed to take this person, or these folk, into custody, and they needed to take testimony from these other folk, and done so firmly but respectfully.

I mean, you can ALWAYS resort to force if that doesn't work, but at least have the cursed decency to try discretion and respect first.

Which translates to "gee guys we've had a complaint from a witness that you have control over claiming wrong doing by one of your bigwigs. We can't actually prove she's here and you know if anything happened to her or someone were to force her to change her story then we'd have no case..."

I think that's the crutical issue here. First part of the game plan has to be to secure the complainant to minimise risks to her safety or chances of coersion. I'm not sure how you could take the softly softly approach and just serve a warrant naming the suspect and the complaint unless you were 100% convinced of the goodwill of the Church leadership.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 11:12 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL

Quote:
posted by deadlockvictim:
ok, but doesn't this go right to the top... the Vatican, the Pope..?
You can take me to task for my limited knowledge of Catholicism, but I have always thought that very little that goes on in the Catholic church gets past the chain of command.. so, in sense, isn't every priest, archbishop, bishop and indeed, the Pope complicit to some degree ?

Yes and no. The Pope does not personally select priests. He doesn't say where they go. A Regional or State leader (Archbishop or bishop) assigns a priest to a diocese. The diocese then assigns him to a parish. Diocesan decisions are made at a very low level. Some of these decisions are made at a state level. Then there are regions, countries, and eventually the top. If a local Bishop made a call to cover something up, there's no guarantee that order came from a region or country official.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Second, do you REALLY think it was necessary to send in a tactical strike team with a goddamn M113 armored personnel carrier to serve the warrant ?

Frem, it has been my experience that law enforcement agencies who have a lot of high-tech stuff (thanks to homeland security), are very proud of and extremely anxious to take it out for a run. They would use that armored personnel carrier to round up stray dogs if they could. This ain't Mayberry any more - even Texas.

As much as I dislike the phrase "Post 9-11", we have to remember that we are pretty much all terrorists in the eyes of the law these days. That mentality will be the undoing of us all, I'm afraid.

I don't disagree on any particular point that you make, except to say that I would like to learn more of the circumstances that surround the FLDS - as a matter of fact, a new book was just announced in my book club (QPB) written by a former female member of the FLDS - the book is Escape by Carolyn Jessop with, (and this is a little spooky for Twin Peaks fans)... Laura Palmer....

Quote:
Escape provides an astonishing look behind the tightly drawn curtains of the FLDS Church, one of the most secretive religious groups in the United States. The story Carolyn Jessop tells is so weird and shocking that one hesitates to believe a sect like this, with 10,000 polygamous followers, could really exist in 21st-century America....... This riveting book reminds us that truth can indeed be much, much stranger than fiction." - Jon Krakauer

... think they're trying to sell books..??

it worked.. i ordered it

coincidentally, Krakauer himself, wrote a book on Mormon fanaticism entitled Under the Banner of Heaven...

ETA: i didn't mean that Ms Jessop was a 'former female' but a former member who is also female....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 11:43 AM

Fletch, according to what we have, that supposed witness was neither on their property nor under their control when the complaint was made, at least as far as the accounts we've been given.

There's also the other two cases, mind you, which the State has declined to prosecute in spite of those cases having more substantive evidence, testimony and a witness/witnesses on hand in each one.

I am as yet not entirely convinced this caller isn't a work of fiction, as we have no actual evidence to go by at this time, and it's a damned thin margin to have secured a warrant on, especially when it was executed in the fashion it was.

-F
EDIT: Deadlock, believe me, I could without a doubt give that book or even PirateNews a run for the money on woo-woo-weird events regarding care and treatment of kids, all of which are backed by courtroom quality evidence (given in many cases that is where it was obtained) right down to direct on-site photography or even the surveillance camera tapes of the incidents in question.

Nothing in that book is likely to surprise me, but yes, if it refers to certain events in Utah circa 1981-1985, it's likely to be so downright bizarre as to defy belief.

Those events.. are true, every one of them, I assure you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 12:10 PM

You agree though that telling the church elders of the complaint when the complainant is not under your protection REALLY assumes that the elders are on the up and up?

This gets back to things we have previously discussed. If in Fremworld nobody has the authority to mess with someone elses sick games then you just gave a licence to every asshole on the planet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And the shitstorm shall begin.

I can say right up front and public is that the State did indeed overstep their boundries both moral and legal

Right....'cause in your demented vision of an anarchist society 13 year-old girls would all be knock-up fodder.

I think I'm done with this thread, because there's no point in fighting the mob mentality when the mob only hears one side of the story and is so infuriated by it that they condone the overstepping of Government bounds and the certain ruination of these children's lives. At least Deadlock Victim is trying to learn more about it and seems to have more than knee jerk reactionary BS to throw out here.

And as far as that comment goes Jongs, I think that's really unfair to Frem. If anybody on this board cares more about children, I have yet to meet them. I'm sure he's got just as many posts about treating them like human beings and not pets, and inside info about things that get done to really protect them. It's sure a lot more helpful to the kids than the mindless cheering on of the Government who ripped all of these kids from their lives brutally, systematically and without discression.

All I know is that he played a part in getting that kid out of an uber-unfair 10 year prison sentence that labeled him a sex-offender even though he and the girl in the video were both minors at the time. How big a part, only he knows, but gorram it, the man is an activist and gets stuff done. Before you throw out brainless comments like to try to discredit the man, at least think hard enough to throw some dirt that isn't so obviously refutable all over the archives in RWED.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 5:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

6-ix

You're mistaking what went on there for actions between consenting adults. When you have pregnant girls as young as 13, I think it's safe to say that there was at least one party who wasn't an adult.

Now maybe YOU are OK with pedophilia en masse, but there are laws against it in most states. It's called statutory rape.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 6:19 PM

Fletch, it's cases like that where you use a sealed warrant until the complainant is under your protection.

But THAT assumes the State will not abuse such a thing.
(See Also: Cavalry Arms raid for that kind of abuse)

Why do you continually and deliberately misrepresent my take on this ?

Our legal system is not based on a Napoleonic prove-your-innocent model, no matter that it has more or less become that in de-facto form, that is not, and never was the intent of it.

I ain't sayin that FLDS ain't done wrong, by my lights they've done a lot more wrong then they are ever likely to answer for, but in their overblown eagerness to display the power and glory of the State, elements thereof have fucked up the case to the point where a fair and proper trial is no longer possible in spite of the evidence, and that is what pisses me off - is that thanks to that FLDS is probably going to get a pass on this...

Because if they do not, it then opens the door to all MANNER of abuse by the State, which is quite possibly a worse result.

We're talkin about folk not charged with a crime, abuse, or even suspected of such, losing, forever, custody of their own children because of their beliefs.

If YOU don't see a problem with that, I don't know what to tell you.

I want justice too, dammit - but let me repeat this loud and clear, TWICE, so no one can continue to deliberately misrepresent WTF I am saying.

You have parents not charged with abuse, not even SUSPECTED of abuse, permanently losing custody of their own children, simply because of the belief system they chose to practice.

AGAIN

You have parents not charged with abuse, not even SUSPECTED of abuse, permanently losing custody of their own children, simply because of the belief system they chose to practice.

Now, if you don't see the danger looming in that, especially when those kids are being fed into a social services system that has a history of handing them to well-connected predators, sending them to abusive facilities, or just "losing" them somehow - there's not a lot more I can say about it.

Is FLDS guilty of the crime in question ? Absolutely.

Did the Feds step over the line in attempting to charge and prosecute ? Absolutely.

The only innocents here are the kids, and they're not likely to get any say in it, the best compromise on that is assigning them Guardian Ad Litem to act their interests, and I have the utmost respect to those who stepped forth and volunteered their own skills and resources to do exactly that.

While I am thankful that they weren't "Rescued" in the manner the kids at Waco were (and mind you, all of *those* allegations ALSO fell apart under closer inspection) - I am still not convinced they've been "Rescued" at all.

Out of the frying pan into the fire is not an improvement on the situation.

The FLDS leadership and the State of Texas can go f**k themselves for all I care, my primary concern is that this sets a damn scary precedent for parental rights as a whole when the State can use your beliefs as an excuse to strip them from you without even accusing you of anything - and that these kids are being sent in an environment they are not prepared for that stands a good chance of being on average worse than the one they were removed from.

Which is why some folk are involved in the situation, in an attempt to prevent that very occurance - this isn't really about FLDS or the State any more, this is about not feeding these kids to a hostile system likely to eat them alive.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 6:50 PM

Oh how interesting, smells to me like they knew the report was fake to begin with, and booked Swinton after using it to justify the raid.

I am all manner of suspicious now.
-------------------------------------

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_8969094

Texas FLDS case: Was massive raid based on bogus call from Colorado woman?
By Russ Rizzo and Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 04/18/2008 09:05:42 PM MDT

A Colorado woman with a history of making phony reports to police has been named by Texas Rangers as a "person of interest" who could have made the calls to a women's shelter that sparked the FLDS compound raid.
Police arrested Rozita Estraletta Swinton, 33, at her Colorado Springs apartment Wednesday in connection with a February call to police there in which she pretended to be a young girl being held in a basement, said Colorado Springs police Lt. Skip Arms.
Investigators also executed an evidentiary search warrant at Swinton's home and seized a number of items that indicated a possible connection between her and calls regarding the FLDS compounds in Colorado City, Ariz., and Eldorado, Texas, the Texas Rangers said Friday in a press release. The items, which were not identified, will be evaluated and analyzed at various crime labs in Texas.
Swinton's arrest came after the Texas Rangers contacted local authorities about a possible connection between Swinton and the raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ranch earlier this month, Arms said. She remained at large Friday after posting a $20,000 bail from the El Paso County Jail.
Texas officials removed 416 children from the sect's ranch after the NewBridge Family Shelter received calls on March 29 and 30 from someone claiming to be a 16-year-old FLDS girl named Sarah. The girl, whom authorities say they have yet to locate, described being beaten by her husband and conceiving her first child at the age of 15.
The Denver Post reports Flora Jessop, an Arizona woman who grew up FLDS and now helps teenage girls leave the sect, said Swinton called her pretending to be a girl named Sarah who had been sexually abused by her new father. Jessop told The Post the first of many phone calls placed by Swinton to Jessop was on March 30 - the same day the Texas shelter received a call from the 16-year-old.
Jessop said Swinton would call her at night when she claimed others at the ranch were asleep, The Post reports. Jessop told the newspaper her suspicions were raised and she contacted the Texas Rangers after Swinton called her saying she was Sarah's sister living in Colorado City.
Jessop recorded between 30 and 40 hours of conversations with Swinton, who alternately claimed to be Sarah, Sarah's twin sister Laura, and Laura's friend, according to The Post. The newspaper reports Jessop said Texas Rangers were able to trace the calls to Swinton's cell phone.
In the February case in Colorado, Swinton is accused of making calls pretending to be a teenage girl "in distress" who was being held in a basement, Arms said. Swinton had told police she was in the "general area" of where she was arrested, he said.
Swinton is charged in the case with making a false police report, but the case has been sealed by a Colorado judge.
Three years earlier, police say, Swinton called authorities in Castle Rock - about 20 minutes north of Colorado Springs - saying she was a 16-year-old girl named Jessica who had just given birth to a boy named Jacob.
She told police she had been molested by a family member and feared going home, said Castle Rock police Sgt. Scott Claton. Swinton led police on a three-day goose chase looking for the girl, who claimed she wanted to give up the baby and kill herself, Claton said.
During the third day of the phone calls, a Castle Rock police officer spotted a woman driving by the police station and talking on the phone, Claton said. The officer pulled over the car, driven by Swinton, whose name matched records from the cell phone she used to call police, he said.
Swinton admitted to making up the story, Claton said, but did not discuss her motivations.
"I don't know if she was trying to draw attention or what her hope was in this thing," Claton said. "It's very strange."
Court records show Swinton was charged with making a false police report and obstructing police in that case. She pleaded guilty to a reduced misdemeanor false reporting charge and the obstructing charge was dismissed.
A judge ordered Swinton to serve a one-year deferred judgment in the case, to have a mental health evaluation and to take prescribed medications.
Shelter employees in Texas said Friday they continue to believe their call was authentic despite the reports about Swinton, a shelter spokeswoman said.
"They think it's legitimate, that Sarah really does exist," said Susan Risdon, who talked with the shelter's director Friday about the issue. "She had so much information about what was going on at the compound. If it was this woman in Colorado, she would have had to have someone on the inside feeding her information."
Among the convincing details offered by the 16-year-old was the girl's assertion that she had borrowed a communal cell phone used by FLDS men who leave the compound to work, Risdon said. Other details offered by the girl "checked out" after investigation by Texas police, leading shelter employees to continue to believe the story, Risdon said.
But the shelter has little more than notes from the call taker to check into the veracity of the original call, Risdon said. Only one line at the shelter has caller identification, and "Sarah" did not call on it, Risdon said. Calls into the shelter are not recorded.
Texas Child Protective Services spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said late Friday she believes the 16-year-old Sarah exists and that the raid on the ranch was warranted.
rrizzo@sltrib.com
- Tribune reporter Jason Bergreen contributed to this report.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
6-ix

You're mistaking what went on there for actions between consenting adults. When you have pregnant girls as young as 13, I think it's safe to say that there was at least one party who wasn't an adult.

Let's see, aside from sensationalistic media reports, exactly what proof Rue has regarding what did and did not go on within that community, shall we?

Do you have a video of said "pedohilia en masse" as documentary proof that this happened Rue? If you do, I move that we put you on trial for having child pornography in your posession.

Please, show me where the verdict from a jury of our peers exists that there was proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was happenening, whether it be by every single adult to every single child or even ONE SINGLE INSTANCE!

Quote:
Now may YOU are OK with pedophilia en masse, but there are laws against it in most states. It's called statutory rape.

Don't you fucking dare throw that last comment at me you smug little bitch. I've had civil debates with you before and some times where we've really pushed each other's buttons but what you accuse me of here with that offhanded comment is pure bullshit of an intolerable degree and you can go fuck yourself for crossing that line.

You and I are through talking about anything unless you retract that statement.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 9:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Fletch,

Why do you continually and deliberately misrepresent my take on this ?

I don't. I just point out the unforeseen circumstances of some of the positions that you have advocated on this board. In previous discussions deep in theoretical territory several people have pointed out problems with the Frem view of an anarchist society. As far as I recall nobody has ever disagreed that people of good faith would rather cooperate than fight -- if that was not the case we could hardly have any kind of society.

The objections have come down to two issues.

1) you can't possibly stop power structures from emerging in the vacuum you create. In fact you may well create your own centers of power in the few institutions that you have to allow to exist. The guy running the day to day operation of the militia, the local doctor these folks will concentrate power just by the fact that folks need to really on them. This is before we consider any business of any size or any illegal grouping.

2) The theory doesn't take into account the bad actors that won't play ball. I asked you what happens if the next town over institutes slavery? To my mind you would have to fight them if you planned to stick by your principles. Of course doing that means inflicting your views on someone else by force --- very authoritarian. In this case everything being done in that compound is legal, moral and above board to the folks that live there. Of course it seems to involve subjugation of the female population and institutional pedophillia. However, for these people in this crazy society it's a religious duty and a tradition that if you end it to protect the children will involve you using force to impose your values.

Needless to say I'm interested because the messy stuff, the area where principles conflict and rights smash into rights is the place where you discover how robust a theoretical system is.

Quote:

I ain't sayin that FLDS ain't done wrong, by my lights they've done a lot more wrong then they are ever likely to answer for, but in their overblown eagerness to display the power and glory of the State, elements thereof have fucked up the case to the point where a fair and proper trial is no longer possible in spite of the evidence, and that is what pisses me off - is that thanks to that FLDS is probably going to get a pass on this...

Quote:

Because if they do not, it then opens the door to all MANNER of abuse by the State, which is quite possibly a worse result.

Government is like a gun. Too useful to throw away and too dangerous to let fall into the hands of an enemy. I've always found it ironic that you can say things like "banning guns just leaves the honest man defenceless because the bad guys will always find guns" and not realise that the parallel argument is "banning government will leave the honest man powerless because the bad guy can always exert power."

If someone took your gun from you you'd try and take it back, do the same with your government.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 11:47 PM

Quote:
I just point out the unforeseen circumstances of some of the positions that you have advocated on this board. In previous discussions deep in theoretical territory several people have pointed out problems with the Frem view of an anarchist society.

You might wanna recheck this point.

All too often folks around here throw sets of people into a category and then address them en-masse instead of what each individual said or did.

What's buggin me isn't just folks addressing strawmen they've built out of a misconception of a point without the courtesy of asking me - but also that folks seem to copy/paste onto me opinions expressed by *others* that I don't even hold, or even oft-times agree with.

So when you wanna address a point you think I hold, do me the favor of making sure I hold it first, ok ?

Just sayin, it's gettin old.

Quote:
If someone took your gun from you you'd try and take it back, do the same with your government.

What the heck do you think imma tryin to DO?

Kick em back over the line in-bounds and hold them to the standards they only pretend to play by, and then only when they get caught.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2008 11:49 PM

Shitstorm extravaganza continues.

First, imma link back to Mister Grigg, who's done his homework and is able to express things I've been required sit on till they came out publicly, for various reasons.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/04/collectivist-child-abuse.
html

Now, one thing that is almost certain given the evidence on hand.

There is a very strong possibility, almost a certainty, that the folks processing the warrant KNEW it was based on false data at the time, and processed it anyway for reasons we can only speculate about currently.

So the whole thing collapses right there - but, having broken the rules and pissed all over the case and any legal excuses they might have had in the first place, do you think they're gonna apologise, hand the children back and make restitution ?

Nope.

They're gonna send em to an environment even MORE hostile.
Comptroller Strayhorn Statement On Foster Care Abuse
http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/60623statement.html

They brought in the serious heavy gun as an expert witness, Doctor Bruce D Perry of Baylor U, and the CITIVAS/Child Trauma Academy.

Might not ring a bell with you, but a LOT of my work is based on his and Alice Millers, so when he offers the word, it carries a great deal of weight with anyone involved in this kind of thing.

And when pressed about it, he flat TOLD them that these kids would be worse off, in more danger, and by far more psychologically traumatized in the Texas Foster Care system than they would be in the environment they were taken from, current accusations of abuse notwithstanding.

When the worlds foremost expert on traumatic child pyschology tells you that you're about to do them MORE harm by removing them and placing them in the hellhole of the Texas Foster Care System - you'd do well to fucking listen to the man.

So, what it looks like to me - with the current evidence in hand, is that the authorities KNEW the tipoff was fake, and held off taking Swinton into custody long enough to get a warrant based on it, then yanked her in to keep her away from the press...

And is now using the knee-jerk media hysteria to cover the fact that the warrant was bogus and all actions them stemming from it, up to and including the severing of custody and funnelling these children into a hostile environment, are without legal authority, nor is seizure of resources, finances or church property and documentation, all of which has been done.

That is every bit as much bullshit as the cops going to a mental hospital and getting some wackjob to accuse you of something to excuse a warrant, and then admitting it after the fact - doesn't do YOU any good at that point, does it ?

From start to finish, the bullshit tip, suspect warrant, and crashing the party with a tactical team backed up by an APC - this has been one long chain of intentional destruction and provocation on behalf of the state on the flimsiest of mere excuses floated on a media blitz that borders on outright propaganda.

Save your knee-jerks and after the fact rationalizations, what this amounts to is the outright destruction of a church and it's members for no better reason than folks in power wanted it done, and if you let it slide....

Some day that's gonna be YOUR church, YOUR kids.

If they wanted to process a real case, by the book, they had two in hand, still do, having declined previously to prosecute them, however they are still within statue of limitations, but now that the evidence has been contaminated by this snafu, it's unlikely they'd be able to go forward with either one at this point.

Get it through your thick heads folk, I ain't defending FLDS or their leadership, I am condemning the State for being even more of a monster, and the damn fools who wanna hand out a free pass to the State to not obey the rules that keep it from abusing any of us at whim.

Why is it that as many times as I have fucking repeated it, the only one who seems to have heard it at all through the media kool aid chugging frenzy seems to be Jack - who's catching serious flameage for that fact alone ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:35 AM

I tend to side with Fletch. I’ve never heard Frem say how the dueling warlord scenario is avoided in Fremtopia. Basically, what I’ve gotten from him is that I should have faith in my fellow man, but that only solves the problem if I assume everyone will act in good faith to further the collective principles of the society (and everyone agrees on what those collective principles are), a very poor assumption, at best. As illustrated in the current situation. I’d like to hear how Frem prevents the dueling warlord scenario. How do you avoid the consolidation of power? How do you deal with "evil" neighbors without either allowing them to enact their "evilness" on the innocent or imposing your own views by force? In practice anarchy tends to break down into dueling warlords, except in Fremtopia, somehow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 8:24 AM

Spare me your blinkered philistine pig-ignorance you jackboot cuddling symp.

Maybe if you ever overcame even for an instant your utter inability to even hear or see the opinions of anyone who disagrees with you, you might have seen it the first five times it was addressed.

Oh yes, it was addressed*, and instead of debating the point folks quickly changed the subject and dodged the issue entire.

You know, kind of like you're doing here - since this has not a goddamn thing to do with the topic at hand being that we're addressing it via the rules of THIS society...

Which, might I note here, has no answer of it's own to petty warlordism save to justify it by making it "official" as is what happened here, and you could make a case for Iraq as well.

But none of that has a goddamn thing to do with the case at hand, and if you wanna argue that crap do it in a thread more appropriate instead of cluttering up this one.

-Frem
*
Yes, it was addressed, by both me and HKCav, and if you ignored it the first couple times, ain't no point to diggin it up only to be ignored again, especially in a thread where a different matter entire is being addressed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 8:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

6-ix

"Let's see, aside from sensationalistic media reports, exactly what proof Rue has regarding what did and did not go on within that community, shall we?"

Pregnant underage girls ? I don't know how much more proof you need than that. "According to the West Texas TV station, investigators removed 60 children under 17, mostly girls -- half of whom, they report, are now pregnant -- from the gated compound built by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Schleicher County."

There are several ways to address these facts:
They aren’t real (the Rap 'head up the butt' approach)
All those girls got pregnant without sex
The 50% pregnancy rate of underage girls doesn't indicate a widespread culture of pedophilia (and statutory rape)
Though it's all true, it's OK because it was girls, not boys; because it was LDS not Catholics; or some other reason.

So however you want to address these facts as proof of what went on there, the next step is up to you.

And no, I don't feel the need to apologize b/c my post was based on facts.

***************************************************************
BTW this does get back to the topic of 'disappeared' children. What this is, is yet another instance, albeit a large-scale one, of people disappearing their children in order to do things to them that are illegal.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 8:45 AM

Typical of Frem, there is no attempt to even address the issue. He simply hides his unwillingness to deal with a gapping whole in his theory with mean-spirited intimidation and person attacks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 9:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Polygamist Pedophiles and Papal Pontifications ... and Islamic Child Brides"

http://www.mideastyouth.com/2008/04/12/8-year-old-yemeni-girl-seeks-di
vorce/

8 year-old Yemeni Girl Seeks Divorce

April 12, 2008In a precedent in Yemen, an eight-year-old girl filed a complaint against her father in court, for forcing her to marry a 30-year-old man. The girl, whose identity should have been withheld for her protection, was subjected to sexual and domestic abuse by her rapist.
“My father beat me and told me that I must marry this man, and if I did not, I would be raped and no law and no sheikh in this country would help me. I refused but I couldn’t stop the marriage,” Nojoud Nasser told the Yemen Times. “I asked and begged my mother, father, and aunt to help me to get divorced. They answered, ‘We can do nothing. If you want you can go to court by yourself.’ So this is what I have done,” she said.
Nasser said that she was exposed to sexual abuse and domestic violence by her husband. “He used to do bad things to me, and I had no idea as to what a marriage is. I would run from one room to another in order to escape, but in the end he would catch me and beat me and then continued to do what he wanted. I cried so much but no one listened to me. One day I ran away from him and came to the court and talked to them.”
“Whenever I wanted to play in the yard he beat me and asked me to go to the bedroom with him. This lasted for two months,” added Nasser. “He was too tough with me, and whenever I asked him for mercy, he beat me and slapped me and then used me. I just want to have a respectful life and divorce him.”
Her rapist, who is now imprisoned without charge, expressed no remorse, saying he was only practising his “right” as a “husband”.

The reason why I added this is because the outrage on behalf of the LDS girls has been muted at best. So I hope that with another perspective people can look into their private thoughts and try to figure out where their internal dividing lines exist - Is pedophilia is OK for girls but not boys ? OK for 'older' girls but not any boys ? OK for LDS but not Muslims or Catholics ? OK if it's institutional but not if its private ? OK if it's private but not public ? And so on ...

And because I can imagine the thoughts behind the acceptance of raping young girls in the name of religion - well it's only girls, and besides 17 or even 15 isn't too young (though 13 is squeamish territory), and besides it's their religion, and what they want to do with their religion and their girls in private is nobody's business, and the government has no right to investigate or enforce it's statutory rape laws, and the people investigated are more like 'us' - white xtian US males which hits close to home - and not like 'them' catholic priests or foreign Muslims ... and so on

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:07 AM

I think the problem is that we have mixed signals in mainstream society. Example: a couple of underage kids had sex and took pictures. Both are now on the sex offender registry for making child porn. At the same time photo spreads in mainstream magazines show girls the same age in risque outfits. Our culture increasingly sexualizes our children and then we are surprised that so many people act on that imagery.

On top of that as Frem says the way we deal with this is with a sledge hammer. In theory adult couples in this country cannot take naked photographs of each other even for private use without registering those pictures with the Feds along with proof that all parties were over 18. Failure to do so can land you in jail. All this in the cause of "think of the children."

The reason it's so easy to point the finger at the Muslims or the Catholics or ANYONE else is that for most people they are "someone else" someone whose society and ideas we may not nescessarily agree with. Perhaps FLDS are too close to us? Maybe with the long dresses and the God fearing they stray too close to the "Little House on the Prairie" vision some Christian types see as a Godly utopia that we have lost?

I dunno. Like I said I'm an old fart and I tend to be nostalgic for times when kids were allowed to be kids and not pushed into adulthood by their parents and the media.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:16 AM

Well, if we are going pose this kind of question, I think we should define pedophilia, which is often a loaded term. For instance in the Catholic priest scandal, the so-called “pedophile priests” were in fact largely not pedophiles at all, but homosexuals attracted to post pubescent boys. Likewise most girls involved in arranged marriages and polygamy communities, are post pubescent. I’ve seen 14 year old girls that I was, or could have been had I allowed myself to be, physically attracted to. If I acted on that impulse I would be regarded as a pedophile, in reality however, I would only be acting on the same impulses that would make me attracted to an 18 year old. So we aren’t really talking about pedophilia, a condition in which a person is attracted to pre-pubescent children. What we’re talking about are cultural influences. And there was a time in this country when marrying your daughter off at 14 would not have been considered inappropriate - but the culture changed, not necessarily us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:19 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch

Some laws try to take varying age differences into account. But I think that the cleanest lines to be drawn are if both parties are over the age of consent it's OK (and drugs or other impairment, or force or threat aren't involved), if both are under it's OK (and drugs or other impairment or force or threat aren't involved) - with mandatory counseling b/c frankly you have to believe neither has enough judgment; but if one is over and one is under it's not. Yeah - it's a quick and dirty line - what about the 18 year old going out with the 16 year old - but you set the line then teach your kids where the line is.

I do agree with the media sexualizing children. But as long as the society runs on an 'any profit is good' ethic you'll have that b/c besides violence, thirst and hunger it's a constant hook into the psyche to shill your wares.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Many cultures have puberty rites to acknowledge the change of status at puberty, but EVEN AFTER THE RITES the children are not treated as full-fledged adults when it comes to sex or marriage.

When it comes to arranged marriages, generally only the male has adult rights of consent, the girl isn't treated as an adult, but rather as the father's property to be disposed of according to his wishes. That isn't what I'd call 'giving' the girl adult status at a young age.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FINN- Post pubescent could be as young as nine. Puberty isn't a good line to draw. The human brain needs time to develop judgment, and in addition if the law doesn't give adult-level rights (eg. the right to make and break contracts, drink, and vote) than placing "kids" in the realm of being sexually available is just treating them like so much fodder.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn

"For instance in the Catholic priest scandal, the so-called “pedophile priests” were in fact largely not pedophiles at all, but homosexuals attracted to post pubescent boys."

• Victims' ages: 5.8% under 7; 16% ages 8-10; 50.9% ages 11-14; 27.3% ages 15-17.

• Victims' gender: 81% male, 19% female

http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/stats.html

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn

Many cultures have puberty rites to ackowledge the change of status at puberty, but EVEN AFTER THE RITES the children are not treated as full-fledged adults.

When it comes to arranged marriages, generally only the male has adult rights of consent, the girls isn't treated as an adult, but rather as the father's property to be dispsoed of according to his wishes. That isn't what I'd call 'giving' the girl adult status and the right of consent.

I’m not sure that’s necessarily true, but either way, you can call it what you want, it still remains cultural, not a mental disease. In fact, children as young as 14 can marry. In this state a 30 year old man or woman, could marry a 14 year old girl or boy, legally.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
FINN- Post pubescent could be as young as nine. Puberty isn't a good line to draw. The human brain needs time to develop judgment, and in addition if the law doesn't give adult-level rights (eg. the right to make and break contracts, drink, and vote) than placing "kids" in the realm of being sexually available is just treating them like so much fodder.

I’m not arguing for sex between children (that’s your shtick, remember) I’m simply saying it’s cultural.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:51 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Thanks SignyM

I was alluding to that in my posting about other cultures. They recognize that adolescent children are on a continuum between childhood and adulthood and do not magically become full-fledged adults early on but slowly grow into it by late teenage years (to early twenties).

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:56 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But only with parents' permission AND probably a court order (all but 1 state), which argues against their status as full-fledged adults, even by your own example.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/teenmarriage/a/teenus.htm

In the United States, all but one state requires that a couple be 18 in order to marry without parental permission. Nebraska sets the age of majority at 19. Although a few states will waive this requirement if there is a pregnancy, teenage couples may still have to have court approval.

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland and Oklahoma allow pregnant teens or teens who have already had a child to get married without parental consent. In Florida, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, a teenage couple must have permission from a court. Maryland and Georgia require that the minor (teen) be at least 16.

Even with parental approval, many states require court approval when a person is 16 years old or less.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I'm not sure that’s necessarily true, but either way, you can call it what you want, it still remains cultural, not a mental disease. In fact, children as young as 14 can marry. In this state a 30 year old man or woman, could marry a 14 year old girl or boy, legally.

***************************************************************
And I now know what state you live in !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But only with parents' permission, which argues against their status as full-fledged adults, even by your own example.

This “full-fledged adults” thing is something you put in there. It doesn’t change the fact that our culture recognizes, obviously not as much as it once did, that marriage between children or between children and adults is acceptable, as long as the children involved are post pubescent. No one is arguing that children should make this decision (if indeed one believes the decision should be made) without the consent of the parents, just that our culture recognizes that the decision can be acceptable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:11 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"marriage between children or between children and adults is acceptable, as long as the children involved are post pubescent"

Past the age of 9 or 10 ? I hardly think so ! And, uhm - why are you referring to them as children ? Is it b/c you advocate what you understand to be child-marriages ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:12 AM