The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Show => Topic started by: davann on April 08, 2008, 09:57:09 PM
-
From what I have heard about Warren Jeff and his charges about rape was that it was prosecuted by the state and the state only. Meaning the girl(s) involved were considered hostile witnesses by the prosecution. This was really a travesty of justice and even bordered on infringement of freedom of religion.
-
yep.. what an uproar. busting religious compounds seems to be seasonal.. every now and then the feds get to roll out the guns n ammo and call open season on religious cults.
the Warren folks, creepy & disturbing? yes. but so is every other religious group.
these crazies are rumoured to have banned laughter and crayolas. strange notions to the mainstream people, right?
yet, what one church calls "Christenings" i call strange. most churches rely on prayer, i think prayer is strange. baptism, chanting, swaying, religious hysteria and fanaticism, belief in creation- all strange to me.
the Warren menfolk presumably married teenage girls and made some babies. well, that goes on outside the Warren church as well. is it more threatening because they do it openly?
the Warren womenfolk were told they could leave at any time they wanted. many chose not to because they were afraid of what they had been taught about Demons and Hell- the same trappings that "normal" religious people become fearful of.
to me, this is a case of majority losers picking on minority losers.
-
Libertarians must not let their potential personal dislike for the "fundies" keep them from supporting their freedom to live however the hell they choose. What the government is doing to them is inexcusable, and it can set dangerous precedents for other issues like home-schooling, reproductive freedom, and parents' rights.
And, from a higher-level point of view, the consequences are even more dire... As the "your children belong to the state" mentality spreads, the birth rate will plummet (why give your master more slaves at your own cost?), and the Western Civilization will be just a few generations away from going the way of the dodo...
-
Libertarians must not let their potential personal dislike for the "fundies" keep them from supporting their freedom to live however the hell they choose. What the government is doing to them is inexcusable, and it can set dangerous precedents for other issues like home-schooling, reproductive freedom, and parents' rights.
And, from a higher-level point of view, the consequences are even more dire... As the "your children belong to the state" mentality spreads, the birth rate will plummet (why give your master more slaves at your own cost?), and the Western Civilization will be just a few generations away from going the way of the dodo...
Yes, instead of incinerating them all like the murderers did at Waco...the thugs have fabricated a "tip" from a "source" that can NEVER be substantiated and authenticated, so that they have an excuse to meddle in the private, personal affairs of other Individual Sovereign Human Beings. Someone must have wanted their property, buildings, and assets.
I'd venture to say that the thugs would be extremely hesitant to do the same thing to an inner-city subsidized hi-rise where generation after generation are occupants from cradle to grave...where the slave-masters would find teen and pre-teen sex, rape, and prostitution...where they would find rampant drug and alcohol use...where they would find religious, spiritual, and occult beliefs and practices that they find objectionable...where they would have to admit that the property, buildings, and assets are mostly provided by the state and, therefore, already under their complete control, as evidenced by their demands that these victims of the state remain completely defenseless and under the complete control of their benevolent global gulag prison plantation slave-masters.
These atrocities will continue as long as we don't actively protect our neighbors and fellow planetary inhabitants from the aggression/force/fraud of the looters/bureaucrats/jackboots/mercenaries.
Our small puny "country" with it's paltry 300 million will be no match for the 3 billion chinese who will come to this country first as a peace-keeping force after our next Internal War Of Aggression starts...and then to stay as they call in our debt to them...and they take the collateral for that debt...which, of course, is not only our property but ourselves and our children and our grandchildren and so on and so forth...
Then they will establish a worldwide dynasty the likes of which this planet has never seen before. Not only will they have their own weapons of conquest, but they will secure and utilize those of the countries which they conquer...I don't think they will destroy our infrastructure, but I do think that they will murder millions...enjoy...
RAD
John Shaw!
-
The problem here is government, but you guys are only half right.
There is a lot of abuse going on in this community. Trust me, I've been there, and I've seen the de facto sexual slavery going on, and one of the few charities I deem worthy of my money exists to assist boys as young as 12 that are run out of that community to fend for themselves, this after being taught their entire lives that the entire outside world is evil. Do any google search on "the lost boys of polygamy" and you'll see what I mean.
It comes down to this: Nobody will help them BECAUSE OF government. If someone who cared about the welfare of these kids hired a mercenary company to rescue them, he would in this case be completely justified, and in the ideal world would be given the opportunity to prove his case.
But as it stands now, a rescuer goes to jail for kidnapping. Either he can make the case that they are abused and they go to state custody, or the court disagrees and they go back to their hellhole. Either way, the end result is the same as getting government involved, plus you go to jail for kidnapping, even if you were morally justified. That removes any incentive for people to do the right thing, and instead puts the government in the role to do it badly.
Get what I mean?
-
... The thugs have fabricated a "tip" from a "source" that can NEVER be substantiated and authenticated ...
That has been my assumption since I first heard about this case.
It comes down to this: Nobody will help them BECAUSE OF government. If someone who cared about the welfare of these kids hired a mercenary company to rescue them, he would in this case be completely justified, and in the ideal world would be given the opportunity to prove his case.
That is where I disagree with you (and Ian). Your "kidnap children from bad parents" idea is nuts! Children (and pets) have a relationship to their parents that is similar to "property", though this word carries a lot of stigma when applied to living things. (Maybe "guardianship" is a better word?) The parents are not the slaves of their children! They chose to give them life, and they should have the privilege of control over their creation until it becomes a fully-endowed human being. Right to life starts with physical autonomy (birth) but rights to liberty and property should start upon adulthood: reaching a minimum age or being legally emancipated, whichever comes first. A society that doesn't let parents be in charge of the family will experience a huge drop in birth rates and will not survive in the long run!
So the solution to serious child abuse is legal emancipation: the child must WANT to sue for emancipation, and be able to make a case that s\he can manage without the benefits and drawbacks of being attached to one's parents (or whatever guardians the "guardianship" of the child was transfered to). A child's case can be strengthened by evidence that his/her right to life is being violated through unreasonable physical abuse, rape, etc. A child that cannot demonstrate ability to be fully emancipated to one's own liberty could be granted limited emancipation on the condition that s\he is consenting the transfer of one's "guardianship" to a third party that is willing and able to take care of that child.
-
There is a lot of abuse going on in this community. Trust me, I've been there, and I've seen the de facto sexual slavery going on
Such as? Don't get me wrong, I find these people to very very strange. But actual proof of sexual slavery is called for. Not just claims.
-
... The thugs have fabricated a "tip" from a "source" that can NEVER be substantiated and authenticated ...
That has been my assumption since I first heard about this case.
Or the cultists murdered her.
-
C'mon, you overestimate the power of fundie brainwashing - there's a certain level of reciprocal trust between the brainwasher and the brainwashee that must be maintained. A lot of women are actually happy in that living arrangement (in England, like 5x more women are converting to Islam than men!), as long as a certain level of stability is maintained. On a compound like that rumors spread fast, and the elders would have a real insurrection on their hands.
-
i heard about the younger men being put out- that made me think that if anyone should be exposing those assholes, it should be them. if they formed a union of some sort, they may be the best shot at getting those people straightened out.
i consider them just another weak minded group of religious americans. totally harmless except possibly to themselves (unlike other religious groups).
as far as polygamy goes- im sure most everyone here would agree- thats a rubbish offense, who cares? its only polygamy because of the fucking marriage licenses required- dont get married, father a dozen kids with just as many women and thats somehow different.. because of the lack of the legal document..
-
as far as polygamy goes- im sure most everyone here would agree- thats a rubbish offense, who cares? its only polygamy because of the fucking marriage licenses required- dont get married, father a dozen kids with just as many women and thats somehow different.. because of the lack of the legal document..
Yeah, the polygamy stuff is just insane. Who the hell cares about this stuff? Although, because of it, a case could be made that these men have suffered enough already. I can barely stand having one woman living with me, the thought of 3 or 4 makes me cringe. Talk about hell on earth!
-
saw an interview with a bunch of wives of one man. they appeared very happy and healthy to me. said they would welcome new wives and would never marry their daughters off until they were 18 or older. they were also pretty funny- joking about how they have the peace and freedom of being away from their husband because they can pass him off on the other wives!
i dont value marriage at all. being with multiple women is the natural course. having children with multiple women is the natural result of that action.. thats the way nature intended it to be. the church planted these notions that this is immoral. individuals who want to pair up for a lifetime together- i think thats wonderful. but many of us havent found that one "true love" - thats an endless game for me and many others.
-
i heard about the younger men being put out- that made me think that if anyone should be exposing those assholes, it should be them. if they formed a union of some sort, they may be the best shot at getting those people straightened out.
i consider them just another weak minded group of religious americans. totally harmless except possibly to themselves (unlike other religious groups).
as far as polygamy goes- im sure most everyone here would agree- thats a rubbish offense, who cares? its only polygamy because of the fucking marriage licenses required- dont get married, father a dozen kids with just as many women and thats somehow different.. because of the lack of the legal document..
I think that would definitely be the best plan...after all, they were aggressed against if they were separated by force from their family members still there...
Better yet, anyone who disapproved of them and theirs could just flood the place with guns...surely the discontented ones would arm themselves and get the hell out of there...or not...whatever...you can't save the world...
RAD
John Shaw!
-
... The thugs have fabricated a "tip" from a "source" that can NEVER be substantiated and authenticated ...
That has been my assumption since I first heard about this case.
Or the cultists murdered her.
Cultist...
-
I have nothing but respect for Warren Jeffs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs). He took in a bunch of idiots and gave them what they wanted, and, as the saying goes, "the government hates competition". The worst thing the FLDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints) has done is accept welfare from the government, which is a separate moral debate altogether.
It is a fundamental human right to raise your children however you see fit, to have as many marriage partners as you can get, and to live in seclusion if you so choose. As a matter a fact, I am so pissed off about this case I might not start paying my taxes (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=20502.0) after all...
-
This is a complicated issue. I have no doubt that girls have been abused and brainwashed. But systematically grabbing all the children is not the answer. These women have already been victimized, now the gov. adds to the problem.
I dont know the answer. Eventually, this country is going to have to decide the differance between a belief system and a religion. If my religion says that if I kill people, I will go to "happy hunting ground" can I kill people??
I dont see a problem with adult women choosing to entering a plural marriage. But a 10 year old being forced to marry an old man is a clear violation of liberty. On the other hand, if there was a phone call then this person was not a prisoner.
-
as far as polygamy goes- im sure most everyone here would agree- thats a rubbish offense, who cares? its only polygamy because of the fucking marriage licenses required- dont get married, father a dozen kids with just as many women and thats somehow different.. because of the lack of the legal document..
Yeah, the polygamy stuff is just insane. Who the hell cares about this stuff? Although, because of it, a case could be made that these men have suffered enough already. I can barely stand having one woman living with me, the thought of 3 or 4 makes me cringe. Talk about hell on earth!
That reminds me off a Sociology class I took years ago. When polygomy came up, the young guys were like "hey that would be great." But the older guys were "NO WAY!"
-
This is a complicated issue. I have no doubt that girls have been abused and brainwashed. But systematically grabbing all the children is not the answer. These women have already been victimized, now the gov. adds to the problem.
I dont know the answer. Eventually, this country is going to have to decide the differance between a belief system and a religion. If my religion says that if I kill people, I will go to "happy hunting ground" can I kill people??
I dont see a problem with adult women choosing to entering a plural marriage. But a 10 year old being forced to marry an old man is a clear violation of liberty. On the other hand, if there was a phone call then this person was not a prisoner.
the caller has yet to be identified, so the credibility is in question. i havent heard the age 10 mentioned yet.. and the mothers f the children say they do not allow underage girls to marry (i dont buy that either.. but if we are expected to take the governments word, we should take the moms word too).
this is being portrayed as some sort of extremism. truth is, underage sex and pregnancy is pretty normal. the only difference here is that these people are wacky nuts.
for instance, a teenage girl calls from inside a ghetto (attn. soft members of the forum, substitute "Trailer Park" here to make yourselves feel better) somewhere and says "i am 16 and i am pregnant with an older mans child".. who's jaw is gonna drop? nobody's. no one is going to form a dozen committees and go inside the ghetto and snatch up all the children because one teenage mama made a phone call.
me- im convinced this is this years Waco. nothing more.
-
... The thugs have fabricated a "tip" from a "source" that can NEVER be substantiated and authenticated ...
That has been my assumption since I first heard about this case.
Or the cultists murdered her.
Cultist...
So what cult do I belong to exactly?
-
So in your minds when does it become abuse that the government needs to intervene?
When a 16 year old conjugates a "consensual" spiritual marriage with a 40 year old?
When a 14 year old conjugates a "consensual" spiritual marriage with a 40 year old?
When a 12 year old conjugates a "consensual" spiritual marriage with a 40 year old?
When a 10 year old conjugates a "consensual" spiritual marriage with a 40 year old?
When an 8 year old conjugates a "consensual" spiritual marriage with a 40 year old?
IMO, the line drawn when trying to legislate a sexual morality is put rather high in most areas for moralist reasons, but that doesn't reduce the need for a line.
It's not that children lack the ability to think for themselves, it's that they do so much less than adults do, and they can be kept that way for a long time using certain coercive measures which this type of cult excels in. And someone who lacks the ability to think rationally for themselves for whatever reason, like I've mentioned in other threads, doesn't quite fit into libertarian ethics easily.
If you raise a child to believe forthrightly that they are a sex-slave and a housework-slave, and offer them no opportunity to take in dissenting opinions, what seperates this from actual slavery?
PS: This is another reason I think homeschooling can in rare cases be used to expand a child's horizons, but in most cases will be used to constrain them.
-
So in your minds when does it become abuse that the government needs to intervene?
When a 16 year old conjugates a "consensual" spiritual marriage with a 40 year old?
When a 14 year old conjugates a "consensual" spiritual marriage with a 40 year old?
When a 12 year old conjugates a "consensual" spiritual marriage with a 40 year old?
When a 10 year old conjugates a "consensual" spiritual marriage with a 40 year old?
When an 8 year old conjugates a "consensual" spiritual marriage with a 40 year old?
IMO, the line drawn when trying to legislate a sexual morality is put rather high in most areas for moralist reasons, but that doesn't reduce the need for a line.
It's not that children lack the ability to think for themselves, it's that they do so much less than adults do, and they can be kept that way for a long time using certain coercive measures which this type of cult excels in. And someone who lacks the ability to think rationally for themselves for whatever reason, like I've mentioned in other threads, doesn't quite fit into libertarian ethics easily.
If you raise a child to believe forthrightly that they are a sex-slave and a housework-slave, and offer them no opportunity to take in dissenting opinions, what seperates this from actual slavery?
PS: This is another reason I think homeschooling can in rare cases be used to expand a child's horizons, but in most cases will be used to constrain them.
The real problem is the "who gets to decide" problem. Other things being equal, the parent of a child cares more than a nameless stranger whose employment is justified by taking children from their natural parent. On top of that, giving that much power to the nameless stranger is asking for trouble.
-
The government only needs to intervene when the child, its parents / guardians, or the people they've entrusted to act on their behalf initiate legal action over rape. The only difference from a rape of an adult is that the parents / guardians can press charges even if the rape victim doesn't want to. There has to be a specific victim pressing charges, as opposed to the fishing expeditions the government currently engages in. No victim, no crime.
The government was created to recognize and protect the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property. (The first begins with physical autonomy, that is birth, and the latter two begin with adulthood, which is reached upon reaching a specific age or by suing for legal emancipation.) The government was not created to tell families how many wives / husbands they can have, when their children can start having sex, and whom they can have sex with.
-
So sexual child abuse, incest, etc aren't things that should be prosecuted?
-
Why is coercion, abuse, threatened violence and psychological programming with propaganda and lies A-OK when it's religious, and Ian and Mark will defend it all day as if it were a freely chosen lifestyle, but when the state does it, it's super-evil? There is no good guy here. I have personal, first hand experience with these people, I am descended from Mormon polygamists, I have cousins and relatives on these so-called compounds still, in fact, my great grandma lived to be 100 on the one in Mexico where I went for the grand celebration of her birthday. Creepy! To my mind, there are no good guys here, and the state actually did what anyone should have done. Unfortunately, it's the state. When Ian says "if you care so much, rescue them!" Well, that's what the state did (while depriving anyone else of the ability to do so on that scale). It may not be improving their lot, though, since now they are in the hands of an equally nefarious gang. All I can do is feel terrible for these kids. They are the victims. They had no hope. The police in those towns are wholly owned subsidiaries of the compound. They pretty much have to escape from what amounts to a prison surrounded by a hostile army or accept their lot. Religion is not something we should tolerate or support when it's "traditions" amount to the same exact kinds of crimes we deplore the state for engaging in. That runs from circumcision all the way to forced child marriage and sexual abuse. Even the mind control and threats of hell are abusive, because they deprive a person of even the awareness of other options. I think that is the most insidious kind of abuse, since it shrinks their world down so much. Since when is brainwashing not a violation of rights, a deprivation of autonomy and personhood?
-
A child has a right to liberty. A parent does NOT have a right to force a child into sex and/or marriage.
Due to immigrants from some 3rd world countries, there are starting to be cases in the US of parents sewing up the vagina of their daughters. Is this acceptable because it is "religious"? To say that this is protected is insane.
-
If I kept my child imprisoned in a closet for her whole life just because I'm a mean bastard, how is that any different if I try and justify it by saying I was trying to protect her immortal soul from the corrupting influence of the secular world? On the other hand, why aren't my reasonable moral objections to a vile war not sufficient to exempt me from taxation or military service, but the Amish and the Quakers get a pass because their objections are religious?
-
The problem here is government, but you guys are only half right.
There is a lot of abuse going on in this community. Trust me, I've been there, and I've seen the de facto sexual slavery going on, and one of the few charities I deem worthy of my money exists to assist boys as young as 12 that are run out of that community to fend for themselves, this after being taught their entire lives that the entire outside world is evil. Do any google search on "the lost boys of polygamy" and you'll see what I mean.
It comes down to this: Nobody will help them BECAUSE OF government. If someone who cared about the welfare of these kids hired a mercenary company to rescue them, he would in this case be completely justified, and in the ideal world would be given the opportunity to prove his case.
But as it stands now, a rescuer goes to jail for kidnapping. Either he can make the case that they are abused and they go to state custody, or the court disagrees and they go back to their hellhole. Either way, the end result is the same as getting government involved, plus you go to jail for kidnapping, even if you were morally justified. That removes any incentive for people to do the right thing, and instead puts the government in the role to do it badly.
Get what I mean?
This.
-
So sexual child abuse, incest, etc aren't things that should be prosecuted?
You think there's an actual benefit to prosecuting those family matters through government interventionism that outweighs the drawbacks and the unintended consequences??
-
ok- for the girl who may have been traumatized- she needed help. but she hasnt received help.. instead, 400+ other kids, who did not call, are being uprooted and used as tools.
we spend a lot of time talking about the kids in situations like this. i find it really odd that we dont spend more time talking about the older men and women who seek out kids. what exactly are they after, and why?
about the vagina sewing.. too sick for words really. allowing people as backwards as that to join any developed civilization will only drag society down. its pretty obvious that we were not all "created equal". leave the backward fools behind, leave some crumbs so they dont get lost, but continue ahead. -that same advice could be applied to these religious fanatics also.
-
If it was legal, I'm sure "vagina sewing" could be done safely, painlessly, and reversibly under medical supervision, like circumcision. As a matter a fact, given modern hygiene standards it makes a bit more practical sense than circumcision, though both are stupid.
-
If I kept my child imprisoned in a closet for her whole life just because I'm a mean bastard, how is that any different if I try and justify it by saying I was trying to protect her immortal soul from the corrupting influence of the secular world? On the other hand, why aren't my reasonable moral objections to a vile war not sufficient to exempt me from taxation or military service, but the Amish and the Quakers get a pass because their objections are religious?
Actually, the Amish do not get a complete pass. My grandmother's people are Amish. They are required to serve if drafted. However, they are not required to engage in combat. And one thing you can say about the Amish, they take care of their own.
And on a side note, most Amish do not get married until mid to late 20s.
-
If it was legal, I'm sure "vagina sewing" could be done safely, painlessly, and reversibly under medical supervision, like circumcision. As a matter a fact, given modern hygiene standards it makes a bit more practical sense than circumcision, though both are stupid.
Given new studies, which show HIV can be reduced 50-75% by circumcision... these two things are not comparable.
Female genital mutilation goes far beyond vaginal sewing. It also includes carving out the clitoras and removal (in some cases) of the labia. It is a barbaric practice with no medical benefits. However, just like foot binding women do this to other women.
For those that do not know, a woman has been arrested as the possible fake caller in the case. Her name is Rozita Swinton and she lives in CO.
-
Well, I'm sure the girls who's labia and clitori(?) are removed never get labial cancer. We could end breast cancer for all time by simply removing women's breasts at age 20. That AIDS and circumcision argument is lame, because if you just don't stick you dong where it shouldn't go, no matter the state of your foreskin, you're not going to get HIV.
-
Well, I'm sure the girls who's labia and clitori(?) are removed never get labial cancer. We could end breast cancer for all time by simply removing women's breasts at age 20. That AIDS and circumcision argument is lame, because if you just don't stick you dong where it shouldn't go, no matter the state of your foreskin, you're not going to get HIV.
:shock:
If you get your testicles removed you won't get testicular cancer, and if you get your skin removed you won't get skin cancer.
Where were you going with this?
-
Well, I'm sure the girls who's labia and clitori(?) are removed never get labial cancer. We could end breast cancer for all time by simply removing women's breasts at age 20. That AIDS and circumcision argument is lame, because if you just don't stick you dong where it shouldn't go, no matter the state of your foreskin, you're not going to get HIV.
Oh, please. The argument is not lame. The removal of the foreskin would have a profound impact on HIV worldwide.
Female genital mutilation has no medical benefits--nor has it ever been used as a claim. The reason for this abuse of women is to keep women from being sexually active, which doesnt work.
Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting .
The Lancet , Volume 354 , Issue 9192 , Pages 1813 - 1815
D . Halperin , R . Bailey
-
Well, I'm sure the girls who's labia and clitori(?) are removed never get labial cancer. We could end breast cancer for all time by simply removing women's breasts at age 20. That AIDS and circumcision argument is lame, because if you just don't stick you dong where it shouldn't go, no matter the state of your foreskin, you're not going to get HIV.
:shock:
If you get your testicles removed you won't get testicular cancer, and if you get your skin removed you won't get skin cancer.
Where were you going with this?
Where I am going with this is...as Libertarians do we protect the rights of parents to do anything and everything they wish with their child? Is it ok for a parent to sell their child for sex? Is that a RIGHT? Is it ok for parents to force their 8-10yr old into marriage? Is that a RIGHT? Where do we draw the line with religion?
Oh, and I was not the one who brought up circumcision.
-
Well, I'm sure the girls who's labia and clitori(?) are removed never get labial cancer. We could end breast cancer for all time by simply removing women's breasts at age 20. That AIDS and circumcision argument is lame, because if you just don't stick you dong where it shouldn't go, no matter the state of your foreskin, you're not going to get HIV.
Oh, please. The argument is not lame. The removal of the foreskin would have a profound impact on HIV worldwide.
Female genital mutilation has no medical benefits--nor has it ever been used as a claim. The reason for this abuse of women is to keep women from being sexually active, which doesnt work.
Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting .
The Lancet , Volume 354 , Issue 9192 , Pages 1813 - 1815
D . Halperin , R . Bailey
OK, then you should let little boys grow up and upon reaching sexual maturity, provide them with the above information and let them decide FOR THEMSELVES what to do with their junk. The argument remains a lame justification for infant genital mutilation in the form of circumcision.
Is it just because you're female that you privilege female genitalia over male? You suggest that parents do not have full authority to do to their babies naughty bits what they please, but you think that the risk of future sexually transmitted disease infection (which would require risky behavior no matter what) is a sufficient basis to violate the baby's body? To aggress against him and subject a defenseless infant to a terribly painful procedure at the very moment it is totally dependent on and needing to bond with it's mother? By the way, if you read the recent article on STR about this, you'd see that copious research shows that the procedure interferes with bonding, emotional development and imparts so much guilt on the mother that its known to be a factor in a substantial number of post-partum depression cases. There's no excuse for vagina sewing or dick chopping.
-
There's no excuse for vagina sewing or dick chopping.
I'm pretty sure there are a couple medical reasons to do dick chopping. But hardly ever.
-
Well, I'm sure the girls who's labia and clitori(?) are removed never get labial cancer. We could end breast cancer for all time by simply removing women's breasts at age 20. That AIDS and circumcision argument is lame, because if you just don't stick you dong where it shouldn't go, no matter the state of your foreskin, you're not going to get HIV.
Oh, please. The argument is not lame. The removal of the foreskin would have a profound impact on HIV worldwide.
Female genital mutilation has no medical benefits--nor has it ever been used as a claim. The reason for this abuse of women is to keep women from being sexually active, which doesnt work.
Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting .
The Lancet , Volume 354 , Issue 9192 , Pages 1813 - 1815
D . Halperin , R . Bailey
OK, then you should let little boys grow up and upon reaching sexual maturity, provide them with the above information and let them decide FOR THEMSELVES what to do with their junk. The argument remains a lame justification for infant genital mutilation in the form of circumcision.
Is it just because you're female that you privilege female genitalia over male? You suggest that parents do not have full authority to do to their babies naughty bits what they please, but you think that the risk of future sexually transmitted disease infection (which would require risky behavior no matter what) is a sufficient basis to violate the baby's body? To aggress against him and subject a defenseless infant to a terribly painful procedure at the very moment it is totally dependent on and needing to bond with it's mother? By the way, if you read the recent article on STR about this, you'd see that copious research shows that the procedure interferes with bonding, emotional development and imparts so much guilt on the mother that its known to be a factor in a substantial number of post-partum depression cases. There's no excuse for vagina sewing or dick chopping.
I was not the one who brought up male circumcision.
-
If you get your testicles removed you won't get testicular cancer ...
That doesn't reduce your total risk of getting cancer as much as you'd think, because some causes of cancer are independent of the organ where they end up and simply attack the weakest thing the bloodstream has good access to.
Anyway, the point is this: people have total control over their bodies (as long as they harm no one else), and parents / guardians have near-total control over their dependents (except to murder them, or if they sue for emancipation). Deal with it.
-
Neither was I. Nonetheless, you seem rather glib about it, as opposed to righteously indignant about vagina sewing. I am saying they are both violations of bodily integrity and brutal, unnecessary assaults on children.
And, in response to Blackie, the few medical reasons for circumcision can often be treated by less destructive means if the parents are willing to work with their doctors to achieve the desired outcome. Many are too squeamish or rightly afraid of accusations of molestation, and the consequences the state would afford them, to do the necessary therapy. Still, there are rare occasions where it seems the best approach, but it is hardly the rule, nor does it rise to the level of always beneficial and therefore appropriately routine.
-
as far as polygamy goes- im sure most everyone here would agree- thats a rubbish offense, who cares? its only polygamy because of the fucking marriage licenses required- dont get married, father a dozen kids with just as many women and thats somehow different.. because of the lack of the legal document..
Yeah, the polygamy stuff is just insane. Who the hell cares about this stuff? Although, because of it, a case could be made that these men have suffered enough already. I can barely stand having one woman living with me, the thought of 3 or 4 makes me cringe. Talk about hell on earth!
That reminds me off a Sociology class I took years ago. When polygomy came up, the young guys were like "hey that would be great." But the older guys were "NO WAY!"
Just imagine the "honey-do" list. It would be as long as Santa's list of those that are naughty or nice. I love women, but boy it is hard living with them.
-
Here is a BBC interview with one of the woman who got out of this group:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03/2008_04_mon.shtml
It is interesting.
-
A child has a right to liberty. A parent does NOT have a right to force a child into sex and/or marriage.
Due to immigrants from some 3rd world countries, there are starting to be cases in the US of parents sewing up the vagina of their daughters. Is this acceptable because it is "religious"? To say that this is protected is insane.
Of course even this is acceptable when it comes to asking the gov to stop it. No I am not insane. This sort of behavior, just as the Warren Jeffs of the world, are wrong in MY opinion. But that is all it is, MY opinion. Be a little more open minded. The same people you are talking about more then likely have some very strong opinions about the way you were raised. Should they be allowed to grab the guns of government to force you to live a specific way? Of course not.
If the vagina sewer-upers of the world offend you, try educating them to a better way. Would you be willing to do that? If not, then it really ain't that big of an issue for you. Voluntary interaction is the only senseable solution to any of these issues.
-
As usual, Will Grigg has excellent coverage of this event. Here's his most recent, but I highly recommend going back and reading all of his posts on the matter.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/
He's a devout Christian, but even as an atheist, I find myself nearly always in agreement with his take on things, and even where we disagree, I can clearly grasp and respect his position.
BTW, Kara, why did you feel it necessary to repeatedly point out you weren't the one who brought up male circumcision? That is the direction our conversation took, once genital mutilation came up, and at that point you felt free to comment on it. I fail to see the relevance of who brought up what once the conversation was underway. Not that I have anything more to say about it in this thread, and it's a subject that's literally been done to death on the FTL boards (just ask Joel. Actually, don't...) but I'm curious why you felt the need to say that you didn't bring it up not only once, but twice. Why did it bear repeating?
-
must comment on the foreskin/aids thing.
circumcision reduced AIDS - true enough. (the AIDS crisis is out of control in africa, so reduce it there and the spread should decline worldwide.)
but first, why not try:
1. using common sense
2. disregarding "Voodoo" as being real (read a little about Africa and Voodoo)
3. stop committing mass rapes of women (and after the rapes, dont mutilate the womans vagina and/or puncture her bladder with sharp sticks, again, read a little about Africa, specifically the Congo)
4. realize that those plants growing in the jungle actually are not medicine to cure AIDS.. thats why there is an epidemic (yep- Congo/Africa)
Europe, where circumcision is not routine, does not have an AIDS epidemic. foreskin does make a warm and happy home for AIDS to grow in- but getting rid of the skin and not getting rid of the incredibly stupid and violent men who are spreading AIDS is pointless.
-
Our small puny "country" with it's paltry 300 million will be no match for the 3 billion chinese who will come to this country first as a peace-keeping force after our next Internal War Of Aggression starts...and then to stay as they call in our debt to them...and they take the collateral for that debt...which, of course, is not only our property but ourselves and our children and our grandchildren and so on and so forth...
Then they will establish a worldwide dynasty the likes of which this planet has never seen before. Not only will they have their own weapons of conquest, but they will secure and utilize those of the countries which they conquer...I don't think they will destroy our infrastructure, but I do think that they will murder millions...enjoy...
RAD
John Shaw!
I have absolutely no doubt that you are right that the Chinese aim to create a worldwide dynasty. That is why we should never have gotten into their debt and/or bought their cheap junk. But you are wrong in saying that their plan will succeed. Their plan will fail. First of all, we are 306 million, not 300 million. Secondly, they are 1.306 billion, in other words 1,306 million, not 3 billion. If they try to start a war against us then we will teach those bastards that communism does not pay. And once they are gone, then we can easily get rid of all the rest of the communist regimes on this planet such as North Korea since there will be no more China to protect them. Then communism will be gone forevermore and the world's people can go back to the way it was before the scourge of communism started.
-
China's "one child policy" has decelerated the population growth quite a bit. India will be the world's #1 most populous nation soon, but it won't beat China economically until the end of the century.