How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?

Hi! ....the answer is No here.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

I responded to what, the first three or four cases you copy/pasted. I addressed the fact that not a single one of them supported your assertion - in not one case did we see "racist brainwashing" leading to the termination of parental rights. Instead, we saw multiple examples of custody battles where the judge chose the custodial parent based on physical abuse, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, incitement to commit violence, and recklessly untreated physical and mental disabilities.In every case you presented that I responded to, racism was incidental, not causal.One case was notable, where we had a clear case of "racist brainwashing" that resulted in a pair of twin sisters who sing white supremacist music at rallies. Their mother is a "white separatist," and they're all Nazi-level racists. In the custodial battle, as has been shown by actually quoting the law, the judge did have the option of completely removing the girls from both parents. He opted not to, which definitively falsifies your hypothesis that "racists don't have the right to raise little racists."I declined to read the remainder of your copy-pastes based on the fact that I am a human being with limited time and resources, and the fact that the established track record of the evidence you were producing was directly disproving your hypothesis rather than supporting it.Now you refuse to even discuss or acknowledge a case that definitively falsifies your position unless you're allowed to Gish Gallop me and force me to respond to all of your evidence.In other words, you're trying to ignore falsifications and seek out supporting evidence instead. Apparently you see no problem with that, but I'm going to continue to focus on the case that you brought up that utterly falsifies your position. If a case that you brought up is not fair game, then you aren't here for discussion at all.

You're playing the same game Rahvin is, I see, where you read selectively or perhaps not at all. No, it has standing in Canada. Does Canada not count as a country, or something? Rahvin had not yet posted this, at the time you wrote, so perhaps you can be forgiven for not having read: [qs=Rahvin]I responded to what, the first three or four cases you copy/pasted. [/quote]He's not reading any of the rest. Just ignoring them! How am I supposed to present evidence to someone who openly announces their intention not to read any of it? Completely wrong. In Molko vs Unification Church, the court did both define "brainwashing" and other means of coercive thought control, and determined that coercive thought control did violate the law. http://trancenet.net/groups/law/molkotxt.shtmlIn this case the court found that the First Amendment was not a blanket protection of coercive, deceptive, manipulative practices, even if they merely took the form of speech acts. Just as the First Amendment doesn't protect fraud, it doesn't protect coercive thought control or brainwashing. Well, again, no. The Winnipeg case shows that a Canadian court of law will certainly consider intense racism, membership in racist organizations, and other racist factors when deciding whether to sever parental custody even outside the context of a divorce action.Canada counts. It's a real country and everything! I know that comes as a bit of a surprise but it's true. It's quite true, as I've demonstrated. I never claimed that they did, but we're not specifically talking about American statutes and legal opinions. (Frequently, however, foreign law does inform American legal decisions; judges may consider foreign statutes when attempting to determine natural, universal human rights.) Again, we're talking about brainwashing, not teaching. No need. I've repeatedly addressed the entire statement, and I'll do so again - "brainwashing" is not a judgement about the veracity of the belief being communicated, it's an objective description of acts of mental coercion that violate an individual's federal civil rights. Teaching somebody something you don't agree with isn't "brainwashing"; coercing mental behavior towards any belief, even a true one, is brainwashing, and doing it to anyone - adult, child, anybody - violates their human rights.Children are human beings with human rights. Not a single one of you has deigned to speak to that point. Why is that?

So, you cherry-picked the few examples you thought least supported my position - despite the fact that when I provided them, I provided the caveats that explained why I thought they supported my position despite their weakness - and then, having only looked at the weakest evidence, you've concluded that all the evidence you looked at didn't support my position.You're cherry-picking, Rahvin. I've seen a lot of people do it but I've never seen someone so openly admit to it.When are you going to provide some evidence? For instance, I'd like you to provide a single court case where, in a divorce proceeding, someone was able to use a First Amendment defense to prevent the loss of custody based on their involvement with a racist organization.Just one piece of evidence. I think it's fair to ask you to do some homework, don't you? You didn't quote any laws. Any time you'd like to respond to the cases I actually brought up, that would be fine. But you've already stated your intention to completely ignore my strongest evidence. What am I supposed to take from that but suspicion as to your general level of intellectual honesty?

Parental rights obviously differ from one country to the next. A discussion of parental rights necessarily must be restricted to a single nation. A discussion on the right to bear arms where we simultaneously discuss American, British, and Canadian law will have the same results. In America, racist parents have the right to raise racist children. When you made the following statement: in message 197, you were wrong.

Hi Crash, I responded to them, in order as you posted them, until I ran out of reasonable time to make my response. I didn't cherry pick - I used the order you gave, without first examining their relative strength or weakness in making your case. You've already provided a definitive piece of evidence for me, Crash. The white supremacist singing twins case is a definitive falsification of your hypothesis and a vindication of my argument that racism is not grounds to remove children from a home, that racists have the right to raise little racists just like Christians have the right to raise little Christians. No, Jar did. Do I need to quote what others have already quoted in the same thread? Subbie also mentioned that judges do have the option to remove children from both homes in a custody case, though she did not specifically quote a law. I;ve responded to nothing but cases you brought up. If you won't even acknowledge a case that you brought up that utterly falsifies your argument, why should I bother to continue discussing with you?You're like a Creationist arguing that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, and who brings up Archeopteryx as an alleged hoax; then, when told that Archeopteryx was not a hoax, you refuse to discuss the evidence that you yourself brought up and which falsifies your position until I respond to your other arguments.If you won't discuss evidence that you bring up, Crash, you aren't interested in any discussion at all. If your argument is falsified, none of your other evidence is relevant.

Sorry, but no. Human rights exist apart from nationality; that's why they're called "human rights."This is just another example of your effort to cherry-pick the terms of the debate, and it won't be allowed. As I've presented ample evidence for, they do not. You've not provided even a single piece of evidence for your view. The First Amendment protects speech, it protects assembly, but it doesn't grant a right to anyone to force another person to listen to speech or assemble - not even the child of a parent.Children are human beings with human rights. That's incontrovertable proof that you're utterly wrong. Brainwashing children violates their human rights, as I've proven.

HUH?Utter nonsense Froggie, children do not have the right to NOT hear what their parents say. Or what their teachers say. Or what their pastors say.Children do NOT have equal rights.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

"Ran out of time"? Rahvin, I was perfectly willing to wait until you had time to craft a fully informed, reasonable response to my post. I'm still willing. Indeed, you've had plenty of time over the past 2 days or so to post a dozen or so posts in this and other threads, time you could have been using instead to do the requisite research to inform yourself about this subject.You have all the time you need! There's absolutely no need to rush on my account. Since I'm a reasonable person, I'm perfectly willing to extend you whatever time you believe you require to read my examples, read the court decisions, read the legal discussions, and read some of the citations I've provided, since. All the time you need! By all means, go ahead and take it. I'll wait as long as it takes. Where did I indicate that I presented them in any particular order? I assure you, I did not. Even if your interpretation of the case was correct - even though I've demonstrated how you were in error - one case would not be a "definitive falsification." That's simply not how it works - even if something is a legal principle, that doesn't mean that courts can't be mistaken in its application or that there might not be controlling circumstances of even greater priority. After all, the fact that some guilty murderers go free doesn't prove that murder isn't against the law, it simply indicates cases where the prosecution failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence, or other legal circumstances forced the court to arrive at an incorrect determination. For instance, evidence against the accused might have been improperly collected. That doesn't mean the evidence was fabricated, but it might have meant that the jury was never exposed to it.You can't dismiss a legal principle on the basis of a single example. I'm not putting forth a hypothesis of universal applicability, I'm putting forth a description of general legal practice. After all, individual courts make individual determinations in individual cases. I could (and have) find an example where a court thought that someone's racist activities were sufficient to justify the loss of custody. You could find an example where a court rejected that notion on the basis of First Amendment rights.Who would be "proven wrong" by these dueling examples? Both of us? How could I have brought it up without acknowledging it? Did I do it in my sleep? I assure you, I acknowledge the weakness in the case. As I said when I brought it up:

quote:

---

In this case, custody was ultimately retained by the racist parent, but only because the other parent had his own history of abuse and alcoholism. The court ultimately did not have to rule on the legitimacy of seeking sole custody due to racism of the custodial parent...

---

Did I not write that, Rahvin?What I'm not "acknowledging" is your supposed refutation of the example, for the reasons I've already stated and to which you have not substantively replied. And even if your construction of the example was correct, one case where the court didn't find a parent's racist involvement to be substantially harmful to the child would hardly "prove me wrong", nor substantiate your position of a universal human right for parents to brainwash their children. You're like a Creationist arguing that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, asserting that because Archeoraptor liaoningensis was a hoax, all of paleontology must be. When other examples of feathered dinosaurs are presented, you assert that you "don't have the time" to look over the evidence.

If you think children have a legal obligation to listen to anybody, then clearly you've never met even a single child.Come on, Jar. You're being even more ridiculous than usual. Children are human beings with human rights. Nobody's even attempted to refute that point.

Let me try to help you.First, if you wish to misrepresent my position, it is probably smarter not to include quotes of what I actually said.Second, we are talking about a specific point, whether or not kids have a right NOT to hear what others say. Sorry but there is a reason that children are placed in custody and that is because they do NOT have equal rights.But keep trying and I'll be happy to try to help you along.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The first time you said this, I interpreted you as saying "children have to listen to what others, especially adults, say." But apparently you thought that was a misrepresentation of your position.So, let me try again - children don't have a right not to hear what others say? So, your position is that it's illegal for a child to be deaf, for instance, because then they would not be able to not hear what others say, which you assert they have no right to do.Is that more correct? Can you help me understand what you're saying? I'm having a really hard time making any sense of it. For instance, how, in your view, can someone actively not hear someone? I can think of several ways - they could be deaf, they could have headphones on, they could not be paying attention.Being deaf, wearing headphones, and being inattentive are not against the law, not even for children. If that's not what you mean could you elaborate? The claim as you've stated it is fairly unintelligible.

Sorry, I thought I was talking to an adult. My bad.I don't follow down even attractive rabbit holes.You did do better this time and learned not to actually quote what said when trying to misrepresent my position.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Jar, I seriously have no idea what you're talking about.You said you were willing to help, but I guess cryptic bullshit is the best you're able to do. Too bad.

I'm perfectly willing to try to help you but I am only human and no miracle worker.I said:

quote:

---

Utter nonsense Froggie, children do not have the right to NOT hear what their parents say. Or what their teachers say. Or what their pastors say.

---

and also:

quote:

---

Children do NOT have equal rights.

---

None of that has anything to do with capability. A child may be incapable of hearing, or understanding what a parent, guardian, custodian is saying to them but they have no RIGHT not no hear it.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!