How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?

Courts, based on what is in the child's best interest. (I think I've said this a few times already.)You know, like we're already doing. I don't see how it's any more troublesome for enforcement than, say, a law against emotional abuse of a child. Brainwashing your child is certainly an action. Again, we're not talking about taking the children of racists away just because they're racists. We're talking about protecting children against being brainwashed with racist, violent ideologies. Am I the only one who can perceive the difference?

It ends where it began and where it has always been; with the rights of the parent subordinate to the interests of the child.I don't see anything slippery about the slope. Freedom of speech is indeed protected by the constitution, as is freedom of assembly. Children have these rights as much as parents do; parents may have a right to free speech but they have no right to force someone to listen.

That's not at all true. I certainly think it's possible for a parent to brainwash a child into liberalism, or into the biological sciences, or into evolution. I think you can be brainwashed into the belief that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, even though that's a true fact. It's possible to believe true things for the wrong reasons, and teaching isn't the same thing as brainwashing. Not at all.Brainwashing is an objective description of specific indoctrination techniques, not a judgement about the veracity of what is being taught. It's frequently the case that brainwashing is the only way to "teach" something that is completely false, but certainly true things could be brainwashed, too.

The law that exists, Zen. Are you under the mistaken impression that it's not against the law to emotionally or mentally abuse a child?CDC definitions of these terms have already been provided. It's up to you to educate yourself on the state of anti-abuse law in the US. Rahvin is simply making up things about some of the cases that aren't true, and outright ignoring most of the other cases. He's got nothing to contribute to the discussion so he's just blowing smoke. That's what I've been saying throughout. I've actually presented several cases of that. They're still up there, if you'd like to go read them. Children are being taken away from parents, for instance the case in Winnepeg, due entirely to the parent's actions of endangering their children by inculcating them in extreme racism.That's happening. There's no universal right of racist parents to indoctrinate little racists. Rather, there's an overriding societal interest in the welfare and upbringing of children. For the fourth or fifth time, courts of law have made and continue to make that determination.

Stop making it about me. It has nothing to do with me.Courts already make determinations about what kind of parenting is in the best interest of the child; courts already determine which parents are fit and unfit to raise children.And well they should! Children are people too, and they have a human right not to be chattel prisoners and subject to abuse simply because an accident of birth has made them related to their jailer. It simply doesn't work like that - courts can and do intervene and sever parental privilege when it's in the best interest of the child.The parent's privileges are subordinate to society's interest in protecting children from abuse.

I guess someone came in a broke your Google fingers, but whatever:

quote:

---

Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual "systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated".[1] The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrainwashingAs you can see that's well beyond merely talking to a child. I'm sorry, Rahvin, that you have such a dim opinion of the teachers and instructors that worked so mightily (and fruitlessly, apparently) to teach you that you think of them as nothing more than brainwashers.But simple instruction and sharing of belief is most definitely not what we're talking about here. You people could have looked up the terms being used here, at any point, and seen that brainwashing isn't merely the instruction of a child, and it's not based on a value judgement about the veracity of the claim. It has absolutely nothing to do with that.If there was genuine puzzlement about the term "brainwashing", any one of you could simply have asked for a definition. Asking me "who determines what is brainwashing?" is an entirely different question, and as I've now stated six times, the courts are entitled to make that determination, as they always have been.

As I've repeatedly told you, I'm happy to discuss my evidence at your earliest convenience. At such time as you're prepared to read and address more than the weakest of the bunch, the discussion can continue. The only obstacle to discussion, here, is your adamant refusal to consider my evidence.And you can cease with the name-calling, too. Really, Rahvin, you're just embarrassing yourself.

It's certainly in the child's interest to protect him or herself from abuse.But, we're specifically speaking about society, since as a rule children are not usually police, judges, attorneys, etc.

It's right there in the preamble:

quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

No, it doesn't. The power to levy taxes is a power specifically given Congress by Article 1.

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?

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.

"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.

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.