|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
I'm aware, but we're speaking of general legal principles, not specific US law. And as I've shown US law is hardly unique in this regard. You've shown no such thing. CPS is not taking children away from racists. Racists are allowed to pass their reprehensible beliefs on to their children.
No, that was not the finding of the court. The finding of the court was that the parents recklessly disregarded the best interests of the children by, among other things, naming them after Nazi leaders. The parents did not lose custody on the basis of mental defect; they lost custody on the basis of exposing their children to harm as a result of their racist ideology. That's made absolutely plain in the material you yourself quoted. What I quoted and read specifically demonstrated that the children were taken away because the parents were recklessly endangering their children by not seeking treatment for their own disabilities, and because the father was specifically trying to incite violence from the children. The ruling was not made over the ideology of the parents, who are allowed to be racist and retain their children, as that is a matter of free speech. You know what, Crash, let's focus in on just one example that you posted, because it demonstrates exactly why you're wrong. Except I'm going to post the entire article so everyone can see.
quote: I added the bolding. So what do we have here? 1) twin girls who are white supremacist singers. They;ve been raised to be hardcore racists, not just everyday "i feel nervous around x race" or "given a choice and all else being equal, I wouldn't pick the person of x race" or "people of x race (insert racial stereotype here)." We're talking racism on the level of the Klan or the Nazis. 2) the girls' racist singing career is managed by their mother, a "white nationalist separatist," who believes basically that whites should kick out everybody else and create a "pure" society, from what I can gather. 3) Mommy and daddy are divorced. Daddy has reformed from his racism, or at least is pretending to have done so, but has a history of physical abuse and alcoholism 4) Now pay attention here, Crash, because this is the msot important part: the mother retained custody, while daddy has visitation rights only. You seem to have concluded that the only reason that they're with their mother is because daddy was physically abusive and an alcoholic. And if this were a binary choice of mother-or-father, where the judge was restricted into one of those two choices, you might be right.
But it wasn't. The judge also had the option of ordering the girls to be removed from both parents. This is what would have happened if promoting racist views and "brainwashing" children into the same beliefs were counted as abuse or otherwise illegal. that's not what the judge did. The only rational conclusion is that passing racist beliefs on to your children is perfectly legal and not at all grounds for the termination of parental rights. That's a definitive case, Crash. If it were actually counted as abuse to "brainwash" children into the racist views of the parents, then those two girls would have had to be taken away from both parents and immediately put into the foster care system. Letting the mother retain custody would not have been an option. In a world where your hypothesis were true, we would never even once expect a case like this, where a judge is aware of the parent's racism and the family is already in his courtroom, and the judge allows a vehemently racist parent to retain custody. It wouldn't be a matter of "well, daddy would be worse for the kids 'cause he'd hit them," it would be a matter of "sweet fucking Christ get those kids out of that house and into the system before either of their fucked up parents can continue to do more harm!" Reality directly contradicts a near-certain prediction from your hypothesis. It's a direct falsification of your hypothesis, Crash. End of story. You're wrong, deal with it. I don't like it either. I don't like the fact that parents can teach their kids known lies. I don't like the fact that parents can raise their children with no intellectual defenses against all manner of charlatans and bullshit. I don't like the fact that parents can raise their kids to believe absolutely any wacky nonsensical woo-woo they want before the kids are even old enough to understand that mommy and daddy can sometimes be wrong. But that's reality. Unpleasant as it is, cops don't look for kids at white supremacist rallies and take them immediately to CPS for processing (which is what would happen if racist indoctrination were really grounds for the termination of parental rights). The freedom of speech covers raising your own kids. Children do not have the same rights as adults, because their parents or guardians retain many of those rights for the kids until they reach the age of majority. Parents decide whether a child accepts medical treatment, not the child. Parents decide what clothes the child may wear, not the child. Parents decide whom the child may associate with, not the child. And so on, and so forth. All of which is perfectly legal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I really don't need to; if you think it's a problem, then it's for you to show why such a thing is bad. Surely if history has taught us one thing, it's that children named "Adolf Hitler" don't turn out all that well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Surely if history has taught us one thing, it's that children named "Adolf Hitler" don't turn out all that well. And why do you say that? And how is that specific to racist parenting? Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
CPS is not taking children away from racists. CPS is taking children away from dangerous racists, as I've demonstrated; racists are losing custody of their own children due to their racist viewpoints, as I've demonstrated.
Racists are allowed to pass their reprehensible beliefs on to their children. Only in so far as they're able to avoid scrutiny in doing so. All attempts in the US to assert a universal right to pass on dangerous, harmful, abusive beliefs have been rejected by US courts because children, being human beings, have the same right to resist and avoid undesired, harmful brainwashing that you do.
What I quoted and read specifically demonstrated that the children were taken away because the parents were recklessly endangering their children by not seeking treatment for their own disabilities But you didn't quote or demonstrate that. You demonstrated that the court found that the parents acted with "reckless disregard" for their children. That finding isn't consistent with developmental disability because the legal standard for "recklessness" requires both the opportunity and ability to act responsibly, along with the conscious choice not to. Someone who fails their responsibilities due to their own mental defect is not someone who can be found to be "reckless".
You know what, Crash, let's focus in on just one example that you posted Politely, no. We can go example by example once you've researched the examples - all of them - but I'm not prepared to play a game with you where you cherry-pick my weakest example and ignore the strongest ones (as you admitted to doing.)
The judge also had the option of ordering the girls to be removed from both parents. Not in a divorce custody dispute.
You're wrong, deal with it. No, you're wrong, as I've amply demonstrated with multiple examples which you admitted to ignoring. Maybe when you can bestir yourself to actually engage with my examples, you'll have the opportunity to discover what everybody else already knows - you asserted something that, in fact, turned out to be completely wrong.
Reality directly contradicts a near-certain prediction from your hypothesis. What an amazing standard! So, the example of OJ Simpson proves that murder is not illegal? Really, Rahvin? Any time the courts can be found to have failed in their duty to protect children, that's "reality contradicting the hypothesis" that there are laws against the abuse of children? I trust you don't need me to walk through the fallacies contained in that argument.
I don't like the fact that parents can raise their kids to believe absolutely any wacky nonsensical woo-woo they want before the kids are even old enough to understand that mommy and daddy can sometimes be wrong. Except that, they can't. Abuse of children - mental, emotional, physical - is illegal in every US state. Attempt to raise your children under the ideology that (for example) fathers and daughters should have regular sexual intercourse, and you'll rapidly find yourself behind bars.
. Parents decide whether a child accepts medical treatment, not the child. And yet courts frequently override the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children when they determine that it's in the child's best interests. I can find a dozen examples of that, too, but based on your recent and unreasonable history, why on Earth would I believe that you'll ever admit to being wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yawn.
Courts sometimes take children away from Dangerous Parents. The key word is dangerous. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The key word is dangerous. And profound, militant racism, as demonstrated by an extraordinary level of animus, membership in racist terrorist organizations, provocative racist symbology (including swastikas), and militia-style activities (weapons drills, etc) has been found sufficiently dangerous by courts to justify measures including loss of custody, as I've amply demonstrated. We're not talking about "racist uncle" racism; we've never been talking about that. We're talking about racism being a justification for the loss of custodial rights to children, which it frequently has been, as I've demonstrated. Rahvin hasn't even looked at most of the examples, as he's admitted. Did you? Jesus, what was the point of asking me for evidence if none of you assholes were ever going to read it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
And so far you have not shown that racism is a justification. In each case it was not the racism that was the issue but rather that the acts of the parents as opposed to their beliefs were what was significant.
It is the physical threat to the child, not the motivation, that is significant. Sorry but so far you have not been very convincing. AbE: Let me add that the court can also consider threats to others as well as directly to the child, but it is still not simply racist parents teaching racism. Edited by jar, : add threat to others Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In each case it was not the racism that was the issue but rather that the acts of the parents as opposed to their beliefs were what was significant. Right. The racist acts. Do you think that the Winnepeg man would have lost custody of his daughter if he had drawn smiley faces on her, instead? Of course not.
It is the physical threat to the child, not the motivation, that is significant. I never said otherwise. I've never claimed that being racist was a justification for losing your children. I've never even claimed that engaging in racist speech was a justification for losing your children. My claim throughout is that children, being human beings, have a right to not be brainwashed into dangerous and loathsome ideologies just because that's what their parents decided to do. Courts have and continue to intervene when a parent's decisions are not in the best interests of their children. Parental rights are not absolute. Children are human beings with individual human rights. Never in a million years could I have suspected that position would be contentious to supposed liberals.
Sorry but so far you have not been very convincing. You've not convinced me that you've looked beyond even a single example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
quote: So, how does cutting funding to NPR, Planned Parenthood, Head Start, low-income housing, and the EPA help the middle class? How does less public radio make the middle class better off? How do more teenage pregnancies make the middle class better off? How do fewer children entering kindergarten with the basic skills needed to succeed make the middle class better off? How does increasing the cost of housing for low-income renters make the middle class better off? How does restricting how the EPA keeps neighborhood air clean make the middle class better off? Jon Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Winnipeg is NOT in the US last time I looked.
Again, I have not said parental rights are absolute. Speech and belief though is very highly protected. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7
|
Politely, no. We can go example by example once you've researched the examples - all of them - but I'm not prepared to play a game with you where you cherry-pick my weakest example and ignore the strongest ones (as you admitted to doing.) If you refuse to discuss the matter further then, Crash, using an example that you yourself brought up, then I'll accept that as your concession. I have no interest in being Gish Gallopped by you with dozens of examples when the first several that I looked at failed to support your position in the first place, and the one I specifically delved into was a direct refutation of your hypothesis. It's very simple, Crash. The example of the singing white supremacist twins featured rabid racist indoctrination of the most extreme sort; the judge had the option of removing the children from the households of both parents; the judge opted not to do so, clearly establishing that merely "brainwashing" children with the racist views of the parents is insufficient to terminate parental rights.
The judge also had the option of ordering the girls to be removed from both parents. Not in a divorce custody dispute. If you honestly believe that a judge cannot order the children to be removed from both households entirely during a divorce custody dispute if he/she believes that abuse is occurring in both, you're simply delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Winnipeg is NOT in the US last time I looked. I never claimed that it was. Are there any other claims I've not made that you'd like to attack? I'm sure it's much easier than grappling with my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If you refuse to discuss the matter further then, Crash, using an example that you yourself brought up, then I'll accept that as your concession. I'd love to discuss all of my examples, at your earliest convenience. As I said, I'm not going to play a game where you cherry-pick my weakest example and ignore the strongest.
The example of the singing white supremacist twins featured rabid racist indoctrination of the most extreme sort; the judge had the option of removing the children from the households of both parents The judge did not have that option. If it's your contention that he did, then by all means, present the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'd love to discuss all of my examples, at your earliest convenience. Perhaps you'd like to pick one of your examples to start with? Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Since my point is that it is common, my point can only be demonstrated by the plurality of examples.
Picking any single example defeats the purpose of having provided any at all.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024