Texas Authorities Raid Polygamist Compound(400 kids taken from a polygamist compound)

Pretty basic really and you still fail to understand it since this is exactly why society needs through laws to limit the "liberty of government" to avoid harm to individuals.

You still fail or better said avoid to answer a simple question that I have posted many times, do you think it is acceptable to harm innocents in pursue of greater good? Since you like to have examples so you can answer, let's imagine that among 3 persons, one has information about a bomb that going to explode and kill 50 people, do you think it is acceptable to torture all three in order to get information that possibly can save the life of 50 people?

 

How can anyone hold the position that the state acted appropriately, and still believe that people are innocent until proven guilty?

IMO gworld, the people who endorse the actions of the state in this thread, have made it clear that they no longer believe that individuals have rights.

The positions are simply irreconcilable.

And I expect you will witness much more cowardice, as the question, like so many tough questions, are dodged and do not receive straightforward, and honest answers that show self-respect, principle and confidence.

 

Real basic. The law says: "Hey, old guy - you can't knock up girls. They aren't old enough to make the decision of a consenting adult, so keep your willie in check, or face the consequences." Difficult to grasp, I know, but hey - meditate on it.

Well, you never dealt with:

But, acknowledging you can't seem to handle dealing with a relevant example, apparently, and with your histrionics aside ("is acceptable to torture..."), let's take your statement and deal with it, although the specifics ("bombs"; "torture") do not in any way apply.

The bottom line, there is no perfect solution. It's a circular question, and will always remain circular, if specifics are not brought in. "Is it ok to harm innocents ("innocent sect members and their families") in the pursuit of good" ("the protection of harmed children, or to-be-harmed children") is the corollary to "is it ok to allow harm to innocents (the abused kids, or to be abused kids) to protect the good (a concept of individual liberty). One can only make an answer, in the real world, by asking - how much good, how much wrong, and which good, which wrong?

To this case, it seems to me it has already answered. Again,

If you need a translation, it means that any judicial decision has to measure the harm done to the kids by removing them from the home - and there is harm, at least in the short term, and no one denies this - against the harm done by leaving them in. This is a closed society, which engaged in tactics designed to confuse the authorities attempting to discover which children belonged to whom. As a temporary solution, the greater good in protecting the children from immediate and further harm trumped the right to individual "liberty" on the part of the adult members of this community.

We'll never agree, Gworld. Emotion laden-buzzwords ("cowardice," "lynch mob") and all the other pablum aside, to me, and to others, it is the most cockamamie, tortured construction to cry foul on a "principle of liberty" for individual adults within a community when there is a mountain of evidence reaching the reasonable persons threshold, that it is the adults of that community who have instituted a system of abhorrent child abuse, on a scale unheralded in American history.

One question. A very simple one. What law has been broken in taking this action?

 

Congratulation for once again avoiding to answer the question and continue with your usual BS programming of declaring yourself holy and caring about the abused children. I suppose when some one does not have the courage to stand up and admit to what he silently supports, hiding behind the children in the next best option.
I especially like you quoting yourself as a proof since in your mind you are such a great expert in all things, may be you should start doing like Gtech and only link to your own posts as the indisputable proof.

 

From this thread, as you know, I was abused as a kid, and this is what led me to leave home as a young teenager; something I still try to climb out from under. And as I know, in this thread you made the asinine attempt to say this is why I was taking the stand I am taking on this issue, ignoring all facts at hand to salve your paranoic sickness.

And now you have the seriously mistaken temerity to say this is all made up, my empathy with these children, that it's all because of my "statism," I'm guessing (read: your fucked up paranoia about "statists" out to rob you of your puny life). The dogshit stench coming from you and your little pal drive the kind of disgusting statements like this, to myself, and to Earl, and not the other way around, asshole.

You're lucky you're not in the room with me.

This is the company kept, people. This is why I long ago wrote of a couple of members as being worthy of nothing but excoriation. Mods, feel free.

And Guerilla, I see that you are replying in your horseshit as well. A while back you lied to Rebecca about "not reading [my] posts, but you've been hovering like a fly on honey all afternoon, reading them the moment they hit press. Moments after every post, it's:



Yet you would lie to Rebecca, and the community. Doesn't surprise me, but it may surprise some, I guess.

 

I don't know you personally, so anything about your past as possible motive that I mentioned was the result of your own post. If you didn't want your past to be part of the discussion then you didn't need to post about it. How is defending the rights that limits the government actions a paranoia? do you think the writers of Constitution and the judges in supreme court were also paranoid for making these laws and not understanding your concept of greater good.

It seems to me if Texas authorities were a little bit more paranoid, they would not be in such a mess.
The strange thing is the while the whole purpose of these actions was to stop polygamy and bring back these people to the "main stream" of American society, I will not be surprised when all is said and done and the case has gone through Supreme court, the polygamy can become legal among adults as the result of this case.

 

I'm done speaking substance, asshole. Let me make this real clear: you first indicated it was my experience which blinded me, out of too much sympathy for these girls, to see the "truth," gutless an attempt as it was; with your last post, you then adopted your boyfriend's tactics and said in so many words I didn't give a damn about these girls, much like he earlier did with Earlpearl, and that I was only using the pain endured by these girls as a ruse to mask my "statism," I'm guessing, from all the paranoid delusions I've seen emanating from the both of you.

You crossed a serious line with me on that one, little boy, and in short, fuck off - your tactics, your pal's - none of this has any place in civil discussion, and I'm done playing the game. And were we in the room together, my meaning would be made much clearer.

 

The motives and past experience is always relevant to why a person adopts a certain position in a discussion, even a person like you should be able to understand that.
In regard to your other nonsense and being brave behind your keyboard and make it much clearer if we were in the same room, my personal experience in real life has shown that dogs that bark too loud, usually don't bite.

 

This has zero to do with the past, and everything to do with a disgusting assertion that denigrates victimized children, whom I do care deeply about, and my values, which I also care deeply about. You crossed the line. If you'd care to apologize, perhaps we can move on before my ass is banned.

Regarding web warriorship, my experience as well, which is why a little piece of work like yourself believes you can get away with crap like this, because mummy and daddy assured you the home is safe and doors are locked while you click gutlessly away. Your boyfriend's got some experience with this malady - probably comes from having a mouth far too much growing up, with nothing else but a pair of fast feet.

No, my statement was a statement of deep feeling. At the end of the day, the only way I'd use your head as a streetmop is if you'd move from your mouth to your body in being stupid enough to try to harm me or mine, or another innocent. I don't enjoy doing it, even when deserved. Just a momentary, and very clear statement of appraisal, little one.

 

So if I'm understanding it right, it looks like they should have never entered the ranch in the first place?

That's perfect. I guess on Monday all of the mothers will get their children back? Or have those kids been permanently stripped from their parents and sent into the child welfare system for good?

I'm anxious for Earl to come back and show his true colors. Will he admit that he believes that the rights of the few should be sacrificed for the good of the many? I'm betting we see more of the dodging that is on full display in this thread.

 

Only in the peculiarly twisted world of two very lonely boys, paranoid with statist "evil empires" at every corner of their toy closets.

And in classic fashion, we return to the beginning. Probable cause, redux, ladies and gentlemen. Fake phone call or not, a police officer doesn't ask if the reporting caller is a hoax before initiating a legitimate investigative call on premises, with the assessment of probable cause.

But this has already been asked, and answered, nauseatingly so. The strategy is to dilute a thread over 15-20 pages, then just repeat the horseshit that was said at the beginning.

 

Better to say, no crime was proven. Yet, plenty of circumstantial evidence.

Are you against the arrest of people based on circumstantial evidence?

 

I see you are a tough one. Everyone is so scared, NOT. You know by this type of posting, you just make yourself look ridiculous and not tough, don't you?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Creek_Raid

It seems this is not the first time this has been tried and history has a way of repeating itself.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5747898.html

But don't let facts stop your crusade against the old men who are doing bad things.

 

The warrant was for a rape complaint by some Jane Doe (sorry, too lazy to go back and look up the name). It turns out, that girl is not there. And may have been a crank caller from Colorado.

This is the thinnest of "circumstantial evidence". It's like my neighbor saying I have been killing people with a sniper rifle, but when the police come to my house, they find my gun rack with a shotgun but no sniper rifle.

I'll grant that there is subjectivity and thus some circumstantial evidence is obviously less circumstantial than others.

My concerns in this thread remain,

(1) There wasn't much due diligence on the prank caller.

(2) Warrants should have been specific.

(3) Forced DNA testing is wrong. In my opinion, it violates the spirit of the 5th Amendment, and in some cases, could reveal things about these families that are private, and make those things part of the public record.

(4) Mass arrests are wrong for non-specific crimes are how tyrannies work.

(5) Taking the children away from their mothers is the final blow for me. Let's say the mother is 15 and she has a baby. Does separating them prevent a crime? Or a 20 year old mother with a 5 year old child?

I really think that the push to impose "societal norms" on these people (and others) has gotten out of hand. The only standard which should be applied here, is was violence done? Was anyone coerced?

Older men may have had sex with under age girls. If none of the girls feel they were raped, and are ok with their relationships with these men, it's a very fine line to tell them that their relationships, families, lifestyles and beliefs are wrong.

I remember something Charley Reese wrote recently about taking away a person's faith...

http://www.indianagazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25590&Itemid=65

It's not precisely relevant to the conversation, but I think you will get the point I am making. For lack of a better word, I am agnostic, but fairly careful not to attack, demean or destroy anyone else's faith regardless of how I regard it.

I've seen on here that there is only truth and religion. Well, destroying someone's spiritual, social and familial structure because it was wrong, is not without pain.

And who am I to take someone off the FLDS path, if that path leads to happiness, and taking them off puts them through doubt, confusion, isolation etc?

Intervention is messy. Social intervention. Religious intervention. Military intervention.

We think we're striving for utopia, but humans aren't motivated that way. There is always a backlash, when we try to make people they are something they are not, or something they do not want to be.

And knowing that, means the burden is on us, to take moral responsibility beyond taking these kids from the mothers, or from closing down the ranch. We can't disrupt their entire community and way of life, and then walk away 6 months later thinking our job is done because they are more like us (just as flawed as anyone else). In my mind, that's got to be a moral crime. Changing someone's life should put their well being under your care indefinitely.

In our society, you can simulate rape, nay 5 people living in a social group under one roof can, as long as it is voluntary. Sexual partners can choke, slap, brand, gag, sodomize, and it's all ok if it is voluntary.

There were times, not that long ago, when girls were married off to older men, and it was normal, maybe even necessary. How many of us have child brides in our family lineage?

It's a fine line here. A delicate subject. A lot of nuances.

If someone was physically harmed against their will, if anyone was forced to do anything against their will, then that is a crime. The rest is too circumstantial for me to make a judgment on.

 

I just read your post briefly, but don't want to answer it all now because I just woke up and am working on my first cup of coffee.

One statement that you wrote, I thought I would address now. Please tell me if I have misinterpreted what you are saying, but it sounds like you don't think it is a necessarily a problem to have sex with a 14 yr. old, as long as the 14 yr. old thinks it's O.K.

For me, it is not a fine line at all.

I don't really have a problem with that, as long as it is between consenting adults.

 

Is it wrong and illegal? YES. Is it unique to this community? NO.

Please read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy

When was the last time you saw government attacking the high schools or project areas in all major U.S. cities?

This is not about saving some child, this is about crushing a life style that is not acceptable by some groups in the society. Did you read my post about the events in 1953 at short creek? This is repeat of the same event. The only surprising thing is that it seems American people were more courageous and principled in 1953 than some posters here in 2008 as you can see from the extracts of newspaper articles of that time. It is sad to see that some people not only have not advanced intellectually and morally in 55 years but actually gone backward.

 

I don't get it, Gworld. Are you saying the courageous and principled thing to do is allow adult men to have sex with 14 yr. old girls?

 

Did you read my post? I am talking about people who understood this thing for what it is, persecution of people who do not conform to our standard of normal. Nobody is saying that crimes should not be prosecuted but mass arrest, group punishment, removal of children under excuse of that may be in future they can be in danger as the result of these people life style, is some thing totally different than criminal investigation.

From my previous post:

 

I'm not trying to speak for gworld, but I think he is fairly clear on rape being illegal, the question is was this consensual sex or not? If it's consensual, then it's not rape.

We may not approve of it, we may think it is wrong, but I feel the same way about some of the humiliating sexual acts some adults engage in. As you said, if it's consensual, it's ok.