So, a little more from the crowd on Brooke's Blog. This will be a little long but it responds to several people on Brook's blog.
Crusty,
A true child abuser, absolutely. If he did force this girl to marry him or have sex with him against her will then he deserves every bit of the 10 years.”
She was 15 years old. She had not matured enough in the frontal lobes to make informed and rational decisions. Yes, that makes it “force” even if you, she and everyone else involved disagrees.
“If he didn’t though… That is an entirely different deal.”
See above.
“Under that scenario then you’d be labeling 3/4 of the men in the Bible as child abusers.”
MANY of the men in the Bible were reprehensible by our standards. I see nothing wrong with labeling them as inappropriate with children, if that applies. However, since the age of puberty back in Bible days was closer to 16 – 19 I seriously doubt that there was as much “child abuse” going on as you’d like to claim.
“Jesus own father would be a child abuser according to your definition.”
Really? I’ve never seen any definitive evidence that Mary and Joseph even existed, much less as to what their ages were when they were betrothed/married. I wonder just what you base that statement on.
“Further, despite what you or I think of their religion and lifestyle, most of the FLDS kids, from everything I’ve seen, have been raised better and healthier than the vast majority of kids in the U.S.”
Really? When they know they can be removed from secondary school and kicked out of the group OR married off to a man old enough to be their father or grandfather (and in some cases a man who IS their step-father) and you consider that “better”? Better than what?
“Deprived? Not from what I’ve seen.”
Yes. Deprived of an honest education and an honest chance to form their own opinions in life and their own judgments of what is good and what is evil. Warren found it necessary to teach girls NOT to think for themselves and most of all, NOT to consider what they might find acceptable in a marriage. In short, he spent a lot of time teaching them not to want what the vast majority of women want in a relationship; exclusivity and respect.
Michaela,
“I have been wondering also what the circumstances of the three day labor were. I can certainly imagine very, very, very dangerously stupid decisions being made for fear of prosecution, but my labor 6 mos ago was 4 days, and I was very glad they let me go that long because I avoided a c-section rather narrowly.”
Were you in a hospital at the time? Because this 16 year old girl wasn’t and not one of the adults who should have been placing her needs first was willing to take the risk of adverse repercussions for Raymond. In short, they placed the freedom of a 38(or so) year old man over the health and lives of a 16 year old girl and her unborn baby. The girl and the baby lived, but it was just as possible that they wouldn’t have lived without advanced intervention available at a hospital. At the very least a girl that young should be overseen by a trained ob/gyn when in childbirth, not general practitioner and an unlicensed “midwife”.
FA
“So the illegality of Raymond’s “crime” would hinge on plural marriage. And that’s what it actually was, of course, an illegal marriage, and in no way a “sexual assault,” except for the way Texas defined it.”
No, the illegality of Raymond’s crime was Janet’s age – which precluded “consent” from her to sex. Yes, it was a sexual assault. The fact that you are unlikely to find a judge to approve a “marriage” between a man and child from a group known to practice polygamy is another matter altogether.
Amanda,
“If teens having sex is child abuse,”
And here’s where you go wrong. See this is a logical fallacy called “Begging the Question”. The abuse is not necessarily in the fact that the girl had sex – it’s in the fact that she CANNOT “consent” to have sex with an older, experienced, and authoritarian male. The crime is in coercing girls into sex. I don’t know of any states that don’t allow for teens who experiment amongst each other. (We'd prefer they didn't, but what we prefer and what we get are generally different things.) Parents who place their children on birth control, especially when they know those children are playing around with sex, are being protective. It isn’t healthy for young girls to have children. It places them and their children at risk. So, nice try, but you could really use a logic class if you want to engage in a serious debate. I doubt you do want a real debate, however. You strike me as more of a propagandist.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
"Feminist" Mentalities
Well another poster on Brooke's blog has come up with another snide remark, and since have had more than the two shots allotted, I'll respond here.
Bruce in Montana made this comment followed by a rather amibiguous reference to "feminists":
"So Rebeck hah feels that Raymond’s children should have gone 20 years without a father instead of 5. Amazing."
My response:
Yes, I feel Raymond's children are better off without him. Raymond does not respect the law of this land, women, or the rights of children. He did not respect the life of the young girl who sacrificed her childhood to bear his child. He did not respect the life of that unborn child. He is NOT a good father, no matter how good of a show he puts on in front of others. His young daughter is far safer without him in the home than she would be with him in the home.
I have sympathy for all of his "wives" and their children. I'm sure they miss Raymond. I'm sad that they belong to a family, group and religion that set them up for this pain. However, respect for the law is part of what makes our country a wonderful place to live. Whether you believe the laws are good or not, unless they ask you to actively or passively harm someone (which, might I add, "marrying" underage teen girls IS harmful as is polygyny) then the law should be obeyed and you can strive to change it through lobbying or the courts, but to simply break it -- say by taking drugs, having sex with children, or helping yourself to items which are not yours, is wrong. The parent who teaches such things, either by example or through actual sermons and lessons, is failing their children.
Yes, Bruce, I think Raymond should have gotten the maximum penalty. It is what he deserves.
I wonder, does the man who kills someone in a drug related shooting deserve "less" time if he has a wife and children at home? Even if he's their ideal father and husband I have to think the answer would be "no". The fact is, when you make choices you have to face the consequences. Perhaps if the FLDS and the LDS had figured that out a long time ago, instead of blaming everyone but themselves for the consequences of their terrible choices, a lot more innocent men, women and children would have lived longer, happier, and more peaceful lives. Don't blame me for Raymond's decisions or the pain he has caused his family. I didn't put a gun to his head and make him be a terrible example of manhood.
Bruce in Montana made this comment followed by a rather amibiguous reference to "feminists":
"So Rebeck hah feels that Raymond’s children should have gone 20 years without a father instead of 5. Amazing."
My response:
Yes, I feel Raymond's children are better off without him. Raymond does not respect the law of this land, women, or the rights of children. He did not respect the life of the young girl who sacrificed her childhood to bear his child. He did not respect the life of that unborn child. He is NOT a good father, no matter how good of a show he puts on in front of others. His young daughter is far safer without him in the home than she would be with him in the home.
I have sympathy for all of his "wives" and their children. I'm sure they miss Raymond. I'm sad that they belong to a family, group and religion that set them up for this pain. However, respect for the law is part of what makes our country a wonderful place to live. Whether you believe the laws are good or not, unless they ask you to actively or passively harm someone (which, might I add, "marrying" underage teen girls IS harmful as is polygyny) then the law should be obeyed and you can strive to change it through lobbying or the courts, but to simply break it -- say by taking drugs, having sex with children, or helping yourself to items which are not yours, is wrong. The parent who teaches such things, either by example or through actual sermons and lessons, is failing their children.
Yes, Bruce, I think Raymond should have gotten the maximum penalty. It is what he deserves.
I wonder, does the man who kills someone in a drug related shooting deserve "less" time if he has a wife and children at home? Even if he's their ideal father and husband I have to think the answer would be "no". The fact is, when you make choices you have to face the consequences. Perhaps if the FLDS and the LDS had figured that out a long time ago, instead of blaming everyone but themselves for the consequences of their terrible choices, a lot more innocent men, women and children would have lived longer, happier, and more peaceful lives. Don't blame me for Raymond's decisions or the pain he has caused his family. I didn't put a gun to his head and make him be a terrible example of manhood.
Useless Information that I Think You Should Want to Know
Well, a bit of fun this week. I gave my Yorkie too many treats (the gristle and fat from meat I was preparing for a beef soup -- usually I split them up between her and my son's two dogs and this time I gave them all to her) and she got diarrhea. Then, before this cleared up, I let someone talk me into trying a new food for her with Omega 3 in it. Her diarrhea continued AND my son's big dog got it too. We are back to the Beneful and I am lighter in the wallet because I had to get some doggy Immodium and some antibiotics for my Ella. (Her bottom was so raw she was bleeding and we were afraid of infection. But they're all feeling fine now and (a blessing, I assure you) I haven't had to clean up a stinky pool of poo in over 24 hours.)
Less fun is the news that my great Uncle is failing fast. He's about 97 year old and he lost his wife of 70+ years about six months ago. I'm going to offer to drive my grandmother up to visit with him if my uncle can't do it for her. Uncle Harold is a really fantastic guy and I'm really sad that he's moving away from life. I understand that he's tired and missing the love of his life, but I'm still sad.
Always fun would be my fantastic grandchildren. Baby Logan ( 2 1/2 months) is now smiling and gooing at people (when he isn't giving us the skeptical eyeball look) and I hope he starts getting interested in exploring his world on his own soon. He spends a fair amount of time in a snuggli. Aidan is too cute, as always. Yesterday his brother was playing on PBS kids and Aidan came over and told him; "Excellent work, Kai! You are very good!" (Aidan has classic Autism. We cherish every case of self-initiated social contact. We also are grateful that his younger brother Kai is as close in age as he is and as spontaniously social. He has helped his brother learn to be social simply by not understanding that Aidan really doesn't care most of the time.) Kai loves his Head Start program (which he calls school) and his speech is growing by leaps and bounds. (It is notable that a portion of younger siblings of autistic children have significant speech delays that generally start catching up at about Kai's age -- he just turned 5.) So it's great that Kai is talking more, and more clearly, and Aidan is initiating activities with his brother and cousins.
I am failing miserably, again, at Nanowrimo, but I'm going to try to get going again. I'm not terribly optimistic since I'm the main cook for Thanksgiving too, but I'll work on it anyway. I DO want to be a published author one day and I won't give up on it.
So now you know more about my life than you ever cared to. :D
Less fun is the news that my great Uncle is failing fast. He's about 97 year old and he lost his wife of 70+ years about six months ago. I'm going to offer to drive my grandmother up to visit with him if my uncle can't do it for her. Uncle Harold is a really fantastic guy and I'm really sad that he's moving away from life. I understand that he's tired and missing the love of his life, but I'm still sad.
Always fun would be my fantastic grandchildren. Baby Logan ( 2 1/2 months) is now smiling and gooing at people (when he isn't giving us the skeptical eyeball look) and I hope he starts getting interested in exploring his world on his own soon. He spends a fair amount of time in a snuggli. Aidan is too cute, as always. Yesterday his brother was playing on PBS kids and Aidan came over and told him; "Excellent work, Kai! You are very good!" (Aidan has classic Autism. We cherish every case of self-initiated social contact. We also are grateful that his younger brother Kai is as close in age as he is and as spontaniously social. He has helped his brother learn to be social simply by not understanding that Aidan really doesn't care most of the time.) Kai loves his Head Start program (which he calls school) and his speech is growing by leaps and bounds. (It is notable that a portion of younger siblings of autistic children have significant speech delays that generally start catching up at about Kai's age -- he just turned 5.) So it's great that Kai is talking more, and more clearly, and Aidan is initiating activities with his brother and cousins.
I am failing miserably, again, at Nanowrimo, but I'm going to try to get going again. I'm not terribly optimistic since I'm the main cook for Thanksgiving too, but I'll work on it anyway. I DO want to be a published author one day and I won't give up on it.
So now you know more about my life than you ever cared to. :D
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Responding to Closed Thread
As has become a pattern with this poster, First Amendment over on Brooke's blog has made a misleading post just before Brooke has closed the thread. He/she has an amazing ability to sense just when it's about to close. So, since I did not get my rebuttal I will respond here, for my own satisfaction.
FA posted this:
"I will give your psychological assessment as much weight as I give Dr. Beall’s, who claims just the opposite–that all FLDS women and children are suffering from PTSD. He knows this even without examining them, just as you know they are actually tough little cookies who can be kidnapped at gunpoint and shipped to a concentration camp, no harm done."
In response to this from me:
"I notice, FA, you ignore the part where I said that the FLDS mothers and children don’t actually seem that fragile. But then, you seem to select your “reality” quite carefully."
Which was in response to this from him/her:
"Rebeckah says: If the FLDS are so fragile that they cannot adapt to changes then the parents need to look at what they are doing wrong. It is part of the job of parenting to try and teach your children to handle change, crisis and trauma.
—
This statement is so extraordinary that I have to copy it and highlight it. It’s right in line with a CPS apologist a while back, who claimed the ranch children had traumatized the CPS workers."
Notice how he/she starts by claiming the need to point out some implied fuzzy thinking on my part which is exemplified by a careful excerpt of my original comment. (I'll include it in its entirety at the end of this post.)
My response was pointing out that my argument -- the one he/she finds so extraordinary -- is rhetorical, that I do NOT, in fact, feel that that women and children of the YFZ are traumatized and scarred for life by their experiences with CPS and Law Enforcement. (Please allow me to point out as well that I am NOT a blind CPS supporter. I believe it has too much power as an organization and not enough oversight.)
So, how does FA respond to me observation that my comment was essentially rhetorical? He/she turns it into a snitty remark about me not being an expert. Now I made no attempt to convince anyone to believe according to my opinions. I have NEVER claimed any expertise other than that of a human being who has had encounters with CPS in the past myself. (Oddly enough, both my son and I survived and neither of us were traumatized. I guess we just didn't know how traumatic it was.)
Okay, now, for your reading delight, here is my first comment in this chain:
"MA, I stand by what I said. If the FLDS are so fragile that they cannot adapt to changes then the parents need to look at what they are doing wrong. It is part of the job of parenting to try and teach your children to handle change, crisis and trauma.
To be honest, what I have read of the way some of the mothers have handled their children’s stress is excellent — like the mother who bought some parakeets for her daughters to care for. Her instincts were spot on. However it rather makes your melodrama a bit — well — melodramatic. Perhaps you should allow the mothers and children to tell us personally of their trauma. You appear to be postulating harm that you can’t back up."
I trust that it, in its entirety, shows that the intent of my comment is nothing like what FA is attempting to make it. However, I welcome feedback. If my comment is really unclear, please feel free to tell me how you interpreted it.
FA posted this:
"I will give your psychological assessment as much weight as I give Dr. Beall’s, who claims just the opposite–that all FLDS women and children are suffering from PTSD. He knows this even without examining them, just as you know they are actually tough little cookies who can be kidnapped at gunpoint and shipped to a concentration camp, no harm done."
In response to this from me:
"I notice, FA, you ignore the part where I said that the FLDS mothers and children don’t actually seem that fragile. But then, you seem to select your “reality” quite carefully."
Which was in response to this from him/her:
"Rebeckah says: If the FLDS are so fragile that they cannot adapt to changes then the parents need to look at what they are doing wrong. It is part of the job of parenting to try and teach your children to handle change, crisis and trauma.
—
This statement is so extraordinary that I have to copy it and highlight it. It’s right in line with a CPS apologist a while back, who claimed the ranch children had traumatized the CPS workers."
Notice how he/she starts by claiming the need to point out some implied fuzzy thinking on my part which is exemplified by a careful excerpt of my original comment. (I'll include it in its entirety at the end of this post.)
My response was pointing out that my argument -- the one he/she finds so extraordinary -- is rhetorical, that I do NOT, in fact, feel that that women and children of the YFZ are traumatized and scarred for life by their experiences with CPS and Law Enforcement. (Please allow me to point out as well that I am NOT a blind CPS supporter. I believe it has too much power as an organization and not enough oversight.)
So, how does FA respond to me observation that my comment was essentially rhetorical? He/she turns it into a snitty remark about me not being an expert. Now I made no attempt to convince anyone to believe according to my opinions. I have NEVER claimed any expertise other than that of a human being who has had encounters with CPS in the past myself. (Oddly enough, both my son and I survived and neither of us were traumatized. I guess we just didn't know how traumatic it was.)
Okay, now, for your reading delight, here is my first comment in this chain:
"MA, I stand by what I said. If the FLDS are so fragile that they cannot adapt to changes then the parents need to look at what they are doing wrong. It is part of the job of parenting to try and teach your children to handle change, crisis and trauma.
To be honest, what I have read of the way some of the mothers have handled their children’s stress is excellent — like the mother who bought some parakeets for her daughters to care for. Her instincts were spot on. However it rather makes your melodrama a bit — well — melodramatic. Perhaps you should allow the mothers and children to tell us personally of their trauma. You appear to be postulating harm that you can’t back up."
I trust that it, in its entirety, shows that the intent of my comment is nothing like what FA is attempting to make it. However, I welcome feedback. If my comment is really unclear, please feel free to tell me how you interpreted it.
Proposition 71
I'm going to go on record here for saying that I'm very happy that Proposition 71 succeded in this past election. While I see no reason why homosexual partners can't be "married" like heterosexuals at least this allows them the same rights and responsibilities as others. I'm happy for two main reasons. I'm happy that other human beings are being given a modicum of dignity and respect and I'm further happy that religion and state are truly being kept separate in my state. I find anti-gay mentality pretty hateful when you strip aside many people's sugar coatings of "Hate the sin and love the sinner" or "God loves Gays too", etc. And I'm ashamed that there was a time in my life when I spouted similar nonsense. Okay, rant over. :D
Friday, November 6, 2009
Howdy
Okay, occasionally I get into debates with people and I can't respond to them on the venue where the debate started. Here we can continue debates, if people wish, without anyone having to surrender privacy or make up a throw away e-mail account. So here I am if you feel the need. If something happens that makes me want to vent, this might be a spot for that too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
