The Australian "custody sisters"

[TragicMonkey]

So you're now claiming it was a pre-emptive kidnapping?

Evidence? Of course you don't have any, you're just making [feces] up now because you have no actual argument.

I'm not claiming that, I'm pointing out the absurdity of insisting the mother can only be motivated by selfish reasons and the father only by unselfish ones, based entirely on the fact that the mother broke the law.

And there's no need to be so rude. If I can be polite so can you.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I doubt you'll get a rational answer, hell one of the mother's supporters here would even justify her committing genocide to keep the father from seeing his kids.

I believe most people reading this realize what an absurd and ridiculous remark that is.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No, I didn't.

What I said is that it would be a very sad thing. To elaborate, I'd want to know how it happened, and why, and what could be done to stop it from happening again.

And I note, yet another person who flatly refuses to answer the question. I've asked it quite a few times now.

I think others have answered. I know I have.

I will add that your question is not very probative. The "What if" question has very little meaning when there is so much evidence of what actually is. Sure, you can ignore all of the facts and ask what if there was no-plane or what if there was an intruder in the toilet, but here we actually do have facts that you are not addressing. Those facts were reviewed by a court and point to a manipulative person who schemed to deny her kids access to their father for no reason other than "Italians are all liars" and then proceeded to turn them against their father over a two year period of estrangement.

What if he sells them into slavery?

What if he treats them poorly?

What if they hate him?

What if their mother treated them like ******

Oh wait, one of those already happened . . .

 

[ehcks]

I'm not claiming that, I'm pointing out the absurdity of insisting the mother can only be motivated by selfish reasons and the father only by unselfish ones, based entirely on the fact that the mother broke the law.

And there's no need to be so rude. If I can be polite so can you.

Intent and motivation doesn't matter. One broke the law, the other hasn't.

If there is a legally justifiable reason for this law-breaking, it will be heard in court.

 

[joesixpack]

I'm not claiming that, I'm pointing out the absurdity of insisting the mother can only be motivated by selfish reasons and the father only by unselfish ones, based entirely on the fact that the mother broke the law.

And there's no need to be so rude. If I can be polite so can you.

Do you have any proof that the children were in any sort of danger that would have justified spiriting them away? If not, then please explain your defense of (or at lest your failure to condemn) the mother's actions.

 

[Matthew Best]

Intent and motivation doesn't matter. One broke the law, the other hasn't.

Or just hasn't been caught yet.

 

[Dr. Keith]

And there's no need to be so rude. If I can be polite so can you.

Indeed.

I only wish I could be half as creative as you. Being polite is easy by comparison.

I believe most people reading this realize what an absurd and ridiculous remark that is.

Yep.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Intent and motivation doesn't matter. One broke the law, the other hasn't.

I'm pretty sure most legal and ethical systems (and I an not conflating the two) do indeed hold that intent and motivation matter.

 

[joesixpack]

Or just hasn't been caught yet.

So we should just assume that he has, that the mother acted heroically, and return the kids to Australia? Is this how critical thinking looks to you?

 

[joesixpack]

I'm pretty sure most legal and ethical systems (and I an not conflating the two) do indeed hold that intent and motivation matter.

Please tell me her intent.

ETA, I have to laugh at your invocation of mens rea as a defense of her actions. Are you suggesting that she accidentally kidnapped her daughters?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Intent and motivation doesn't matter. One broke the law, the other hasn't.

If there is a legally justifiable reason for this law-breaking, it will be heard in court.

Or just hasn't been caught yet.

So, we should asume the father broke the law even though it appears that he has done everything within the law and even the mother has not accused him of breaking the law? Nice.

BTW, I think intent and motivation do matter. But there is no evidence that her intent was good or that her motivation was the children's best interest. In fact, the Australian judge found just the opposite.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Do you have any proof that the children were in any sort of danger that would have justified spiriting them away? If not, then please explain your defense of (or at lest your failure to condemn) the mother's actions.

I never said they were in danger, and I never justified spiriting them away. My position is only concerned with the current state of affairs, regardless of how they got that way. Which is why I don't care about the law being broken, or who did what. What I consider to be of primary importance is what the children want to do. Whether their mother was wrong to take them or poisoned their minds is less important. I may, you may, everyone may feel that the mother is a vile person who did terrible things, and that the children ought to feel the same way. But if they don't they don't, and it doesn't matter a heap of beans because its their lives, not their parents, not the courts, not the Internet's.

As for my "failure to condemn" the woman, I don't feel it necessary to either judge people or announce my judgments if I have them. If anything, I feel the woman is abysmally stupid. She would have been wiser to become a widow than an exwife, but hindsight is 20/20.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Please tell me her intent.

ETA, I have to laugh at your invocation of mens rea as a defense of her actions. Are you suggesting that she accidentally kidnapped her daughters?

I was only responding to what seemed to be an assertion that intent never matters. I wasn't commenting specifically on this case.

 

[Wildy]

The court's written judgment setting out the reasons for returning the kids to Italy is online here. An interesting read - the judge is very critical both of the public campaign waged by the mother's family, and of the way he believes their views have influenced the children:

Thanks for that. I haven't read all of it yet but it already is an interesting read.

Might it also be the case that the children are illegally in Australia, and Australia is well within its rights to deport them?

I wouldn't think so since their mother is an Australian. For all we know they might have made sure their kids have dual citizenship by registering with the Australian government.

 

[ehcks]

She would have been wiser to become a widow than an exwife, but hindsight is 20/20.

Through this entire post I was getting more and more angry at you, to the point I said you were a horrible person to my monitor.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[joesixpack]

I never said they were in danger, and I never justified spiriting them away. My position is only concerned with the current state of affairs, regardless of how they got that way. Which is why I don't care about the law being broken, or who did what. What I consider to be of primary importance is what the children want to do. Whether their mother was wrong to take them or poisoned their minds is less important. I may, you may, everyone may feel that the mother is a vile person who did terrible things, and that the children ought to feel the same way. But if they don't they don't, and it doesn't matter a heap of beans because its their lives, not their parents, not the courts, not the Internet's.

OK, so having given you ample opportunity you've made your position clear. I suppose it's slightly different than the strawman that's been made of it, but not by much. It's based on an absolute ignorance of child rearing, parenting, and developmental psychology. You are also pretty ignorant of the law as well, so I suppose it's good that you don't base your argument on that. All you really argue is that a couple of teenage girls have a strong opinion so we should go with it.

As for my "failure to condemn" the woman, I don't feel it necessary to either judge people or announce my judgments if I have them. If anything, I feel the woman is abysmally stupid. She would have been wiser to become a widow than an exwife, but hindsight is 20/20.

So before I create a strawman of your argument, please clarify, are you advocating that she should have murdered her ex?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Through this entire post I was getting more and more angry at you, to the point I said you were a horrible person to my monitor.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Chillax. At least you now have something good to say about the mother: if she were truly as bad as she could be, she would have murdered her ex and thus avoided all this mess. See? She's not a Disney villain after all.

At least, nor a smart one.

As for me and my ethics, I don't believe I've ever claimed to have any. I would never be in that particular position, as I don't believe in monogamy and don't want children, but if I were in her shoes I might well consider murder an option, if I had expected such trouble. But I doubt it would have been necessary, murder is fairly far down on the list of things to resort to.

And you really think I'm a horrible person (before the murder remark) simply because I'd let the kids choose and accept their choice even if it seemed to award a "win" to someone who broke a law? How odd. Unless its because anyone who disagrees with you is a horrible person, in which case life must be quite a valley of woe.

 

[damoe]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Well ehcks, TragicMonkey also said this:

If you love someone, laws do not matter to you. I'd break the law for my mom. I'd lie, cheat, steal, murder, and genocide for her.

Seems to be fairly representative of the ethics of the pro Mother side.

 

[ehcks]

I would never be in that particular position, as I don't believe in monogamy and don't want children, but if I were in her shoes I might well consider murder an option, if I had expected such trouble.

What such trouble? That kidnapping your own children is illegal and gets the police after you? No one has actually shown that there was a reason for the kidnapping. No one has shown any evidence of a bad father, or any other reason why the kids would need to be illegally removed from him.

Also, murder would have gotten the kids taken away by the Australian DCP just about instantly. Not after two years.

 

[TragicMonkey]

OK, so having given you ample opportunity you've made your position clear. I suppose it's slightly different than the strawman that's been made of it, but not by much. It's based on an absolute ignorance of child rearing, parenting, and developmental psychology. You are also pretty ignorant of the law as well, so I suppose it's good that you don't base your argument on that. All you really argue is that a couple of teenage girls have a strong opinion so we should go with it.

So before I create a strawman of your argument, please clarify, are you advocating that she should have murdered her ex?

I just care less about law, developmental psychology, and peoples opinions on childrearing than I do about letting people chose their own path to happiness. You may call me evil and ignorant if you like, but fortunately I'm not in a position that I'm required to win approval from you.

As for murder, I never said she should have, merely that it may have been wiser if she had. If you can't see the difference between considering a possibility and advocating it, then perhaps you should stay out of philosophical discussions.