The Australian "custody sisters"

[smartcooky]

And the other point that has to be made here....

... and this is a point that the members here in favor of parental kidnappers don't get.... and one reason I'm glad it's in the media.

This tactic... parental kidnapping can never be allowed to work. Parental kidnapping can never be a successful tactic in gaining custody in a civilized society.

A few posters on this board want parental kidnapping to be a successful method of gaining custody, without ever thinking of the damage that can be done in future custody cases.

Of course parental kidnapping should not be allowed to succeed, but that does not give the Police or the courts a licence to brutalise the children involved in the fashion that these kids were dealt with.

 

[banquetbear]

A strawman is often the best way to counter an argument that is itself a strawman!

No, they freaked out because they were told to freak out by their mother, who had arranged for the press to be there to cover it.

This comment was not a strawman. But at least you have the guts to admit you did post a strawman arguement.

...so I take it the answer to my question is a yes?

 

[banquetbear]

Of course parental kidnapping should not be allowed to succeed, but that does not give the Police or the courts a licence to brutalise the children involved in the fashion that these kids were dealt with.

...another strawman. The kids were not "brutalized." They were not assaulted by the police. They were not assaulted by their father. It would be much more interesting if you were to debate the facts of this case without the need to make it more "exciting."

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

...another strawman. The kids were not "brutalized." They were not assaulted by the police. They were not assaulted by their father.

And yet you say they were taken to Australia by "force," even though we have no reason to think they were unwilling to go.

I think your lexicon could use a consistency check.

 

[banquetbear]

And yet you say they were taken to Australia by "force," even though we have no reason to think they were unwilling to go.

I think your lexicon could use a consistency check.

...no I actually don't think so.

If you think I'm being inconsistent point out where I have been so. The girls were taken by force by the mum to Australia. The girls were taken by force back to Italy. They were not assaulted by the police. Where have I been inconsistent?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

...no I actually don't think so.

If you think I'm being inconsistent point out where I have been so. The girls were taken by force by the mum to Australia. The girls were taken by force back to Italy. They were not assaulted by the police. Where have I been inconsistent?

You're defining words to suit your convenience, so as to equate two radically different sets of circumstances. We have no indication that any force was used to take these kids to Australia. To say otherwise is empty blather.

As for whether they were brutalized and assaulted to compel their return, I can only say that if I were physically dragged out of my home, forced onto an airplane and flown to a different continent, I would feel very much brutalized and assaulted.

 

[smartcooky]

...no I actually don't think so.

If you think I'm being inconsistent point out where I have been so. The girls were taken by force by the mum to Australia. The girls were taken by force back to Italy. They were not assaulted by the police. Where have I been inconsistent?

Bollocks! The girls were NOT dragged out of their home in Italy and forcibly put on a plane to Australia.

 

[banquetbear]

Bollocks! The girls were NOT dragged out of their home in Italy and forcibly put on a plane to Australia.

...I never stated they were dragged from their home in Italy and forcibly put on a plane. Another strawman from you yet again!

 

[banquetbear]

You're defining words to suit your convenience, so as to equate two radically different sets of circumstances. We have no indication that any force was used to take these kids to Australia. To say otherwise is empty blather.

...no I have not redfined the words. Force is a rather mild word. What the mother actually did was kidnap her kids. She abducted them. She's a kidnapper. She kept them from the father for two years. What the mother did was several times more harmful to the kids than a couple of two minute incidents staged for the cameras.

Stop playing games. The mum is a criminal and its only the good graces of the father that keep her from being a fugitive.

To say otherwise is just empty blather.

As for whether they were brutalized and assaulted to compel their return, I can only say that if I were physically dragged out of my home, forced onto an airplane and flown to a different continent, I would feel very much brutalized and assaulted.

You know this happens all the time, don't you? People who stay in a country illegally (for example overstayers) get dragged out of their homes, forced onto airplanes and flown to different continents. They might "feel" like they were brutalized and assaulted, but they wouldn't have been in the eyes of the law. Being dragged does not meet the threshold of being brutalized and assaulted no matter your "feelings." To claim that it does diminishes actual cases of assault. You should worry about those.

 

[smartcooky]

...I never stated they were dragged from their home in Italy and forcibly put on a plane. Another strawman from you yet again!

Let me remind you of what you said

"The girls were taken by force by the mum to Australia. The girls were taken by force back to Italy."

You are trying to equate the two. You are maximising one side of the argument by minimising the other. Since we already know the force that was used to take them back to Italy, by juxtaposition of the two statements, you are implying that a similar force was used to bring them to Australia in the first place. There is no evidence that what you are implying is true, but if you have such evidence, then we would all like to see it. Put up or shut up!!

 

[banquetbear]

Let me remind you of what you said

"The girls were taken by force by the mum to Australia. The girls were taken by force back to Italy."

You are trying to equate the two. You are maximising one side of the argument by minimising the other. Since we already know the force that was used to take them back to Italy, by juxtaposition of the two statements, you are implying that a similar force was used to bring them to Australia in the first place. There is no evidence that what you are implying is true, but if you have such evidence, then we would all like to see it. Put up or shut up!!

...strawman argument again.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Don't create an argument for me, argue against it, then ask me to back it up. My words were clear and absolute. I never implied a similar force was used.

I clearly wasn't wrong about in my assessment of your debating style, was I?

Speaking of minimizing: the mum abducted the kids. When are you going to stop minimizing that particular fact?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

...no I have not redfined the words. Force is a rather mild word. What the mother actually did was kidnap her kids. She abducted them. She's a kidnapper. She kept them from the father for two years. What the mother did was several times more harmful to the kids than a couple of two minute incidents staged for the cameras.

Stop playing games. The mum is a criminal and its only the good graces of the father that keep her from being a fugitive.

Repeating an assertion in stronger terms does not make it any more true.

 

[banquetbear]

Repeating an assertion in stronger terms does not make it any more true.

...it is if its true.

Which assertion are you stating I said is not true?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

...strawman argument again.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Don't create an argument for me, argue against it, then ask me to back it up. My words were clear and absolute. I never implied a similar force was used.

He's not putting words in your mouth. He's quoting you exactly. Your words may have been "clear and absolute," but your meaning was not. Otherwise you wouldn't have had to submit a definition tailored to fit your assertion:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9034691&postcount=605

If you now accept that the two situations did not involve similar force, then I have to wonder what point you thought you were making in the first place.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Of course parental kidnapping should not be allowed to succeed, but that does not give the Police or the courts a licence to brutalise the children involved in the fashion that these kids were dealt with.

As long as the not allowed to succeed doesn't involve actually doing anything about it right?

What should have happened after the mother set up this situation? All of her supporters like you here don't seem to have a good answer to that.

 

[joesixpack]

And yet you say they were taken to Australia by "force," even though we have no reason to think they were unwilling to go.

I think your lexicon could use a consistency check.

I think you should look up equivocate.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let me remind you of what you said

"The girls were taken by force by the mum to Australia. The girls were taken by force back to Italy."

You are trying to equate the two. You are maximising one side of the argument by minimising the other. Since we already know the force that was used to take them back to Italy, by juxtaposition of the two statements, you are implying that a similar force was used to bring them to Australia in the first place. There is no evidence that what you are implying is true, but if you have such evidence, then we would all like to see it. Put up or shut up!!

I am sure she was quite clear that they would never see any of their evil Italian friends of family again. This would be much of a relief to them of course.

And the winding them up to fight the police, genius parenting that is, mother of the *********** year am I right?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

...it is if its true.

Which assertion are you stating I said is not true?

All of it. You say she's a kidnapper and a criminal, and that what she did was more harmful to the kids than their repatriation to Italy. I don't think the kids see it that way at all. Nor apparently do the authorities, because she has not been criminally charged.

 

[ponderingturtle]

All of it. You say she's a kidnapper and a criminal, and that what she did was more harmful to the kids than their repatriation to Italy. I don't think the kids see it that way at all. Nor apparently do the authorities, because she has not been criminally charged.

And will they agree with that in 20 years?

How many media events with you fighting the cops did your mother set up?

 

[banquetbear]

He's not putting words in your mouth. He's quoting you exactly. Your words may have been "clear and absolute," but your meaning was not. Otherwise you wouldn't have had to submit a definition tailored to fit your assertion:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9034691&postcount=605

If you now accept that the two situations did not involve similar force, then I have to wonder what point you thought you were making in the first place.

...you didn't link to a "definition." If I had wanted to post a definition I would have linked to a dictionary which would have backed up my definition of the word force. The post you linked to is an example of me giving an example.

I think your lexicon could use a consistency check.

He clearly put words in my mouth: as demonstrated by how he turned my single sentence into a paragraph of things I didn't say: then asked me to defend it. I'm not the one reading so much into the definition of the word "force." Good grief: simply concede already. The girls were forced to stay in Australia. There is not doubt about that at all.