The Australian "custody sisters"

[smartcooky]

No you said it is always wrong to use violence against children... I disagreed.... You're wrong.

Pick one, you can't have it both ways.

Is it ok to use violence on children? Give me a yes or no answer, don't qualify it.

 

[Caper]

Pick one, you can't have it both ways.

Is it ok to use violence on children? Give me a yes or no answer, don't qualify it.

I did pick one... yes it's ok to use violence against children if the need arises.

 

[tyr_13]

So, you are arguing that violence = good, or that violence sometimes = good?

Well if you are, the you and I are philosophically poles apart, so much so, that we will never agree.

It is my position that violence is a last resort of the incompetent, and that it invariably leads to even more violence and that the level of violence in a society is inversely proportional to its level of enlightenment.

I've seen what violence can do to a family, not my own, but my wife's, and to some of the families of kids I used to teach.

Violence is OK? I think not!

False dichotomy. Really, you're so full of fallacy now that you've become the best argument against yourself.

Yes, 'violence' (force to those of us not trying to use loaded words) is often necessary when other options have become unviable. You're going by the simplistic maxim 'violence is always wrong' and then labeling the action you don't like violence. As with most things, this can be dis-proven by a bear attack.

You haven't offered other options that don't reward criminal behavior. Oh I'm sorry, you're still on being wrong about crimes as well, so, illegal offenses. What can we do to make people comply with court orders? With laws? With anything? Most of the time it is by consent of those in the systems, by convincing them, but when they refuse lawful requirements? Guess what, it's force. It's jail or fines and when they don't even consent to be subject to those it's force, physical force, to bring them into compliance. That's true regardless of age, but it simply takes less force to make a four year old sit in the corner than a sixteen year old. When someone does something illegal but won't let you punish them, do you simply let them off? Only mothers? Again, what other crimes or offenses can be ignored if done by mothers, or by children that refuse to move?

What were they to do? Simply wait until they complied? At some point the only option left is force because the other parties dictated it. Nothing less had worked.

You're working from broad points and generalities to producing an insultingly unnuanced position buttressed by self-righteousness and emotion. Surprise of surprises, it isn't working too well on a skeptic's forum.

 

[joesixpack]

As with most things, this can be dis-proven by a bear attack.

Words to live by.

 

[Wildy]

Yes, 'violence' (force to those of us not trying to use loaded words) is often necessary when other options have become unviable. You're going by the simplistic maxim 'violence is always wrong' and then labeling the action you don't like violence. As with most things, this can be dis-proven by a bear attack.

Clearly the right thing to do is to talk calmly with the bear, in private away from the media, after removing all the accomplices to being a bear.

 

[smartcooky]

I did pick one... yes it's ok to use violence against children if the need arises.

Then we will have to agree to disagree

Yes, 'violence' (force to those of us not trying to use loaded words) is often necessary when other options have become unviable. You're going by the simplistic maxim 'violence is always wrong' and then labeling the action you don't like violence. As with most things, this can be dis-proven by a bear attack.

I'm talking about violence against children.

Read post 799 again, and this time, really, really read it, especially this bit

"I have always argued, right from my very first post in this thread, that I believe what happened when the girls were dragged away from their mother was wrong. IMO, it was handled appallingly by all concerned, including the police. That is an opinion I will never change. There is never any justification for the use of violence with children. "

You haven't offered other options that don't reward criminal behaviour..

Yes I have, two days ago in post 706

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9048382&postcount=706

FHS try to keep up with the debate!!

What would have been wrong with the Police going into the house and instead of dragging the children away and thereby creating a big public spectacle and media feeding frenzy, dragging the mother away, put her in the paddy wagon and take her off to the cells for the night to cool off? They could even have charged her with obstructing the Police in the execution of their Duty (or whatever they call it in Australia) and that would have kept her out of the way until the girls were on their way to Italy.

Then they could have brought in negotiators into the house, and the negotiations take place behind closed doors away from the media. It might have taken a few hours to convince them to leave, but that would be immeasurably better than what actually happened.

BTW:
1. I have always maintained that what the Police did was wrong, and that the violence against the children could have been avoided if calmer heads had prevailed on the part of the authorities.

2. I have never said that what the mother did was OK and that she should not have been punished (if you disagree, please cite the relevant post). What I have always said that what she did was not the same as a kidnapping for ransom or other nefarious purposes and that it is never treated that way. It may be a criminal offence in Italy, it certainly is not in Australia.

 

[smartcooky]

Clearly the right thing to do is to talk calmly with the bear, in private away from the media, after removing all the accomplices to being a bear.

No bears in Australia or New Zealand, so the problem doesn't arise, unless, of course, you are afraid of being attacked by a pack of ferocious koalas

 

[Shiner]

When you commit an assault, you use violence on the person you are assaulting.

When you use violence on a person, you are assaulting them.

The victim is unlikely to spend a lot of time pondering over the fine distinctions.

So, self defense is not an option. If somebody tries to punch you, and you pin their arms to their sides, your committing violence? Assault? No.

Ever heard of verbal assault?

Just the first two things that shout out to me.

Bad definition is bad.

Violence is never right? The girls initiated the violence. You should read more on this case. The police didn't just kick down the door and haul them off. Of course there was a negotiation. If the media weren't there, it would have been just like the time they absconded in May. When the police found them, there were no media and there was no struggle. The girls were calm and friendly.

It was a cunning stunt. Capiche?

 

[Caper]

Then we will have to agree to disagree

Really? So if a 12 year old brought a gun into a school to shoot up as many students as possible, you don't think violence is a viable option for dealing with the child...... It's always wrong to use violence against children?

 

[theprestige]

As with most things, this can be dis-proven by a bear attack.

Let me try:

We were in this town in northern Manitoba where polar bears literally will walk down Main Street. There are polar bears in this town. People will leave their cars and houses unlocked, and it's perfectly good form just to duck into any open door you can find when there's a polar bear chasing you.

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/02/170779528/the-inconvenient-truth-about-polar-bears

A polar bear is approaching. Your child refuses to take refuge in the nearest building. Do you physically force them into the building against their will, or leave them in the street with the polar bear?

I submit that violence against children can be the most moral kind of violence there is.

 

[Wildy]

Clearly theprestige the correct answer is that if the kids want to play with the polar bears you should let them because dragging them kicking and screaming into a safe place is barbaric.

 

[smartcooky]

Really? So if a 12 year old brought a gun into a school to shoot up as many students as possible, you don't think violence is a viable option for dealing with the child...... It's always wrong to use violence against children?

Now you're just being stupid!

If these girls were carrying guns, they certainly hid them well!

 

[Caper]

Now you're just being stupid!

If these girls were carrying guns, they certainly hid them well!

I'm not being stupid. You believe it's ALWAYS wrong to use violence against children.... If a child is trying to harm themselves or others, using violence is not an option for you.... I disagree.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Now you're just being stupid!

If these girls were carrying guns, they certainly hid them well!

They were attacking the police. When is that allowable?

Sure tasers and pepper spray should probably have been used here but still.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Kids make the best protesters. They can block access and the police can't pull them away. Genius!

 

[tyr_13]

Then we will have to agree to disagree



I'm talking about violence against children.

Read post 799 again, and this time, really, really read it, especially this bit

"I have always argued, right from my very first post in this thread, that I believe what happened when the girls were dragged away from their mother was wrong. IMO, it was handled appallingly by all concerned, including the police. That is an opinion I will never change. There is never any justification for the use of violence with children. "

You ignored the part of my post where I explained that to be wrong too. Snipping is so handy. 'Violence' against children is absolutely necessary.

Yes I have, two days ago in post 706

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9048382&postcount=706

FHS try to keep up with the debate!!

What would have been wrong with the Police going into the house and instead of dragging the children away and thereby creating a big public spectacle and media feeding frenzy, dragging the mother away, put her in the paddy wagon and take her off to the cells for the night to cool off? They could even have charged her with obstructing the Police in the execution of their Duty (or whatever they call it in Australia) and that would have kept her out of the way until the girls were on their way to Italy.

Then they could have brought in negotiators into the house, and the negotiations take place behind closed doors away from the media. It might have taken a few hours to convince them to leave, but that would be immeasurably better than what actually happened.

If the children let the police do that that is. With the girls in the way you would have to use force, I'm sorry, violence, against them. And if the removal of the mother didn't move the girls? Well dang, no choice but to let them stay there.

Negotiators were used, please try to keep up.

BTW:
1. I have always maintained that what the Police did was wrong, and that the violence against the children could have been avoided if calmer heads had prevailed on the part of the authorities.

2. I have never said that what the mother did was OK and that she should not have been punished (if you disagree, please cite the relevant post). What I have always said that what she did was not the same as a kidnapping for ransom or other nefarious purposes and that it is never treated that way. It may be a criminal offence in Italy, it certainly is not in Australia.

Your dogged determination to address criticism of the mother and her damaging actions against the girls by instead talking about violence against children is a cowardly way to deflect real discussion of what was going on. The mother being held accountable for her actions would mean that at some point the children were going to be dragged away from her kicking and screaming. That's the way she set this up, not the police. Your Monday morning quarterbacking is tedious at best.

 

[tyr_13]

I've been too adversarial about this. The 'think of the children' argument gets too me, especially when I think it is being used to justify worse damage to children then the alternative. I'll try to object more reasonably.

 

[uke2se]

I don't understand how this thread has reached this lenght. It's a clear cut case of kidnapping. The mother should be thrown in jail by all rights. She remains free only because the father is concerned for the wellfare of the children.

It is clear that the mother has wantonly and deliberately tried to poison the minds of her daughters and pervert the course of justice, as evidenced by the court decision and documents from both Italy and Australia. It is clear from the 60 minutes interview that she is aided in these criminal acts by her mother and grand-mother.

Even if the father turned out to be a "workaholic" who has little time to spend with his children (which doesn't seem to be the case either), he should be, and probably will be, granted sole custody of his daughters. The mother is clearly unfit as a parent, and the environment she has provided her daughters with is damaging.

 

[theprestige]

Now you're just being stupid!

If these girls were carrying guns, they certainly hid them well!

smartcooky, I'm confused. You seem to be switching back and forth between the general case of "no violence against children ever" and the special case "of no violence against these specific children in this specific scenario".

You seem to switch between the general and specific cases whenever doing so helps you avoid defending your previous claim in post 799: "There is never any justification for the use of violence with children. "

Your claim in post 799 is clearly a claim about the general case. Several people have given examples that challenge your general case claim: Examples of children who are a danger to others or to themselves.

Do you agree that in those examples, violence against children may be justified? Yes or no, please.

 

[kerikiwi]

Do you agree that in those examples, violence against children may be justified? Yes or no, please.

I am fairly confident you will get further deflection in response to this.