Think of the Children

Post Reply New Topic

Then we should take the children away from the parents that let kids participate in the pro-Union protests.



And he's placing blame on the victims not the perpetrators.



If you can't see the problem with this entire argument of M_P's you have a serious problem.

By saying you can take away the Phelps children that means that you are saying you can take away the children of anyone that has their children at a protest whether it be pro-Union, teaparty, etc. Hell, I could say this argument would justify taking away the children of the protestors in the civil rights movement.

You would have a point if the Phelps people had engaged in actual violence, the fact is they have not.

What M_P suggests spits in the face of the law, tramples on their 1st Amendment Protections, etc. You think I support these Phelps morons, I don't. However, I will not support an blatent attempt to trample the 1st Amendment.

If the pro-Union protests are found to be likely hotspots for violent activity, and these parents are found to take kids in spite of this, then SURE.


Not really, he's saying that the lifestyle of the Phelps's has proven to be unsuitable for children, and that these children need to be protected, thus meaning that either these children have to be taken away or EASY modifications to how this all works out, need to be taken.


Inuyasha, it seems clearer that you have a serious problem.


Yes, of course it would! The argument is about the protection of children. If it didn't apply neutrally across political grounds, it *would* be a poor argument, as it *would* just be blatant political maneuvering. The issue is that a lot of these protests don't prove to be historically violent, and a lot of people don't bring their kids anyway.


Except that's missing the point. The point of this has nothing to do with whether the Phelps bring the violence onto themselves, the argument is that they are bringing their children to an activity that has proven to be a danger to the health of people who engage in it.


This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment though. In fact, an easy way to deal with the problem presented would be to hire a babysitter. Nobody is saying that the Phelps church cannot protest, only that they cannot bring their kids to these protests.

The fact that you fail to engage this, even though a lot of people seem to "get it" is a clear sign of a problem. I don't really care about solving your problem, Inuyasha.

'Cause we should always cave in to people who want to squelch free speech, eh?

By that argument, anyone who ventures into a bad area of town with their children should have their children taken away. The police could just cruise through the slums picking up everyone under 14 and assign them to foster families. They wouldn't even have to check who the actual parents were.

^Removing all the children from the slums is probably a good idea.
Horrible from a civil/human rights perspective, of course, but not without some merit.

I'd think that the slums would be less dangerous than a Phelps protest.

In any case, I was really thinking about a Catholic parish. The danger may different, but it would still be ever-present.

Actually they are, only in the case of pro-Union protests, they have a tendency of the protestors causing the violence, not being the victims of violence.



Here is an easy modification, the police actually arrest the people that are using violence against the Phelps people.





What M_P is proposing is encouraging people to use violence against peaceful protesters. It incourages violence as intimidation, while I'm sure far-left radicals would love this, you've just given people to go out and get a gun for self-defense get training on handling said gun, and get a conceal-and-carry permit.



No, this is about using violence as intimidation and the threat of Government sponsored kidnapping. I guarentee if we substituted Homosexual rally in place of the Phelps people, you would be howling about bigotry.



You and M_P have no point, you are arguing that it is okay for violence to be used against peaceful protests because they happen to not agree with your liberal orthodoxy. Then you are coming up with a bogus rationalization of protecting children.



People usually haul their children to protests so things do not get out of hand. It shows they don't have an intention to be violent, and people that may get annoyed with the protesters should remember children are present.



I'm not going to give your stance credibility it does not deserve. You are proposing something that any petty dictator would love, and I'm going to continue calling you out on it. You don't like that fact, too bad.

Ah, I see - you want to save the kids' souls against the evils of Catholicism!

Of course, you don't actually believe the kids have souls....

@Inuyasha & psychohist

I addressed the 'points' (or, more accurately, logical fallacies) you guys are making many pages ago.
Inuyasha, you must have a poor memory, or a refusal to comprehend the circular nature of your argument

Your argument has precisely the same flaw as M_P's and Awesomelyglorious.

What? Its too inconvenient to reply to? You're lazy and contrarian. Here, have a cookie!

Their parents are abusive psychopaths, they are clearly completely mentally deficient and incapable of logical thought.

You are justifying the use of violence as intimidation, and further justifying government using intimidation to silence protests.



I don't see them being the ones causing the violence, they are the ones being attacked, all I've noticed them being is incredibly rude. Being rude is not a crime.

Exactly. We can't start down that slippery slope.

The person who put the child in danger was the one who threw the drink.

Exactly.

The Phelps are despicable pieces of garbage. That said, they are also US citizens, and as*holes have rights too. The culpability for violent acts lies solely with those who actually commit violence, not those who allegedly "provoke" it.

But they are quite capable of analyzing the free speech laws and arguing their case effectively in court. They know exactly where the edges of the envelope are and they push against them, but don't cross them. They cause mental misery but don't do physical harm. Yeah, a lot like a good emotional abuser can do in a marriage but none of us are, thankfully, in a marriage with these people. We all have the ability to walk away.

If we stopped being so fascinated with them, and stopped allowing them to make news, we might actually make progress calming the sea. They capitalize on our morbid fascination with their disconcerting message.