Think of the Children

Page 7 of 17 [ 270 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 17 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

07 Apr 2011, 2:33 am

Inuyasha wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Liberals only care about the law when it benefits their causes, when it doesn't they just want to ignore it. The ends justify the means.

How is this not an attempt to derail the thread with liberal/conservative ideology conflict that isn't even relevant to the discussion? Liberal, conservative, left, right, we're all concerned with children's safety- I hope

I am making an honest observation, though it could be said to be true about radicals in general. Unfortunately radicalism seems to be the main part of the Democrat party these days.

If I may be the first to add that it's ironic as hell that an extremist reactionary is calling people "radical" and then using the radical rightwing insult "Democrat Party". What a joke American politics has become that electable politicians are actually allowed to get away with such childish nonsense.

And, yes, you have derailed this thread. This thread was about the merits and defects in the policy of using CPS to protect the Phelps kids from negligent parenting. So far, all you have done is defend the action of knowingly puting children into a very, very, dangerous situation.

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

07 Apr 2011, 2:48 am

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

However, to do this you have to first declare protests too dangerous LEGALLY for children. I cannot see this happening.

Close proximity funeral protests ARE too dangerous for children. It may be safe to bring a child into a house (i.e. a protest) under most circumstances, but in exceptional cases like a burning house (or a funeral protest) it is needless endangerment of the child. The Court should order the Phelps to cease and desist from bringing any kids under 14 to the protests and have CPS remove the children if the Phelps fail to comply. The law, surely, must not be so myopic and narrow as to not take exceptional cases into account EVER.

The end of this video (below - 6:28 onwards) documents the many dangers of a Phelps funeral protest.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1Ck4m9EXeo&feature=related[/youtube]

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

07 Apr 2011, 11:27 am

Inuyasha wrote:

marshall wrote:

TLDR.... zzzzzz......... derail fail.

So it's okay for someone to bash me, but not okay for me to respond and prove them wrong. Maybe in the twilight zone marshall, or your warped socialist views, but the 1st Amendment is still alive in the United States.

You are free to post whatever you want. However, you can't force me to read your tedious copy-and-paste blather.

Quote:

marshall wrote:

Well, as far as I'm concerned the Phelps children are already being f**** over just by being unlucky enough to be born into a psychotic attention whoring cult family. Any mob inflicted physical injury pales in comparison to the psychological damage of being raised in an emotionally abusive cult.

The Phelps group is not breaking the law, unless there is proof of some sort of actual abuse taking place, this entire topic is arguing for something that is in violation of everything the United States stands for.

Stop trying to read your own slant into what I say just for the sake of being contrary. It's annoying. Nowhere was I advocating taking legal action. However, I stand by my assessment that the Phelps family is an emotionally abusive cult.

Quote:

marshall wrote:

These people obviously don't really love thier children in the first place.

Seriously, you are way out of line.

Seriously, have you even watched the videos posted in this thread? In one a mother and father talk glibly about the fact that their daughter will go to hell for leaving the WBC and criticizing it's views. Take not that the daughter has NOT rejected Christianity. She only rejected the WBC's culture of hate. That they would glibly disown thier child for that proves they don't really love their children.

Seriously, think before you criticize me.

Quote:

marshall wrote:

The existence of the Phelps family is living proof that humans are pathetic lemmings that can be made to believe anything no matter how vile and destructive.

What exactly have they done aside from protesting at funerals? I don't recall them committing any vandalism, or violent acts being committed by them. The only violence I've heard of is from people reacting to the group. Until they actually commit vandalism or start attacking people with more than just words they are nothing more than annoying, arguably idiots, and displaying an extreme lack of tact.

Here is an idea, IGNORE THEM, they will either stop their protests, or they will do something they can be arrested for.

Wow. So you are going to defend brainwashing and emotional abuse? That is what they are doing to their children. I'm sorry, but it is sick to threaten children with an eternity of fire and brimstone if they refuse to believe that God hates fellow human beings. Maybe it sounds silly to you, but if you grew up in a household that taught this from the day you were born you would be afraid.

Once again. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT A LEGAL AUTHORITY SHOULD COME AND TAKE THEIR CHILDREN AWAY. HOWEVER I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SAY THAT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO THEIR CHILDREN IS MORALLY REPREHENCABLE. DEAL WITH IT.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

07 Apr 2011, 11:33 am

Master_Pedant wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Liberals only care about the law when it benefits their causes, when it doesn't they just want to ignore it. The ends justify the means.

I am making an honest observation, though it could be said to be true about radicals in general. Unfortunately radicalism seems to be the main part of the Democrat party these days.

This thread is about doing away with the First Amendment in the phony name of "protecting the children." The Phelps parents are not being negligent, they aren't the ones initiating the violence, they are being non-violent. The fact they are being attacked physically means those attackers should be hit with even stiffer punishments.

What you are proposing is not only legally wrong, it is also morally repugnant.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

07 Apr 2011, 12:26 pm

In order for any action to be taken, I'd imagine that the actual danger of these protests would have to be somehow quantified, and then compared with various other permitted activities for children to determine if they are actually as risky as being claimed. I'm thinking of things my brother and I were allowed to do as children, tackle football, for example, that could conceivably be considered dangerous but are not considered abusive activities to allow a child to participate in. As it is, the perceived danger of the protests is simply being guestimated based on media reports, not exactly an accurate method as far as I'm concerned.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

07 Apr 2011, 1:51 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Rolling Eyes
Seriously, you are way out of line.

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

07 Apr 2011, 3:23 pm

Dox47 wrote:

well children will get hurt in their everyay lives as well, true.
but here we are talking a very serious kind of hate, very personal to the participants and that moves the risk into another category entirely.

kids might be cruel to eachother but they are not trying to do serious harm,
i would be enraged if they were picketing my mothers funeral, i dont know how i would react but i think i would simply loose control, granted not really a risk i run living in europe, but the ideology and disregard for the emotional wellbeing of others strike me as destructive to society as a whole.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

09 Apr 2011, 3:37 am

Inuyasha wrote:

This thread is about doing away with the First Amendment in the phony name of "protecting the children."

So, "free speech" implies taking children who lack the capacity to make informed decisions wilfully into harms way? Wow, you have a very perverted understanding of "free speech". Children under 14 shouldn't be brought to these funeral protests, PERIOD.

Inuyasha wrote:

The Phelps parents are not being negligent, they aren't the ones initiating the violence, they are being non-violent. The fact they are being attacked physically means those attackers should be hit with even stiffer punishments.

Nice try, but if a journalist took their 5 year old daughter into a war zone I think most reasonable people would consider that reckless, negligent parenting - especially if that daughter had been shot at during similar past occasions. While, ideally, one would punish the perpeturators, anyone with half a brain can see that taking children into heated FUNERAL protests that regularly provoke the crowd to hurle bottles, rocks, and even fire bullets at the demonstrators is reckless parenting.

Inuyasha wrote:

What you are proposing is not only legally wrong, it is also morally repugnant.

Your defense of parental negligence is morally repulsive.

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

09 Apr 2011, 5:25 am

First of all, assuming if WBC were based in my country with this family living in the UK. What with our system, majority of public opinion of child protection issues & the media. This issue would of been nipped in the bud very quickly as child protection services, the courts & etc. would taken action. eg court orders &/or taking the kids away for there own safety & protection.

Then again getting back to the facts there not in the UK, thank goodness!!

In 2009, WBC were planing on picketing for the first time in the UK. A good number of MPs, lobby groups, religious groups & LGBT groups appealed to the Home Office to take action. Jacqui Smith (likes the odd joint plus had her sister's mortgage & her husband's porn paid for by the tax payer) banned both Fred Phelps & Shirley Phelps-Roper from entering the UK for the following reason :

Quote:

"Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the United Kingdom"

Therefore we in UK have taken steps to protect theses kids not directly by child protection methods but indirectly by banning there adult family members to the UK. Other foreign countries who are worried about WBC & the children of WBC may wish to taken similar action.

All we can do as non yanks is to set the example for them to follow then hopefully they too with think of them kids & do something about it.

cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

09 Apr 2011, 6:59 am

Heres a BBC article backing up the UK ban

Anti-gay preachers banned from UK

Also I been doing a bit of research about Fred Phelps & found allegations of physically abuse in the family.

Estranged son of anti-gay Westboro pastor says father does 'evil'

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

09 Apr 2011, 10:04 am

Dox47 wrote:

That is a reasonable point. I was simply taking from the simple nature of what was said to have happened though, that it would likely exceed that of a sports activity. Most sports activities both have people monitoring the event for child safety and lack intent to do serious harm.

sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

09 Apr 2011, 10:22 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

After reviewing the evidence given by M_P, I do have to side with his claim. The character of people who get mad enough to hurt children because of Fred Phelps isn't the issue. The issue is putting children in this kind of a situation. The Phelps's know the response that they will receive through these actions. They *could* protect their children. They are not doing this. I don't care whether these other people are clearly in the wrong(in fact, on some level, I feel that beating Fred Phelps into a pulp and forcing him to eat his own scrotum is a justified act), the problem is that Fred Phelps is putting children into a circumstance where harm is very likely, where it is otherwise avoidable. This is different than a hated minority group. This is different than unforeseeable risk. This is foreseen risk where precautions are not taken for these children.

And well, given M_P's claim of witnesses claiming abuse within the family as well, the case becomes all the clearer, as even if that claim isn't sufficient in and of itself without investigation, both claims together make the matter obvious. We know that these children are being exposed to risk. We have reason to suspect other wrongs. Doing something, if we do things to protect children, is completely justified in this case. (Note: I am not getting into the issues of legal justification, only see this claim as coherent with other ideas)

Child (WBC)use topic

I have a sneaky suspicion that the WBC people use their own children as some sort of warped Human child shield, thinking that no one would harm a young'un. Obviously this was a major FAIL.

Taking children to a protest is risky when the purpose of the protest is controversial--whether LGBT, WBC, abortion protests, religious/political controversies, and the like. They could be badly hurt, and this is not fair to innocent children under 14, who often go along with their parents' views.

Anyone assaulting anyone during a protest is also committing a crime, unless it is in self defence, and this is very hard to prove, as the legal protest is convoluted, and this is not my argument here, at least at this point.

Stay tuned. this is an excellent topic.

_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

09 Apr 2011, 12:13 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

This thread is about doing away with the First Amendment in the phony name of "protecting the children."

This is a classic attempt to circumvent the first amendment. 'Sit down and shut up or we'll take your children away.' I will continue to call you out on this.

Master_Pedant wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

This is the United States of America, it is not a warzone, and I'm wondering where the cops are to arrest the people whom are committing the acts of violence. Instead you want to blame the protesters. If a bunch of Union thugs drove into a Tea Party rally and started opening fire with guns into the crowd, you'd probably blame the Tea Partiers. Sorry

Master_Pedant wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

What you are proposing is not only legally wrong, it is also morally repugnant.

Your defense of parental negligence is morally repulsive.

Your dishonesty is repugnant.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

09 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm

Quote:

Your dishonesty is repugnant.

No offense, but your pointless contrarianism in this thread that is about children's safety is the only dishonesty occurring

Additionally, I think Mr. Dox47 put forward that there needs to be evidence of violence (a sound point) or something along those lines- well, as M_P pointed out, the children actually have been in harms way thus far, I don't remember the specifics of M_P's post about it but I believe it was on the first or second page that he mentioned the children were harmed or something along those lines

YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

09 Apr 2011, 1:11 pm

I have read that the Phelps family's goal is to incite violence against them, and then sue. That is how they make their living.
If this can be proven in court, then of course the children should be removed. There's a difference between a protest that may unintentionally get out of hand, and actually WANTING oneself or one's child to be harmed.
It's like they're putting the kids in a car and driving through redlights hoping to be hit.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

09 Apr 2011, 3:19 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

This is a classic attempt to circumvent the first amendment. 'Sit down and shut up or we'll take your children away.' I will continue to call you out on this.

The problem is the attendance of children at the protest, not the parents engaging in the protests. No circumvention is thus occurring as the request is reasonable.

Quote:

He's blaming protesters for bringing kids to something they'd know would be dangerous. That's it. He's not blaming them for protesting.

Quote:

Your dishonesty is repugnant.

You're the dishonest one though, so I don't see M_P as having a problem here.

Page 7 of 17 [ 270 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 17 Next

Jump to:

Think of the Children Post Reply New Topic

Think of the Children