ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags child custody , human rights , international law

Reply
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:35 AM   #161
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
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.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:40 AM   #162
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
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.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:40 AM   #163
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,463
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
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 . . .
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:41 AM   #164
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,015
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Last edited by ehcks; 22nd February 2013 at 10:42 AM.
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:41 AM   #165
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:42 AM   #166
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,747
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
Intent and motivation doesn't matter. One broke the law, the other hasn't.
Or just hasn't been caught yet.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:43 AM   #167
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,463
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I believe most people reading this realize what an absurd and ridiculous remark that is.
Yep.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:43 AM   #168
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
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.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:45 AM   #169
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
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?
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:46 AM   #170
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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?
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.

Last edited by joesixpack; 22nd February 2013 at 10:47 AM.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:46 AM   #171
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,463
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
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.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:52 AM   #172
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
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.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:54 AM   #173
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
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.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:57 AM   #174
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,237
Originally Posted by katy_did View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
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.
__________________
Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+
More Atheism+ stuff

Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 10:58 AM   #175
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,015
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Last edited by jhunter1163; 23rd February 2013 at 05:16 AM.
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:05 AM   #176
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.
Quote:

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?
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:09 AM   #177
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
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.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

Last edited by jhunter1163; 23rd February 2013 at 05:17 AM.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:09 AM   #178
damoe
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
Edited by jhunter1163:  Moderated content removed.

Well ehcks, TragicMonkey also said this:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.

Last edited by jhunter1163; 23rd February 2013 at 05:18 AM.
damoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:14 AM   #179
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,015
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:17 AM   #180
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
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.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:20 AM   #181
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by damoe View Post
Well ehcks, TragicMonkey also said this:




Seems to be fairly representative of the ethics of the pro Mother side.
Even more ridiculous. I'm hardly representative of any factions views. I recognize that my ethics are rather atypical in this culture. I find it amusing that I can be used to demonize an entire side in a debate.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:21 AM   #182
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,747
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
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?
No, but that is how a straw man looks to me.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:23 AM   #183
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,747
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
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.
There seems to be a danger of a fire around here with all this straw building up.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:24 AM   #184
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
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.
I meant the custody dispute. If she had murdered him before the separation there would never have been a custody dispute, and hence no kidnapping. And I presumed she would have been clever enough to vet away with it, were she calculating enough to have thought of it in the first place. But obviously she didn't so there's no need to talk about it. I'm heartily sorry I ever made what I thought was an offhand remark. I didn't guess everyone would be so upright about murder.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:26 AM   #185
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 10,858
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.
The only one who got to make that choice here was the mother.
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:27 AM   #186
damoe
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I find it amusing that I can be used to demonize an entire side in a debate.

You are explicitly saying that love can justify criminal behavior. Many here are implicitly saying this in excusing the mother's behavior. It might amuse you, but its true.
damoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:29 AM   #187
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,747
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I didn't guess everyone would be so upright about murder.
Yeah, who could have predicted that?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:32 AM   #188
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by timhau View Post
The only one who got to make that choice here was the mother.
That was the case, yes. Now, however, the choice can be offered to the children. The fact that the mother got her way before doesn't, to me, mean that the father should automatically get his way now, to balance it out.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:33 AM   #189
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,015
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I meant the custody dispute. If she had murdered him before the separation there would never have been a custody dispute, and hence no kidnapping.
Well, sure, in that she gets no custody and gets to live in prison for a long time.

Quote:
And I presumed she would have been clever enough to vet away with it, were she calculating enough to have thought of it in the first place.
Yeah, ok. The Power of Love will protect her from the law and its investigators after she kills her husband and kidnaps her kids simply to avoid a custody case. I thought someone said this world wasn't Disney.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:35 AM   #190
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,015
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
That was the case, yes. Now, however, the choice can be offered to the children. The fact that the mother got her way before doesn't, to me, mean that the father should automatically get his way now, to balance it out.
Of course not, that's what the custody court case is for.

Though kidnapping and alienating the kids from the other parent will probably reduce her chance of gaining custody.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Last edited by ehcks; 22nd February 2013 at 11:36 AM.
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:38 AM   #191
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by damoe View Post
You are explicitly saying that love can justify criminal behavior. Many here are implicitly saying this in excusing the mother's behavior. It might amuse you, but its true.
I never said a thing like it. I don't believe in justification. I will do what I feel best, and I don't see the need to excuse it to others. I'm fully capable of recognizing right from wrong, and choosing either without asserting that wrong us right if I chose it.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:41 AM   #192
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
Well, sure, in that she gets no custody and gets to live in prison for a long time.



Yeah, ok. The Power of Love will protect her from the law and its investigators after she kills her husband and kidnaps her kids simply to avoid a custody case. I thought someone said this world wasn't Disney.
Yeah, because I'm so full of sentiment. Do you really think nobody's ever gotten away with murder?
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:41 AM   #193
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.
How exactly is going to prison and killing the remaining parent in the child's best interest?

Would the children have chose to have a dead father? As you have said, you have no ethics (other than the obvious one of allowing teen aged girls to chose what parent they wish to live with, which is actually an ethical choice on your part) so why do you care what happens here? Did you just want to stop the girls from crying. Is your position based on anything other than your unformed idealist musings?

I think not.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:43 AM   #194
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
Of course not, that's what the custody court case is for.

Though kidnapping and alienating the kids from the other parent will probably reduce her chance of gaining custody.
Agreed. She's not been very smart about this.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:44 AM   #195
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
There seems to be a danger of a fire around here with all this straw building up.
Well I can tell you one thing we won't have to worry about, there's really no danger of you presenting a coherent and principled opinion, just sniping from the sidelines.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.
joesixpack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 11:54 AM   #196
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,501
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
How exactly is going to prison and killing the remaining parent in the child's best interest?

Would the children have chose to have a dead father? As you have said, you have no ethics (other than the obvious one of allowing teen aged girls to chose what parent they wish to live with, which is actually an ethical choice on your part) so why do you care what happens here? Did you just want to stop the girls from crying. Is your position based on anything other than your unformed idealist musings?

I think not.
I think you make a number of assumptions here. That murder is always found out, that there can only be two platforms for decisions, legal vs "emotional", that my position is otherwise than I've repeatedly stated, that my beliefs must necessarily entail added on cultural baggage that they don't simply because you can't imagine someone thinking differently than yourself.

But I can see this is pointless, I cannot explain my position better than I already have, and too many people are now invested in attacking my ethics (which I cannot explain to a completely hostile and, I fear, very hidebound traditional audience) rather than my position. Which is bring constantly mischaracterized.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 12:02 PM   #197
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,667
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I don't understand why people blame the mother for using the kids as pawns but assume the father isn't doing the same thing. She just grabbed them first. Does that automatically mean he's only capable of unselfish love, and she's incapable of it? Maybe they're both jerks, but she was just faster out the starting gate.
You love your strawmen a lot I can tell. If the father was like this why is he not taking advantage of the felonies she committed and getting her locked up as she deserves?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 12:08 PM   #198
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,484
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
So you're only concerned because the girls cried at the airport. The facts in the case be damned, you just don't like seeing kids cry.

Can you give me some rationale other than their tears why they should be left with a demonstrably unfit parent?
To say "the girls cried at the airport" grotesquely understates the trauma they experienced. By trivializing what happened to them, by comparing it to children who cry when they don't get ice cream, you reveal more about yourself than you may realize. Indeed, your comments throughout this thread are telling. I can see that you are wound up, all but choking with rage, and it's not pretty.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 12:19 PM   #199
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,484
Originally Posted by katy_did View Post
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:

Quote:
The very public nature of the campaign has been very disturbing. I am satisfied that they have definitely not been shielded from the dispute and have clearly, I find, been significantly influenced in their views and their conduct by their mother and other members of her family. Examples of extremely inappropriate and sometimes bizarre things said to and in the presence of the children can be found in statements made by the maternal great-grandmother that were recorded by police in the immediate aftermath of the children being found after being hidden by her. Unashamedly, she was recorded saying to one of the children “How exciting. Who’s going to play you in the movie? They will have to find a good little dark-haired actress to play you when they make the movie.” She also said to the police, in the presence of the children, “everyone is on their side except their father .......He doesn’t love them. He just owns them. They’re chattels.” She then went on to say “... because he is a liar – please tell me you’re not Italian – because he is a liar, and all Italians are bloody liars...”.

The fact that the youngest child could go from stating in May last year that she wanted to go home to Italy to her home in the Tuscan countryside to now asserting that “Italy’s a scary place. I don’t feel comfortable” and writing that she would stab herself if she was sent back to Italy, when she has not been back to Italy in the meantime, causes me to conclude that she has probably been subjected to considerable influence by persons close to her. That could have been her mother, or her older sisters, or other members of her extended maternal family. It does not really matter who. Having regard to the sorts of things the maternal great-grandmother was saying to and in the presence of the children, even in the company of police, I am satisfied that little restraint in respect of these matters is likely to have been demonstrated around these children and that this has impacted upon them in significant ways.
Interesting.

So much of the discussion here, as well as the court's decision, is framed around a perception of the mother. She's a kidnapper, she's a villain, etc., so anything done to wrest her children away is by definition in their best interest.

I don't accept that glib syllogism. I'm quite willing to consider that the mother and her family may have handled this situation badly. But the way to counter that is not to pour gasoline on the fire, unleashing the police with instructions to use whatever force is necessary. We might see that as the administration of the law. For the kids, it was a physical assault and a vivid confirmation of their worst fears. If the mother indoctrinated the kids, the police ended up validating the doctrine: fear your father, fear his power to control your lives, fear the agents who do his bidding.

It cannot have been the only option available. If the court felt that the mother and her family had used the powers of persuasion to manipulate the kids, perhaps they should have made a civilized effort at counter-persuasion. Perhaps this father could have flown to Australia to re-unite with his children in a mediated environment where everyone felt safe.

Almost anything would have been better than what they ended up doing.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2013, 12:30 PM   #200
smartcooky
Master Poster
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 2,690
I don't see where all this BS about her being an unfit mother comes from when we don''t even know either the family or personal circumstances of these people.

Scenario:
Two separate families have similar circumstances; the parents are separated and the father has custody of all the daughters. Recently, the oldest daughters in each family have finally confided to their mothers that her fathers been sexually abusing them for many years, and are now turning their interests towards the next oldest daughters.

In Family "A" both the mother and the oldest daughter are afraid that the pattern will continue with the younger daughter, so they formulate a and execute a plan to get all the daughters away from the father and to safety in another country.

In Family "B". the mother tells the daughter she is a liar, and she carries on in denial of what she can see has been happening right in front of her for many years.

Who's the unfit mother now, A or B?

Now I'm not saying that this is what is happening with THIS family, but it is one of a number of possible scenarios that fits the picture, especially with the two oldest daughters being the most upset about having to go back to their father.
__________________
OCCAMS Razor - 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists organised by Osama Bin Laden; the Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by a single gunmen, Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.
► "Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition." - JayUtah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd February 2013 at 12:32 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.