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 23rd February 2013, 12:31 PM   #321
brodski
Tea-Time toad
 
brodski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15,522
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post

Has there been a review of their actions yet? If not, not commenting would be prudent.
They are on the record stating categorically that they advised the mother that s permanent relocation to Australia would only be legal with the explicit permission of the fathe. The judge rulling on this case sated that there is "no evidence" that consular staff knowingly did anything illigal.
brodski 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 23rd February 2013, 12:37 PM   #322
DreamingNaiad
Muse
 
DreamingNaiad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by brodski View Post
They are on the record stating categorically that they advised the mother that s permanent relocation to Australia would only be legal with the explicit permission of the fathe. The judge rulling on this case sated that there is "no evidence" that consular staff knowingly did anything illigal.
Except that they gave her one way tickets and changed the flight time so he couldn't show up to do anything. Seems shady.
DreamingNaiad 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 23rd February 2013, 12:37 PM   #323
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,434
Originally Posted by brodski View Post
if the argument is that the mother did not kniwingly break the law, how do you account for the second illigal disappearance of the girls?
Note what I said: "at that time," meaning at the time she left Italy with her daughters.

Certainly she came to realize she was on the wrong side of the law. My point is that the embassy helped put her on the wrong side of the law. Now she has lost her kids, lots of people here are saying she deserves it because she's a criminal and a villain, but nobody is examining the role and the conduct of the authorities. And very few in this group care what the kids have to say. They're just hysterical children who will cry over anything. They don't really suffer the way us grown-ups would if we were dragged out of our home by the police and taken from the person we love most in life. It's no different than if they didn't get ice cream after dinner.
Charlie Wilkes is online now   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 23rd February 2013, 12:39 PM   #324
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,434
Originally Posted by brodski View Post
They are on the record stating categorically that they advised the mother that s permanent relocation to Australia would only be legal with the explicit permission of the fathe. The judge rulling on this case sated that there is "no evidence" that consular staff knowingly did anything illigal.
They sure as hell wouldn't go on the record when 60 Minutes tried to ask them about it.
Charlie Wilkes is online now   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 23rd February 2013, 12:41 PM   #325
sophia8
Master Poster
 
sophia8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,419
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
The kids were screaming and crying more than the mother.

Do you think that deep down inside, they really want to be with their father in Italy, and they were only putting on an act?
I didn't even have to read your next post to know that you're not a parent.
Kids pick up on things very quickly - if they know that a parent wants them to act a certain way, and its to their advantage (extra treats afterwards, a chance to impress their mates - ooh look, TV cameras!!) they will generally do it. They generally don't think about the long-term consequences, and their limited experience of life means they accept what a parent tells them.
What I saw was disgusting manipulation of young children.
__________________
"Nature is floods and famines and earthquakes and viruses and little blue-footed booby babies getting their brains pecked out by their stronger siblings! ....Nature doesn't care about me, or about anybody in particular - nature can be terrifying! Why do they even put words like 'natural' on products like shampoo, like it's automatically a good thing? I mean, sulfuric acid is natural!" -Julia Sweeney
sophia8 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 23rd February 2013, 12:52 PM   #326
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,434
Originally Posted by sophia8 View Post
I didn't even have to read your next post to know that you're not a parent.
Kids pick up on things very quickly - if they know that a parent wants them to act a certain way, and its to their advantage (extra treats afterwards, a chance to impress their mates - ooh look, TV cameras!!) they will generally do it.
I know a few adults who are like that too.

But you're right, I'm not a parent. I'm not up to the job of telling these cunning little monsters what they really think or feel, or slapping them down when they pretend to suffer.
Charlie Wilkes is online now   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 23rd February 2013, 01:55 PM   #327
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Well I agree THAT we disagree. And I also recognize that you disagree in spite of the facts.
__________________
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 23rd February 2013, 02:24 PM   #328
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Again, your emotional involvement makes a sensible debate with you difficult, and your reading comprehension isn't the best either, but let me comment on this. If you have a look at my user profile you will see my age. I've made it clear in many posts that I have a lot of kids and am part of a large family. My work also puts me in direst contact with many mothers. This "clear" comment is as "clear" as many of others you have made, that is, not at all.

The hatred you display for the mother in question is quite telling.
The willingness with which you invent fictional justification for the mother's actions is even more telling. Other than my obvious personal history in such affairs you have been unable to even address (let alone rebut) my argument on it's merits. Instead you say "oh you're just too emotional I can't talk to you". That's not an argument, that's just a dodge.

You seem pretty invested in the image of heroic mothers doing anything to protect their children, yet 5 children die per day in the US due to abuse and neglect, and statistically they are more likely to be abused by their mother. Do I think all mothers are child abusers? Certainly not. Most are loving caregivers. But guess what, so are fathers.

Your assertion that children are better off with their mother than with their father is baseless. Either or both might be excellent caregivers. Either or both may be selfish, manipulative, neglectful or abusive. Gender has not been found to be a predictor of parental fitness.

Your assertion that this may have been a "rescue" is also baseless. There is nothing to indicate it was anything other than using the children as pawns in an ugly divorce.

Finally, I have no hatred for this woman, only contempt for her actions. She is in desperate need of mental health intervention, and now her children are as well.

You will note that I have never suggested that she lose her children. I think children are best served by having access to both parents. Interesting thing about that opinion is that I share it in common with most developmental psychologists, social workers, and child welfare advocates. What do you have? Some experience with other mothers you've known who think their ex husbands are worthless?
__________________
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 24th February 2013, 04:43 AM   #329
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,741
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Well I agree THAT we disagree. And I also recognize that you disagree in spite of the facts.
Strangely, another poster in this thread agreed with me. I guess the "facts" weren't quite as clear as you thought.
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 24th February 2013, 07:06 AM   #330
Jekyll's Guest
Master Poster
 
Jekyll's Guest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,206
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Strangely, another poster in this thread agreed with me. I guess the "facts" weren't quite as clear as you thought.
Just to play Devil's Advocate, you can find more than one person who believes in Bigfoot/Fairies/Abstinence Only Education. That doesn't give any of these beliefs a better foundation in reality.

Almost all internet discussions end up with a handful arguing each position.
Jekyll's Guest 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 24th February 2013, 07:17 AM   #331
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Strangely, another poster in this thread agreed with me. I guess the "facts" weren't quite as clear as you thought.
Formal logic isn't subject to vote. Same with arithmetic. Just because you and one other person don't see your flawed premise doesn't make it suddenly true.
__________________
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 24th February 2013, 07:27 AM   #332
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,741
Right back atcha!
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 24th February 2013, 07:33 AM   #333
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
You appear to be saying there are cases where kidnapping is justified and illegal.

Because if it was not illegal she could just go tell the authorities the reason for the kidnapping, they would take care of it in the appropriate manner, and it would then cease to be a kidnapping.

Therefore, again, you must be saying it is justified and illegal, both at the same time.

And it follows from that that you must be saying that the current law is unjust.
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Wrong. Extremely faulty logic.
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
Wow.

It was dead on, and that's all you have?

Please explain exactly which part of this breakdown is even close to faulty:

Your claim:



Examining your claim:




Literally the only way your claim is logical is if you believe the current law is not just.

This is because if the current law is just, then she could just tell the authorities and it would cease to be kidnapping.

Again, if you are not claiming that the current law is unjust, your claim becomes illogical.
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Turning this round, your implied claim here is that a just law can never have unjust consequences. Is that what you believe?
"Turning this around" implies no such thing. This is an example of equivocation and sloppy definitions. Please address how kidnapping can be both illegal and justified.
__________________
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 24th February 2013, 07:40 AM   #334
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,741
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Please address how kidnapping can be both illegal and justified.
I'm not interested in bickering with you. Please feel free to use your imagination with regard to the silly question you ask.
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 24th February 2013, 07:43 AM   #335
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Sigh. I'll try again: it doesn't matter to the children which one, if either, is "good" or "bad". What matters to them is which one they want to be with. You may be the sort of person who would insist they be miserable because you have judged one parent worthy and the other "evil and horrible". I wouldn't. I'd leave the kids with whichever parent they wanted to stay with. Even if they pick the "bad" one.
Does that apply to just parents? What if I went to say India... walked into a home and stole someones child and took it with me? With in months, depending on age of the child I could 1) Give it a better material life (including health care) then it would have ever known.... and 2) Have the child completely turned against the parents.... it's just that easy with children.

Is that scenario still ok with you? Or do biological parents only have the right to kidnap?
Caper 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 24th February 2013, 07:48 AM   #336
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
I'm not interested in bickering with you. Please feel free to use your imagination with regard to the silly question you ask.
If you feel that supporting your argument is "bickering" then you are in the wrong forum.

ETA; Feel free to use the "Ignore" feature.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.

Last edited by joesixpack; 24th February 2013 at 07:50 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 24th February 2013, 07:52 AM   #337
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I agree with this, notwithstanding the legalities. We're not talking about babies here, and I'm convinced that they will move back to Australia as soon as they are old enough.
Would you have the same opinion if the women was not a parent at all? Lets say the women traveled to Italy to attempt to kidnap children for herself and took these girls from their parents? Does it matter then?
Caper 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 24th February 2013, 07:52 AM   #338
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,741
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
"Turning this around" implies no such thing. This is an example of equivocation and sloppy definitions. Please address how kidnapping can be both illegal and justified.
So is it just kidnapping that cannot be illegal and justified? Or are you extending this to any crime?

If so, you're saying that no criminal act can ever be justified.

If not, why not? What is so unique about kidnapping that makes it impossible to justify?
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 24th February 2013, 07:54 AM   #339
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I agree, and one thing is for certain. That father has taken steps to make sure that his daughters hate him, and will hate him for the rest of their lives.
Why their kids? I could have marching with Fred Phelps if you gave me enough time.
Caper 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 24th February 2013, 07:58 AM   #340
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Your speculations are a bit wilder and a bit more salacious, since a repeated feature of your speculations is underage girls and their boyfriends, but there's no law against you enjoying those speculations.
Pathetic and ridiculously uncalled for.
Caper 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 24th February 2013, 08:17 AM   #341
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
So is it just kidnapping that cannot be illegal and justified? Or are you extending this to any crime?

If so, you're saying that no criminal act can ever be justified.

If not, why not? What is so unique about kidnapping that makes it impossible to justify?
You seem to want to extrapolate this into a Socratic argument about the nature of justice. That's an entirely different discussion and philosophy has moved it pretty far down the field since Plato's Republic.

For this discussion of this particular issue, everyone seems pretty satisfied with a pretty rough and ready definition of "just". And again, in this particular case, Lionking was asked how kidnapping is justified and illegal at the same time. The rough and ready definition of "just" being used here carries with it the implication that the letter of the law is less important than its spirit, which is to protect both the well being of children and parental rights.

Now you show up with your friend Jean Valjean to suggest that OnlyTellsTruths is making an assertion which s/he is not, to wit, that just laws will never produce unjust consequences. This is not the argument. What was requested by OnlyTellsTruths was an explanation of how THIS law produced an unjust consequence. This remains to be answered.
__________________
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 24th February 2013, 08:27 AM   #342
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,741
Well, if you're going to move the goalposts when the implication of what you say it is pointed out, then I suppose it will be difficult to have a productive discussion.

Carry on.
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 24th February 2013, 08:27 AM   #343
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
No, the parent who takes the kids to a foreign country to avoid having a court decide custody is always wrong.
I wouldn't agree with that. If you are in a country like say Saudi Arabia..... it your husband is beating you and the kids.... and say the mother became an athiest.... I would say it's a good idea to get out of Dodge and take the kids.
Caper 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 24th February 2013, 08:28 AM   #344
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,741
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
I wouldn't agree with that. If you are in a country like say Saudi Arabia..... it your husband is beating you and the kids.... and say the mother became an athiest.... I would say it's a good idea to get out of Dodge and take the kids.
No, Caper. Kidnapping can never be justified - it's illegal, you see.
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 24th February 2013, 08:34 AM   #345
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Well, if you're going to move the goalposts when the implication of what you say it is pointed out, then I suppose it will be difficult to have a productive discussion.

Carry on.
Sounds like you're slinging BS to me. Why not just tell me how in this case kidnapping was justified? It's a very simple question.
__________________
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 24th February 2013, 08:35 AM   #346
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Is this based on mind reading?

I'd simply like someone to articulate why the children are better off with the father, other than saying it's the Italian law (which the Amanda Knox case shows isn't infallible). The opposite is usually the case.

It doesn't matter. You can't take someone's kid and simply have to prove I can give it a better home in order to keep it.... parent or not.

If I know a parent that lets their kid stay up late, watch too much tv and eat alot of junk food.... I can't simply walk up and take the child on the basis of me being able to give the child a better home.......
Caper 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 24th February 2013, 08:37 AM   #347
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,741
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Sounds like you're slinging BS to me. Why not just tell me how in this case kidnapping was justified? It's a very simple question.
And one that is impossible to answer without further facts.

But that's not what I was addressing. When you move from the specific to the general, you will encounter problems. If you say that this kidnapping was not justified, you may be right. If you go on to argue that kidnapping cannot be justified, that's something different.
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 24th February 2013, 08:41 AM   #348
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
I wouldn't agree with that. If you are in a country like say Saudi Arabia..... it your husband is beating you and the kids.... and say the mother became an athiest.... I would say it's a good idea to get out of Dodge and take the kids.
For what it's worth, Saudi Arabia is not a signatory to the Hague convention on Child Abduction. In this case the law would be on your side.
__________________
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 24th February 2013, 08:41 AM   #349
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,153
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
I wouldn't agree with that. If you are in a country like say Saudi Arabia..... it your husband is beating you and the kids.... and say the mother became an athiest.... I would say it's a good idea to get out of Dodge and take the kids.
OK, but we're talking about Italy here, hardly a hellhole.
WildCat 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 24th February 2013, 08:43 AM   #350
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
Question to those who support taking these kids away from their mother like this :

If a few years from now the adult girls come back into the spotlight and say "that was the worst thing that ever happened to me, being forced to live with my father was pure hell on Earth and the only thing that kept me going was the thought that the second I came of age I could jump on a flight and go straight back to my mother. Screw the courts and police for doing this to me, and screw my father too."

...what would your reaction to that be?

And let me throw this back at you. If I went to Ethiopia found a struggling but loving mother of 5 kids and simply took one of them....... because I wanted too.... and the rest of your scenario played out exactly the same way (the kid was later returned after a few years of legal wrangling) ...... How would you feel?
Caper 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 24th February 2013, 08:58 AM   #351
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
And one that is impossible to answer without further facts.

But that's not what I was addressing. When you move from the specific to the general, you will encounter problems. If you say that this kidnapping was not justified, you may be right. If you go on to argue that kidnapping cannot be justified, that's something different.
Impossible to answer but some seem quite willing to presume that the consequences of the law are unjust, and that this is an example of it.

Look, you are simply equivocating here and disguising it as a syllogism. The presumption of the question was that laws producing unjust consequences are ipso facto unjust laws. You want to call OnlyTellsTruths out on that, fine. Reword the question.

Kidnapping and abduction are two different things. Murder and Homicide are two different things. If you kill someone in the course of defending your own life then it is called "justifiable homicide", nut "justifiable murder". Kidnapping, by the legal definition is different than "rescuing". What you and lionking have been asserting is that the legal definition of kidnapping produces unjust consequences. No one argues that this cannot be so. What is argued is that there is some element of this abduction that either disqualifies it as a kidnapping, or that the legal definition of kidnapping has produced an unjust result.
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.

Last edited by joesixpack; 24th February 2013 at 08:59 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 24th February 2013, 09:20 AM   #352
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,741
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Impossible to answer but some seem quite willing to presume that the consequences of the law are unjust, and that this is an example of it.
I don't think anyone has argued that the consequences of a law against kidnapping are always unjust, just that they may have been in this case, but I haven't been so arguing so I think I can safely ignore this paragraph as it's obviously not addressed at me.

Quote:
Look, you are simply equivocating here and disguising it as a syllogism. The presumption of the question was that laws producing unjust consequences are ipso facto unjust laws. You want to call OnlyTellsTruths out on that, fine. Reword the question.
You lost me. Reword what question? Why should I be rewording someone else's question?

Quote:
Kidnapping and abduction are two different things. Murder and Homicide are two different things. If you kill someone in the course of defending your own life then it is called "justifiable homicide", nut "justifiable murder". Kidnapping, by the legal definition is different than "rescuing". What you and lionking have been asserting is that the legal definition of kidnapping produces unjust consequences. No one argues that this cannot be so. What is argued is that there is some element of this abduction that either disqualifies it as a kidnapping, or that the legal definition of kidnapping has produced an unjust result.
If you want to make up my position for me and then argue against that, go ahead. You'll probably win that argument! I am slightly surprised to hear that I have been arguing that the legal definition of kidnapping produces unjust consequences. It's the first I have heard of it.

To clarify, I was responding to this statement:

Quote:
You appear to be saying there are cases where kidnapping is justified and illegal.
Caper already identified a situation where this would be the case.
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 24th February 2013, 09:44 AM   #353
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Really? Your certain the kids were unhappy with their mother? I think people here want very much for the kids to have been unhappy with their mother because she's the villain. But life isn't Disney. You can be happy with bad people and unhappy with good. Thats why I would let the kids decide rather than rule on the merits of which parent followed the rules the most.

But what about the kidnapping part? Shouldn't she be charged with that? Will they go to prison with her?
Caper 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 24th February 2013, 09:45 AM   #354
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Caper already identified a situation where this would be the case.
Oh those inconvenient facts

"(e) that “there is grave risk that the child’s return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation,” under Article 13(b); or

(f) that return of the child would subject the child to violation of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, under Article 20."
__________________
Generally sober 'til noon.

Last edited by joesixpack; 24th February 2013 at 09:46 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 24th February 2013, 09:46 AM   #355
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If you discovered tomorrow that you had been kidnapped as an infant, would you stop loving your "parents" and have them prosecuted and jailed? Because that's what the rules say?
No and No.... but I hope they would be charged and jailed. I most certainly would want the kidnappers of my child punished.
Caper 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 24th February 2013, 09:55 AM   #356
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,153
So far all the pro-mother side here can argue is that if the facts were different then the kidnapping was justified.

That's nice, but why are you defending this kidnapping in this particuilar case?

Last edited by WildCat; 24th February 2013 at 10:16 AM.
WildCat 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 24th February 2013, 09:56 AM   #357
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
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.
Really? If your mother asked you to commit genocide.... you would?
Caper 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 24th February 2013, 09:59 AM   #358
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,741
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Oh those inconvenient facts

"(e) that “there is grave risk that the child’s return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation,” under Article 13(b); or

(f) that return of the child would subject the child to violation of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, under Article 20."
That's talking about the return of "a wrongfully removed" child. The removal was still wrongful. It's just that the return may not be necessary.
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 24th February 2013, 09:59 AM   #359
joesixpack
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,534
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
I don't think anyone has argued that the consequences of a law against kidnapping are always unjust, just that they may have been in this case, but I haven't been so arguing so I think I can safely ignore this paragraph as it's obviously not addressed at me.
Wait, you're misreading me. I mean that there are those who argue that in this case the consequences are unjust, not that they are always unjust.
__________________
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 24th February 2013, 10:00 AM   #360
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,741
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
Wait, you're misreading me. I mean that there are those who argue that in this case the consequences are unjust, not that they are always unjust.
If you would just say what you mean, this discussion would be so much simpler.
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
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 10:21 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.