Fundamentalist Mormons and individual rights

[Brant Gaede]

Bob:

Should a wealthy dominatrix, who has a stable of 5 submissive live-in males, who choose, for their own self-interest, to voluntarily submit to her, also be raided by the state?

Adam

Just taking a guess, but I'd say this thread might not be the right place to divulge and discuss your sexual fantasies.

Bob

The domi told him to. She has two, needs three more. (Three just quit.)

--Brant

Edited June 16, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Bob:

Are you dating Shayne because you use the same ad hominem arguments that come off your consistent attempts to export assumptions into questions?

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Would you outlaw the porn industry? I'm serious and this has nothing to do with the banter before.

I ask because I knew some people who were so-called actors and actresses in porn flicks in Brazil. The real deal. (I'm sorry. I can't call them full actors and actresses. There are limits. )

I met married couples in the porn industry who were faithful to each other off the set. They appeared to be happy and healthy. God knows I tried to peg them into my prejudices at the time—that they were really miserable or evil or slimeballs and so forth—but my eyes told me another story. They were nice people. The Bible says if thine eye offends thee, pluck it out. I'll keep mine, thank you, and rely on it to provide me good information about the world around me. Thus, I will not betray my eye with my prejudice.

I never understood the porn lifestyle, just as I don't understand the polygamous lifestyle, but before I would go barging into people's lives with guns, telling them what they can or cannot do in their lovelives, I think it is reasonable to ask them if they are being coerced or feel violated in any manner.

(I don't know if you would advocate banning pornography by force, but in the event you do, would you also ban Playboy magazine? Or Hustler?)

The religious women I have seen interviewed claimed they wanted nothing but to continue in their polygamous marriages, just like the porn stars I met claimed that they would not choose a different lifestyle. They all claimed they were happy.

Is there something you know about their lives that they do not?

Would you personally go into the home, armed with deadly force, and tell, say, a peace-loving woman named Mary Dogood who never did anyone harm, that she can no longer have her family? Would you look her in the eye and tell her that? Or would you prefer to let the government do the dirty work so you don't have to see it?

In my own view, I could see telling her that her children would have to have contact with other cultures so they can make informed choices when they grow up, but I would have to respect her own choices for her own life as an adult. That is a right I would not violate. I do not understand how you would and think you are protecting her rights.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

Would you outlaw the porn industry? I'm serious and this has nothing to do with the banter before.

I ask because I knew some people who were so-called actors and actresses in porn flicks in Brazil. The real deal. (I'm sorry. I can't call them full actors and actresses. There are limits. )

I met married couples in the porn industry who were faithful to each other off the set. They appeared to be happy and healthy. God knows I tried to peg them into my prejudices at the time—that they were really miserable or evil or slimeballs and so forth—but my eyes told me another story. They were nice people. The Bible says if thine eye offends thee, pluck it out. I'll keep mine, thank you, and rely on it to provide me good information about the world around me. Thus, I will not betray my eye with my prejudice.

I never understood the porn lifestyle, just as I don't understand the polygamous lifestyle, but before I would go barging into people's lives with guns, telling them what they can or cannot do in their lovelives, I think it is reasonable to ask them if they are being coerced or feel violated in any manner.

(I don't know if you would advocate banning pornography by force, but in the event you do, would you also ban Playboy magazine? Or Hustler?)

The religious women I have seen interviewed claimed they wanted nothing but to continue in their polygamous marriages, just like the porn stars I met claimed that they would not choose a different lifestyle. They all claimed they were happy.

Is there something you know about their lives that they do not?

Would you personally go into the home, armed with deadly force, and tell, say, a peace-loving woman named Mary Dogood who never did anyone harm, that she can no longer have her family? Would you look her in the eye and tell her that? Or would you prefer to let the government do the dirty work so you don't have to see it?

In my own view, I could see telling her that her children would have to have contact with other cultures so they can make informed choices when they grow up, but I would have to respect her own choices for her own life as an adult. That is a right I would not violate. I do not understand how you would and think you are protecting her rights.

Michael

Michael,

I understand what you're saying, but there's a big problem and the problem is choice and force. Consenting adults who agree to a polygamous relationship is different than a child growing up and forced to accept unequal treatment WITHOUT any choice whatsoever. Remember what we're discussing is mysogenistic, MALE-centric polygamy. Let's not mince words.

It is not acceptable to raise a child, male or female, in an environment which so clearly violates their fundamental human rights. Big difference between this situation and pornography etc.

"I could see telling her that her children would have to have contact with other cultures so they can make informed choices when they grow up, but I would have to respect her own choices for her own life as an adult. That is a right I would not violate."

Sorry that's wrong. It's a violation of the rights of children to be raised in an enviroment which violates their rights from the day they're born. It requires pre-intervention, not post.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry that's wrong. It's a violation of the rights of children to be raised in an enviroment which violates their rights from the day they're born. It requires pre-intervention, not post.

You'd have a hard time, I suspect, demonstrating this in regard to babies and children under six years old in this case.

There are all kinds of cults children are born into, big and small. Generally, the smaller the cult the fewer life choices will represent themselves to them. The Amish, for instance. Or Menonites. Black Muslims. Southern Baptists. An isolated ranching family.

What law(s) is (are) needed? What is the philosophy behind that? Is it compatible with Objectivism?

--Brant

[Selene]

Bob:

"It requires pre-intervention, not post."

By whom? Would the standard of proof have to be "beyond any reasonable doubt" [95%], "clear and convincing"[75%], or a mere "preponderance" [50.01%] of the evidence?

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

Sorry that's wrong. It's a violation of the rights of children to be raised in an enviroment which violates their rights from the day they're born. It requires pre-intervention, not post.

You'd have a hard time, I suspect, demonstrating this in regard to babies and children under six years old in this case.

There are all kinds of cults children are born into, big and small. Generally, the smaller the cult the fewer life choices will represent themselves to them. The Amish, for instance. Or Menonites. Black Muslims. Southern Baptists. An isolated ranching family.

What law(s) is (are) needed? What is the philosophy behind that? Is it compatible with Objectivism?

--Brant

Right, this is the bottom line. There is a broad spectrum of groups (nations, religions etc) that fall into this category. The "philosophy' behind it, in my opinion, is a list of basic human rights that we insist are respected. Religion could never be an excuse to violate these rights, nor culture, nor could the 'right' of a parent to raise their children as they see fit ever violate these rights.

Sure there can be lively discussion of what the list should be, but my list certainly contains gender equality. But anyway, if the entire basis of the community involves egregious violations of these basic rights, removal of children of any age is warranted.

Bob

EDIT: A better solution though would be to FORCE these communities to end the violations and therefore keep the children. Give them the choice - stop the insanity or lose your kids.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's a violation of the rights of children to be raised in an enviroment which violates their rights from the day they're born. It requires pre-intervention, not post.

Bob,

If I knew what right was being violated, I would agree with you.

In another thread, you are talking about the need to include in the mix the fact that humans belong to a species because that is part of our nature. I agree with that. Obviously, species values will be included to some extent in any concept of rights you (or I) arrive at.

So since we include species, what about another fundamental aspect of our nature: the difference between being male and female? That's about as species-level as you can get.

There is a theory floating around I have read about the difference between the male and female sex drives. In general, men tend to be more promiscuous than women. According to the theory, this is a survival of the species thing and it is based on the fact that, biologically, a woman needs nine months for the pregnancy cycle while a man's contribution is over at conception. The psychological reflection of this biological fact is that men have an innate drive to find as many women with strong female attributes (mostly beauty) and plant their seed in them, while women have an innate drive to find one man with strong male attributes (mostly a male kind of power) and make one baby after another with him.

I admit that it is an intriguing theory. Of course, I do not hold to this on a volitional level, but it does partially explain why the majority of polygamous societies are male-centered.

Now here comes the rub in your concept of rights. If this sexual difference is accepted as part of our nature and rights should reflect human nature, what is wrong with polygamy in a controlled form like in a religion? Is it wrong to raise a female child to reflect her biological nature?

Like I said, I don't understand the polygamous lifestyle. I put the mind on a much higher scale than sexuality for making social rules (unless we are specifically dealing with women who are pregnant, in which case I grant them more consideration due to their fragile state). But if your concept of rights is to be coherent, you need to look into these facets of human nature and come to logical terms with them.

Here is an amusing story that happened to me soon after I went to Brazil. Down there, you will not find the uptight almost anal attitude toward sex that there is here in the USA. After living in both cultures, I feel the difference on a visceral level and, even after being back for over 3 years, I still get uncomfortable when I encounter the nastiness and smuttiness behind the Puritanism I encounter up here. But despite Brazilians having a much healthier attitude toward sex than Americans (as a society, with obvious individual exceptions), there is not too much introspection about it down there. They simply live it.

I was once talking to a French horn player in the orchestra one day, Mario. I asked him why Brazilian men cheated on their wives so much. He told me that, at root, it was for the good of their wives. If the male had variety of lovers out in the street, when he returned home to make love to his wife, she would be almost like a new experience. Thus he would be able to bring her far more attention and pleasure. In reality, it was beneficial for her.

I said, "OK. I'll grant you that. Of course, I presume you allow women the same right. For instance, according to this standard, you will allow your wife to sleep with some other men at times. Correct?" Mario looked off for about 40 seconds or so. I could see him imagining it because he got flustered. Then he looked at me with an uneasy smile and said, "No. That way wouldn't work."

And that was that. End of discussion.

(Gentle reminder. Please be civil when you disagree. If you must respond in kind to a jab, please try to keep to the same intensity level instead of going for overkill. That way the discussion won't spiral out of control. Besides, you need more brains to be clever than you do to be aggressive and I believe you have the brains to do well.)

Michael

[J. D. Johnson]

Sorry that's wrong. It's a violation of the rights of children to be raised in an enviroment which violates their rights from the day they're born. It requires pre-intervention, not post.

You'd have a hard time, I suspect, demonstrating this in regard to babies and children under six years old in this case.

There are all kinds of cults children are born into, big and small. Generally, the smaller the cult the fewer life choices will represent themselves to them. The Amish, for instance. Or Menonites. Black Muslims. Southern Baptists. An isolated ranching family.

What law(s) is (are) needed? What is the philosophy behind that? Is it compatible with Objectivism?

--Brant

This debate seems to center on the rights of children, but not on the parental rights, nor how to solve issues should there be conflict. Unfortunately, these definitions are far too fluid in contemporary law and are far too subjective. Basically, the law is based on some social or religious standard, which does not necessary address individual rights of the adult or the child.

The current standard is "harm". Who defines that term? The majority via representative government? A vocal but influential minority? The officer in charge of the case? Is this harm physical, psychological, pedagogical, etc.? Again, who decides?

There are several scenerios that I can envision whereby ordinary parents (not a cultish boogey man) could find themselves in the gunsights of an overzealous child protection agency. If parents decide to homeschool, it would not be difficult to find some expert to declare that act as harmful to the child. Heaven forbid if that child was taught reason and logic, self-discipline and the laws of causation, etc. How about secular parents teaching evolution in a religious society? Or religious parents in a secular society teaching the bible as the literal truth?

Do we arrest them and take away their children?

In regards to Michael's post about Brazil: the same holds true for European nations as well: topless beaches, the existance of red light districts, nudity on prime time television, etc. Imagine a German couple allowing their ten year old girl to go topless in their own backyard. Or, how about the consumption of alcohol? I went to a beerfest and saw children drinking. There are some cultures that believe that fat children are healthy children. Some parents don't even read to their children. Parents pass on their genes and their memes all the time. Some of those ideas are indeed harmful to the growth of the child. Some parents defy the conventional social norms using their values as the standard. Again, what (or whose) standard shall prevail?

The sad fact is that the previous standards based on Christian beliefs are now being replaced by an equally irrational secular standard. And neither standard can be objectively applied.

[tjohnson]

Now here comes the rub in your concept of rights. If this sexual difference is accepted as part of our nature and rights should reflect human nature, what is wrong with polygamy in a controlled form like in a religion? Is it wrong to raise a female child to reflect her biological nature?

Like I said, I don't understand the polygamous lifestyle. I put the mind on a much higher scale than sexuality for making social rules (unless we are specifically dealing with women who are pregnant, in which case I grant them more consideration due to their fragile state). But if your concept of rights is to be coherent, you need to look into these facets of human nature and come to logical terms with them.

I submit that the "human nature" you refer is actually our animal nature. As I said in a previous post, this behaviour is quite common amongst animals and it does not help us disicriminate humans from animals. Thus, the only thing "wrong" with polygamy is that it is animalistic compared to modern human mating behaviour like monogamy which has survival value for humans. However, we should deal with these issues by educating the people involved, not by forcefully breaking up familial units which is bound to make matters worse.

[bmacwilliam]

It's a violation of the rights of children to be raised in an enviroment which violates their rights from the day they're born. It requires pre-intervention, not post.

Bob,

If I knew what right was being violated, I would agree with you.

In another thread, you are talking about the need to include in the mix the fact that humans belong to a species because that is part of our nature. I agree with that. Obviously, species values will be included to some extent in any concept of rights you (or I) arrive at.

So since we include species, what about another fundamental aspect of our nature: the difference between being male and female? That's about as species-level as you can get.

There is a theory floating around I have read about the difference between the male and female sex drives. In general, men tend to be more promiscuous than women. According to the theory, this is a survival of the species thing and it is based on the fact that, biologically, a woman needs nine months for the pregnancy cycle while a man's contribution is over at conception. The psychological reflection of this biological fact is that men have an innate drive to find as many women with strong female attributes (mostly beauty) and plant their seed in them, while women have an innate drive to find one man with strong male attributes (mostly a male kind of power) and make one baby after another with him.

I admit that it is an intriguing theory. Of course, I do not hold to this on a volitional level, but it does partially explain why the majority of polygamous societies are male-centered.

Now here comes the rub in your concept of rights. If this sexual difference is accepted as part of our nature and rights should reflect human nature, what is wrong with polygamy in a controlled form like in a religion? Is it wrong to raise a female child to reflect her biological nature?

Like I said, I don't understand the polygamous lifestyle. I put the mind on a much higher scale than sexuality for making social rules (unless we are specifically dealing with women who are pregnant, in which case I grant them more consideration due to their fragile state). But if your concept of rights is to be coherent, you need to look into these facets of human nature and come to logical terms with them.

Here is an amusing story that happened to me soon after I went to Brazil. Down there, you will not find the uptight almost anal attitude toward sex that there is here in the USA. After living in both cultures, I feel the difference on a visceral level and, even after being back for over 3 years, I still get uncomfortable when I encounter the nastiness and smuttiness behind the Puritanism I encounter up here. But despite Brazilians having a much healthier attitude toward sex than Americans (as a society, with obvious individual exceptions), there is not too much introspection about it down there. They simply live it.

I was once talking to a French horn player in the orchestra one day, Mario. I asked him why Brazilian men cheated on their wives so much. He told me that, at root, it was for the good of their wives. If the male had variety of lovers out in the street, when he returned home to make love to his wife, she would be almost like a new experience. Thus he would be able to bring her far more attention and pleasure. In reality, it was beneficial for her.

I said, "OK. I'll grant you that. Of course, I presume you allow women the same right. For instance, according to this standard, you will allow your wife to sleep with some other men at times. Correct?" Mario looked off for about 40 seconds or so. I could see him imagining it because he got flustered. Then he looked at me with an uneasy smile and said, "No. That way wouldn't work."

And that was that. End of discussion.

(Gentle reminder. Please be civil when you disagree. If you must respond in kind to a jab, please try to keep to the same intensity level instead of going for overkill. That way the discussion won't spiral out of control. Besides, you need more brains to be clever than you do to be aggressive and I believe you have the brains to do well.)

Michael

"I admit that it is an intriguing theory. Of course, I do not hold to this on a volitional level, but it does partially explain why the majority of polygamous societies are male-centered. "

No, I don't think so. The best strategy for gene replication remember is not just procreation volume, but offspring survival. Monogamous relationships, when one man cares for a small number of children increases the chance of the survival of the child. This is why humans are monogomous for the most part. As an animal, humans are quite a bit different than even our closest cousins, the great apes, because our infants are much more helpless for much longer. Monogamy, therefore makes more sense for us. Males needed to provide and protect for long periods while women cared for the children.

The 'straying' potential, I believe, is just about equal for men and women. A man can replicate more genes by cheating, but a woman can increase her gene replication/survival chances too by cheating with a superior male. Polygamy only makes sense when there is a shortage of males - which of course can happen, but is not the norm.

The sexual difference(s) largely boils down to this, and that's that women have a mucher higher investment in the creation of a child than a man does - this explains the male pursuer situation and many other behaviours. However, once a man has impregnated a woman it makes a great deal of sense to protect and provide for her and their child. There ARE differences sure, and I agree that it doesn't make any sense to ignore them. The 'serial monogamy' ideas make more evolutionary sense than polygamy ever could.

Bob

[rush242]

Sure there can be lively discussion of what the list should be, but my list certainly contains gender equality.

There can't ever be any gender equality, anymore than there really is any equality (except ~maybe~ equality under the law).

The idea that, in the absence of all discrimination, that exactly 50% of all C-level execs, fighter pilots, cops, firemen, physicists, or anything else would be women is absurd because people aren't equal. In any way. Size, weight, looks, social skills, gender, height, personality, income, intelligence, age, experience, taste in fashion, likability, education, hours worked per week, interviewing skills, negotiating skills, et cetera ad infinitum all combine in different ways to produce different outcomes.

There can be no "gender equality" because all people are composed of an enormous number of different attributes that combine in different ways that appeal in different ways to other people at different times. As a result one cannot then look at an aggregate number where the attribute in question has no relation to the position in question and then decide, after the fact, that it was the unrelated factor that is being "discriminated" against. You can't know, because you can't possibly address the trillions of individuals decisions that went into creating that aggregate number. You can't decide if something was discrimination unless you decide, in advance, what the proper non-discrimination number should have been, and you cannot ever hope to know that. Just picking 50% because there are two genders is silly because people aren't equal and there are an enormous number of other factors (noted above) many (most?) of which are valid as well.

The only way there would ever be "gender equality" would be with hard, gov't enforced quotas. Not who is best for the job, not who has the best education, not who looks good for the media, not who will put in the most hours, not who is smartest, or interviews well, or the most experience. None of that. Just quotas.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I submit that the "human nature" you refer is actually our animal nature. As I said in a previous post, this behaviour is quite common amongst animals and it does not help us disicriminate humans from animals.

GS,

sigh...

Please learn Objectivist definitions. A human being is defined in Objectivism as a "rational animal."

As to the rest, I agree with you. But I am usually talking about the genus when I mention deep biological drives, not the differentia.

"I admit that it is an intriguing theory. Of course, I do not hold to this on a volitional level, but it does partially explain why the majority of polygamous societies are male-centered. "

No, I don't think so.

Bob,

So you think most polygamous societies are male-centered by chance? There is no cause to ponder? It just happened that way and could have happened throughout human history by being female-centered?

I see no reason to reject causality in observations when a pattern is perceived.

btw - I practice monogamy. I would not force that on others, though.

Michael

[tjohnson]

GS,

sigh...

Please learn Objectivist definitions. A human being is defined in Objectivism as a "rational animal."

As to the rest, I agree with you. But I am usually talking about the genus when I mention deep biological drives, not the differentia.

Michael

I am aware of the Objectivist definition of a human - I just don't think it is a very good one. I prefer the one put forth by Korzybski - humans are creatures capable of progressing from one generation to the next, capable of building on the work of other humans.

[Roger Bissell]

~ Hinted-at-pedophilia (via 'underage marriages' and PC-talk of 'abuse' [speculated community-sex or speculated beatings] was an excuse; the polygamous life-style, seen as contrary to the predominant 'Christian' way was THE MOTIVE (as I pointed out at the end of post #190), and the law there is 'Christian life-style' biased. --- The other mainstreamed Mormons ran into this in their own history. Interesting that there's little THEY have to say about this case. Guess they learned (unlike most) from history.

LLAP

J:D

"the polygamous life-style" is contrary to basic human rights and has got nothing to do with 'Christian life-style' bias.

Are you serious? If so, please explain what basic human rights are violated by (or otherwise contradicted by) a (or "the"?) polygamous lifestyle.

Thanking you in advance for what will surely be a very enlightening explanation (unless you were joking)...REB

I can't really believe you're serious in asking if I was serious. You see no asymmetries, no double standard, no clear cut gender-based inequality of the very worst kind? If horrendous gender-based inequality is not a rights violation, I don't know what is.

Be serious. And if your question is serious then so is mine. Are you mentally challenged?

Bob

Asymmetries, double standards, and gender-based inequalities -- even "horrendous" or "of the very worst kind" -- are scary sounding things, maybe even morally objectionable in some cases. But they are not equivalent to rights violations. At least, not on the Objectivist view.

A rights violation is an act of force or fraud. Non-coercive, non-fraudulent acts between consenting adults -- however asymmetrical or gender unequal -- are not violations of rights.

If I agree to wash the dishes one day a week and my wife to wash them six days a week (or vice versa, which is the case in our household), no one's rights have been violated. If we consent to an arrangement where I have sex with her one night a week and sex with one or more other women the other six nights -- or vice versa -- no one's rights have been violated.

I'm not saying I morally approve or could emotionally tolerate such an arrangement myself (the multiple sex partners, not the dishwashing!), but that is not the same as thinking it should be made illegal.

Now, perhaps you have a different theory of rights than Objectivism's. Or Libertarianism's, which is basically the same (life, liberty, property). If so, then you should spell it out, so that we can know exactly what you mean by "rights violation."

That is my mental challenge to you.

REB

P.S. -- Although you initially focused all our attention on how polygamy is bad for (some? all?) adults, it became apparent that you seem to also have a problem with ~children~ being raised in such households (multiple spouses and/or sex partners), perhaps arguing that this violates the ~children's~ rights in some manner. As far as I can tell, there are only two or three possible ways that being raised in a polygamous household could actually violate children's rights.

First, if the adults have sex with them, that is sexual child abuse, and we already have laws that cover that, so an additional law banning or punishing polygamy is not needed, just enforcement of the existing laws.

Second, you might want to argue that even being ~exposed~ to such activities in the home is abusive to children; but this happens in non-polygamous homes, too, such as when parents engage in "spouse-swapping" and the like; if this is truly a violation of the children's rights, it would violate the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment?) to go after only the easy targets (the outright polygamists) and not the "swinging" monogamists, cheating spouses, etc.

Third, if the adults prevent the children from leaving the household or leaving the religion once they grow up, that constitutes kidnapping or forcible restraint, and we already have laws that cover that, and again a singling out of polygamous households for special punishment is not needed.

Please feel free to (re)consider your advocacy of anti-polygamy laws based on these points, too!

[Roger Bissell]

~ Hinted-at-pedophilia (via 'underage marriages' and PC-talk of 'abuse' [speculated community-sex or speculated beatings] was an excuse; the polygamous life-style, seen as contrary to the predominant 'Christian' way was THE MOTIVE (as I pointed out at the end of post #190), and the law there is 'Christian life-style' biased. --- The other mainstreamed Mormons ran into this in their own history. Interesting that there's little THEY have to say about this case. Guess they learned (unlike most) from history.

LLAP

J:D

"the polygamous life-style" is contrary to basic human rights and has got nothing to do with 'Christian life-style' bias.

Are you serious? If so, please explain what basic human rights are violated by (or otherwise contradicted by) a (or "the"?) polygamous lifestyle.

Thanking you in advance for what will surely be a very enlightening explanation (unless you were joking)...REB

This pisses me off. It's YOU who need to 'enlighten' us on how there's no rights violation when a group treats women like shit.

You tell us. oh enlightened one, how it's not a rights violation to deny all possibility of love from loyal spouse from one gender while the other gender has the choice.

You tell us, oh enlightened one, how you'd feel just fine if your wife was bangin' five other guys.

Enlighten us.... please...

Bob

Bob, the onus of proof is not on me to show how something is ~not~ a rights violation. It is on you to show how it ~is~.

That's a basic principle of law, and a basic principle of the Objectivist epistemology.

"Treating women like shit" and "denying all possibility of love" are not equivalent to violations of rights, unless force or fraud is involved, and it's the job of the legal system to establish that force or fraud was used. Laws ~not~ based on this principle have no justification in a free society.

Those are basic principles of the Objectivist politics.

If you disagree with them, you need to explain and justify your own principles, and not just berate us for ours.

I've already commented on my ~feelings~ about my partner having sex with other people, but it has nothing to do with rights, unless she contractually agreed not to do it. We already have laws covering breach of contract. We don't need laws banning people from contractually agreeding to ~allow~ their partners to have sex with others, whether that contract is called a "marriage" or not.

REB

[bmacwilliam]

~ Hinted-at-pedophilia (via 'underage marriages' and PC-talk of 'abuse' [speculated community-sex or speculated beatings] was an excuse; the polygamous life-style, seen as contrary to the predominant 'Christian' way was THE MOTIVE (as I pointed out at the end of post #190), and the law there is 'Christian life-style' biased. --- The other mainstreamed Mormons ran into this in their own history. Interesting that there's little THEY have to say about this case. Guess they learned (unlike most) from history.

LLAP

J:D

"the polygamous life-style" is contrary to basic human rights and has got nothing to do with 'Christian life-style' bias.

Are you serious? If so, please explain what basic human rights are violated by (or otherwise contradicted by) a (or "the"?) polygamous lifestyle.

Thanking you in advance for what will surely be a very enlightening explanation (unless you were joking)...REB

I can't really believe you're serious in asking if I was serious. You see no asymmetries, no double standard, no clear cut gender-based inequality of the very worst kind? If horrendous gender-based inequality is not a rights violation, I don't know what is.

Be serious. And if your question is serious then so is mine. Are you mentally challenged?

Bob

Asymmetries, double standards, and gender-based inequalities -- even "horrendous" or "of the very worst kind" -- are scary sounding things, maybe even morally objectionable in some cases. But they are not equivalent to rights violations. At least, not on the Objectivist view.

A rights violation is an act of force or fraud. Non-coercive, non-fraudulent acts between consenting adults -- however asymmetrical or gender unequal -- are not violations of rights.

Wrong. They most certainly are violations. This type of asymmetry denies by FORCE, an entire gender the RIGHT to be treated equally with equal freedoms. End of story. That's only tip of the iceberg, but that's all that's required for my burden of proof. Women are denied these freedoms by FORCE.

"Those are basic principles of the Objectivist politics."

It's very clear to me that Objectivist politics is profoundly stupid, and there's just no other word for it, but even so, this STILL falls within the scope because force is most clearly involved against one gender.

If you cannot see how this is so clearly a rights violation, the discussion is over. I may as well talk to a rock.

Bob

Edited June 18, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

You might as well talk to a rock to me because I have no idea how you transform consent into force.

I also take exception to your opinion that Objectivist politics is stupid without being clear as to why. What you just gave was a floating opinion not tied to any idea other than a generalization too broad and inconsistent to be useful. That's playing games and not exchanging ideas.

This is where definitions work and bluster only causes hostility. Are you interested in convincing Roger of any idea or simply playing a put-down game?

I suggest definitions and clear specific referents.

Anybody can call someone a name. Only a person who actually uses his brain can define something and provide fundamenal examples.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Well, Bob, you obviously think you know what Force and initiated FORCE is, so WHAT is it? Otherwise you're the only one here who knows what you are talking about. I sure don't.

--Brant

Edited June 18, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

You might as well talk to a rock to me because I have no idea how you transform consent into force.

like I said

"They most certainly are violations. This type of asymmetry denies by FORCE, an entire gender the RIGHT to be treated equally with equal freedoms."

That's as clear as it could possibly be. So you take away an entire set of reproductive "rights" and freedoms somehow miss the rights violations???

McFly????

I'm not saying that I have the definitive list of what the basic list of rights should be - that's the tough part. However, the NIOF is overly simplistic and there's much more to it than that.

As far as the stupidity of O'is politics, I can easily point this out, but the main point, quite obviously missed was the blatant violation of rights even by O'ist standards ( ie force) is being ignored. It's as clear as day and the denial of this is getting on my nerves.

Roger said this:

"Treating women like shit" and "denying all possibility of love" are not equivalent to violations of rights, unless force or fraud is involved,"

The statement itself is self-contradictory for crying out loud!

Bob

Edited June 19, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[Roger Bissell]

Bob,

You might as well talk to a rock to me because I have no idea how you transform consent into force.

like I said

"They most certainly are violations. This type of asymmetry denies by FORCE, an entire gender the RIGHT to be treated equally with equal freedoms."

That's as clear as it could possibly be. So **you take away an entire set of reproductive "rights" and freedoms somehow miss the rights violations???

McFly????

I'm not saying that I have the definitive list of what the basic list of rights should be - that's the tough part. However, the NIOF is overly simplistic and there's much more to it than that.

As far as the stupidity of O'is politics, I can easily point this out, but the main point, quite obviously missed was the blatant violation of rights even by O'ist standards ( ie force) is being ignored. It's as clear as day and the denial of this is getting on my nerves.

Roger said this:

"Treating women like shit" and "denying all possibility of love" are not equivalent to violations of rights, unless force or fraud is involved," for crying out loud!

***The statement itself is self-contradictory for crying out loud!

Bob

**"you take away an entire set of reproductive "rights" and freedoms" -- Who is the "you" that is taking away these rights and freedoms? If the women freely consent to enter into subservient marital relationships, no one has taken away their rights and freedoms. They have willingly surrendered them.

If you want to argue that these FLDS women did ~not~ freely consent to be subservient wives, then you need to back it up with evidence. You need to produce proof that they were ~forced~ to enter those marriages and ~not allowed~ to leave.

***Self-contradictory? Not at all. Certainly not without proof that the women were ~forced~ to enter into relationships in which they were "treated like shit" and "denied all possibility of love." (This is your phraseology not mine. I was merely quoting it.)

Many people freely, willingly, voluntarily enter into relationships, knowing full well that they are going to be second-class members of the relationship. Consenting to be degraded or disrespected is ~not~ having your rights "taken away."

Again, prove that these women were ~forced~ to enter the subservient relationships, or cease and desist in your claims that they had their rights violated. It's as simple as that, and all your bluster and hand-waving does nothing to meet the burden of proof and the standard of violation of rights: namely, that an individual's consent was violated by force or fraud.

What's "clear as day" to you has still not been clearly explained, and the longer you delay in putting up some kind of evidence to support your claim, the more I (for one) suspect you have nothing up your sleeve but a desire to suppress other people's voluntary expression of their religious and social ideals (as messed up as they are).

REB

[Selene]

Folks:

Here is a another example of the State becoming the "parents" of children.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080618/wl_ca...vQQ7QvPNt1NYhAF

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

Again, prove that these women were ~forced~ to enter the subservient relationships, or cease and desist in your claims that they had their rights violated.

There is simply nothing to be gained from my perspective by continuing any type of dialog with someone so twisted. Big hunks of reality just seem to fly right on by. Good luck with that...

Bob

Edited June 23, 2008 by Bob_Mac

[BaalChatzaf]

Roger said this:

"Treating women like shit" and "denying all possibility of love" are not equivalent to violations of rights, unless force or fraud is involved,"

The statement itself is self-contradictory for crying out loud!

Bob

Treating women as walking wombs and brood mares for the human race is as old as our species. Mostly women (particularly in primitive societies) are conditioned from childhood to accept this role. Does this mean their rights have been violated? No. If women accept this fate because their parents and guardians trained them to, it may be unfortunate (for the women) but it is not rights violation.

If you argue rights violation logically flows from childhood education and conditioning then any form of education could be construed as rights violation, be it beneficial or not. Face it, kids, when they are young do not (yet) have the chops to take an independent stand.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

Roger said this:

"Treating women like shit" and "denying all possibility of love" are not equivalent to violations of rights, unless force or fraud is involved,"

The statement itself is self-contradictory for crying out loud!

Bob

Treating women as walking wombs and brood mares for the human race is as old as our species. Mostly women (particularly in primitive societies) are conditioned from childhood to accept this role. Does this mean their rights have been violated? No. If women accept this fate because their parents and guardians trained them to, it may be unfortunate (for the women) but it is not rights violation.

Same argument for sexual abuse then - not abuse by your logic. Nice. I'm shocked, shocked I say, that someone like you might think this way!!!

Never saw that comin'....NOT!

Bob