[quote]Alffi wrote:
Well,the swastika is an ancient symbol that predates nazism. The star of David is associated with infant male genital mutilation,animal welfare issues,and ritual murder,to a smaller or larger extent.[/quote]
I didn’t realize circumcision was considered “infant male genital mutilation.” Star of David is associated with ritual murder? Can you tell me where you got these ideas?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[…]
Well, you seemed to be making two distinct points: 1) that labeling the child as a nazi puts her in physical danger, and 2) that the belief system is so repugnant in itself that it should not be legal to indoctrinate children into it.
The first assertion can be be addressed in terms of any activity that has the potential to harm a child physically, because it is a content-neutral distinction that looks to the practical effects of a parenting technique. Which is why I brought up the examples I did.[/quote]
I get why you brought up the examples, I just thought they were not addressing the situation accurately. In principle, parents obviously have the right to have their children participate in potentially dangerous activities (within reason) as part of growing up. I would question their understanding of care though if that includes socially marginalising and marking their children for potential bullying and abuse (not only in interacting with the outside world, but within their ‘community’). But, as I indicated, I’m obviously having a problem seeing this one context-neutral.
Social services don’t have a duty to protect the state from bad parenting, but they do have a duty to protect the children from their parents if what their parents do is detrimental to their wellbeing. And - I would still argue that they acted with a certain amount of restraint, as the child hasn’t been removed from the family completely, but is kept within the extended family.
There I do think differently from you - to an extent: freedom of thought and speech may be and are limited within all legal systems. They are obviously handled differently and that’s what my strong reaction is about. But - I’m not completely sure if this is a freedom of thought and speech issue: against the overall negative reaction in this thread to the decision of social services to intervene, I wanted to bring up the fact that raising your children to be nazis may bring up the issue of abuse. Nazi groups and values are defined by violence against others and often covert illegal activities - and it wouldn’t surprise me if social services found evidence of that. Obviously, we don’t know, and we shouldn’t as this is a case involving minors, but I wanted to counter the blanket statement that what social services did was wrong by default.
Makkun
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[…]
I asked “where” does the right come from – not when is it appropriate. If there is no right in the first place then it is never appropriate.[/quote]
The right comes from society making sure that children are protected from abuse by their parents. If it is indeed never appropriate, then children can’t ever be taken away from their parents (sexual abuse anyone?). To that statement I cannot agree.
I disagree with your statement that there are only individual values. I agree with your last statement - but I think that the state reflects the values (through laws) that society holds. And it does enforce these values daily, even by using violence (police and other arms of the state). And - your children have rights against you - normally, that shouldn’t come into play, but in cases of abuse it does.
Makkun
[quote]Alffi wrote:
Well,the swastika is an ancient symbol that predates nazism. The star of David is associated with infant male genital mutilation,animal welfare issues,and ritual murder,to a smaller or larger extent.[/quote]
It doesn’t always happen, but I’m almost speechless. Yes, the swastika is a symbol predating national socialism. The context in this case is pretty clear though. And your star of David reference I find quite problematic.
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
I disagree with your statement that there are only individual values. I agree with your last statement - but I think that the state reflects the values (through laws) that society holds.
And it does enforce these values daily, even by using violence (police and other arms of the state). And - your children have rights against you - normally, that shouldn’t come into play, but in cases of abuse it does.
Makkun[/quote]
Laws are typically an expression of the values of the privileged (owner) class. It is impossible to reflect “societal values” because there are only individual values.
It’s like expressing atmospheric temperature in terms of its high or low average for the day. The averages represents a sample of the entire collection of values and doesn’t really exist.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Alffi wrote:
Well,the swastika is an ancient symbol that predates nazism. The star of David is associated with infant male genital mutilation,animal welfare issues,and ritual murder,to a smaller or larger extent.
It doesn’t always happen, but I’m almost speechless. Yes, the swastika is a symbol predating national socialism. The context in this case is pretty clear though. And your star of David reference I find quite problematic.
Makkun[/quote]
This guy is trolling multiple forums. Ignore him and continue the discussion.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
makkun wrote:
I disagree with your statement that there are only individual values. I agree with your last statement - but I think that the state reflects the values (through laws) that society holds.
And it does enforce these values daily, even by using violence (police and other arms of the state). And - your children have rights against you - normally, that shouldn’t come into play, but in cases of abuse it does.
Makkun
Laws are typically an expression of the values of the privileged (owner) class. It is impossible to reflect “societal values” because there are only individual values.
It’s like expressing atmospheric temperature in terms of its high or low average for the day. The averages represents a sample of the entire collection of values and doesn’t really exist.[/quote]
I don’t agree.
Makkun
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
[…]This guy is trolling multiple forums. Ignore him and continue the discussion.[/quote]
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Sounds like a tribunal is coming up… 
Makkun
[quote]lixy wrote:
I think most people here are forgetting that Canada isn’t the US.[/quote]
Canada is the 51st state. So how is it not part of the U.S.?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Laws are typically an expression of the values of the privileged (owner) class.[/quote]
May the Proletariat rise up!
[quote]lixy wrote:
I think most people here are forgetting that Canada isn’t the US.[/quote]
Bet you won’t be saying that when they start taking little Akbar Ali Alla Babba Jr away for being taught how to make pipebombs by his “moderate” parents.
JK Lixy Poo, had to fuk wit ya since I haven’t done it in awhile, people were starting to think I liked you. Can’t have that, I don’t want on the FBI’s Most Wanted list.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I didn’t realize circumcision was considered “infant male genital mutilation.”[/quote]
No, because cutting off part of an infants genitals is perfectly normal and healthy.
/sarcasm
[quote]dk44 wrote:
Lixy Poo[/quote]
lmao
[quote]Makavali wrote:
No, because cutting off part of an infants genitals is perfectly normal and healthy.
/sarcasm[/quote]
We last longer in bed and we don’t have to worry about foreskin infections. The only negative side effect is slightly reduced sexual sensation in the head of the penis.
So yeah, I’d say its plenty normal and healthy. So is NOT doing it. Its a parental decision.
Lasting longer is unproven, and if your not washing your dick everyday, you probably deserve an infection.
But if you’re OK with it, then that’s fine. My beef is with infant circumcision. If someone 18+ wants a circumcision, that’s their decision to make.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lasting longer is unproven, and if your not washing your dick everyday, you probably deserve an infection.
But if you’re OK with it, then that’s fine. My beef is with infant circumcision. If someone 18+ wants a circumcision, that’s their decision to make.[/quote]
There was a huge thread about this awhile back between ProfX and some woman. It was pretty funny.
[quote]NateOrade wrote:
There was a huge thread about this awhile back between ProfX and some woman. It was pretty funny.[/quote]
Link?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
There was a huge thread about this awhile back between ProfX and some woman. It was pretty funny.
Link?[/quote]
Hell I don’t know.
[quote]NateOrade wrote:
Hell I don’t know.[/quote]
This is why we could never work.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
May the Proletariat rise up![/quote]
May the proletariat not become an other oppressive owner class!