Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People should be free to choose what is best for themselves as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I created this blog to discuss issues I have with big government, liberal media,and to talk about my support for capitalism and the Iraq War.
5 comments:
""Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse ... there is no evidence that this danger is 'immediate' or 'urgent'," the court said.
The court said the state failed to show that any more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and offered no evidence of sexual or physical abuse against the other children. Half the youngsters taken from the ranch were 5 or younger. Only a few dozen are teenage girls."
I dunno, I definitely agree that the state overstepped it's bounds here, but I have a lot of sympathy for the fact that no one knew what was actually going on, and they had to choose between potentially allowing widespread sexual abuse to continue (in hindsight, it wasn't happening, but they didn't know that at the time) and taking a huge step into interfering with people's lives and families. I like to hink I would have sided for caution, but if I was personally meeting with underage girls telling me about how they were being sexually abused and forced into marriages, I'm not completely sure I would have had that restraint.
As someone who's sympathetic to cops who beat a restrained murder suspect, and who's sympathetic to a president to went to war based partially on bad or uncertain intelligence on WMD's and terrorist connections, I'd think you'd have some sympathy in this case for the uncertainty and emotional weight that led the state to this decision. But, I agree it was the wrong call.
I dunno, I definitely agree that the state overstepped it's bounds here, but I have a lot of sympathy for the fact that no one knew what was actually going on, and they had to choose between potentially allowing widespread sexual abuse to continue (in hindsight, it wasn't happening, but they didn't know that at the time) and taking a huge step into interfering with people's lives and families.
This sounds very familiar to me. Where have I heard this before? Oh I remember. The rationale for going into Iraq. Sometimes safety sakes is warranted other times, not so much. Hmmmmm. Well thats interesting.
...Dude, did you read the rest of my post? I SAID THAT.
"As someone who's ... sympathetic to a president who went to war based partially on bad or uncertain intelligence on WMD's and terrorist connections, I'd think you'd have some sympathy in this case for the uncertainty and emotional weight that led the state to this decision."
Pay attention.
um... Sophist. When you go to war where people die, your reasons for going to war damn well better be right. You get a little more lee way when you're trying to protect children.
I'm actually not even sure how you can justify comparing going to war with what happened in there in Texas.
Wait does that mean you can agree with the reasons for going into Iraq.
Post a Comment