Discussion:
Lucky Family
(too old to reply)
Laurence Taylor
2004-01-28 11:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Finally got round to reading this ....

Regarding your questions, yes, the girl is definitely a "political"
prisoner - she is, after all, being kept incarcerated because of her
beliefs rather than actualy breaking laws.

Is she a danger to society? Of course not - one teenager with a liking
for the opposite sex is hardly going to
precipitate a breakdown of society.

Although having said that, I'm not sure that, in her condition, she is
actually capable of living by herself; there are very few ways for a
young girl with a child to survive, and most of them are unpleasant.

I'd want to know her background - why was she found living rough? Was
she thrown out of home, or did she run away? If she ran away, why?
Where are her family now? Are they homeless too? If not, why not, and
why isn't she with them?

To recap, there's no legal reason why this girl and her daughter
should be kept incarcerated, but she should certainly be given a home
with suport and love - and perhaps shown that sex isn't necessary for
love.
--
rgds
LAurence

... Who is General Failure and why is he reading my drive?
begin Idiot driver of the week: K148 VPM
Frank McCoy
2004-01-28 15:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurence Taylor
Finally got round to reading this ....
Regarding your questions, yes, the girl is definitely a "political"
prisoner - she is, after all, being kept incarcerated because of her
beliefs rather than actualy breaking laws.
Is she a danger to society? Of course not - one teenager with a liking
for the opposite sex is hardly going to
precipitate a breakdown of society.
Not so much a breakdown of society. People are more worried about how
she will raise HER children. It's almost a given that she will
"abuse" them by raising them in the same lifestyle.
Post by Laurence Taylor
Although having said that, I'm not sure that, in her condition, she is
actually capable of living by herself; there are very few ways for a
young girl with a child to survive, and most of them are unpleasant.
Well ... She's now a *woman*. Over ten years (maybe even fifteen or
twenty) have passed since she was first picked up. Her daughter has
been adopted and raised by other people. Probably impossible by now
to figure out who or where.
Post by Laurence Taylor
I'd want to know her background - why was she found living rough? Was
she thrown out of home, or did she run away? If she ran away, why?
Where are her family now? Are they homeless too? If not, why not, and
why isn't she with them?
There's some indication she was picked up in the wreckage of a commune
or other group-housing after a government attack such as those the
government did on Waco or (more likely) the ones the government did on
various Mormon communities in Utah. There's some indication her
parents were never found; whether because they were killed or went
into hiding isn't even hinted.
Post by Laurence Taylor
To recap, there's no legal reason why this girl and her daughter
should be kept incarcerated, but she should certainly be given a home
with suport and love - and perhaps shown that sex isn't necessary for
love.
But she wasn't. All she's known for the past decade or two is being
imprisoned and punished (or so *she* feels) for loving her parents.
She's now an adult, with this attitude firmly set in her mind.

Her daughter is long gone. Her attitude is set.
Should she be released to pass that attitude on to her own children?
Is it "right" to release a person who has *told* you that she'll
"abuse" any children she has; and is determined to have children?

The problems is: By society's definition, how she plans on raising
her children is abuse of the worst kind. By *her* definition, it's
love of the best kind. On the one hand, she really hasn't *yet*
committed a "crime". On the other, it's society's duty to protect her
children from being abused, if it's known she's "unsane" enough to
hurt them. Would you argue with that attitude, if her view was that
children needed to be tortured and burned and mutilated to grow up
respecting authority?

Society views such sexual activity by children as almost as bad or
even worse. That it *cannot* ever be anything but the worst kind of
abuse; fully as damaging to the child as rape and torture.

And (viewed that way) the woman herself is an example! She's been so
abused she doesn't recognize it as abuse; and wants HER children
raised the same way!

(I always thought the above argument was both circular, self-serving,
and idiotic; but it's commonly accepted reasoning, especially when
dealing with "religious cults".)
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Laurence Taylor
2004-01-29 10:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank McCoy
Post by Laurence Taylor
Is she a danger to society? Of course not - one teenager with a liking
for the opposite sex is hardly going to
precipitate a breakdown of society.
Not so much a breakdown of society. People are more worried about how
she will raise HER children. It's almost a given that she will
"abuse" them by raising them in the same lifestyle.
Understood, but unless there's any evidence that her own child was
treated this way, then it's all speculation. You can't lock people up
for what you think they want to do. (OK, you can, but that's what
makes her a political prisoner).
Post by Frank McCoy
Post by Laurence Taylor
Although having said that, I'm not sure that, in her condition, she is
actually capable of living by herself; there are very few ways for a
young girl with a child to survive, and most of them are unpleasant.
Well ... She's now a *woman*. Over ten years (maybe even fifteen or
twenty) have passed since she was first picked up. Her daughter has
been adopted and raised by other people. Probably impossible by now
to figure out who or where.
Ah. I didn't get that bit. Although again, if she can be shown to be
capable of looking after herself, with perhaps a bit of, ahem,
re-education as I mentioned before, (presumably nothing like that
happened when she was in Care while a child). If she's now a grown
woman of well over 21, then she is entitled to her own life.

In any case, in order to treat her child the way she has described,
she needs to find a man who is prepared to do the necessary, and most
men would probably run a mile when they found out what she had in
mind.

Presumably her current opinions are checked and found to be unchanged?
Post by Frank McCoy
Post by Laurence Taylor
I'd want to know her background - why was she found living rough? Was
she thrown out of home, or did she run away? If she ran away, why?
Where are her family now? Are they homeless too? If not, why not, and
why isn't she with them?
There's some indication she was picked up in the wreckage of a commune
or other group-housing after a government attack such as those the
government did on Waco or (more likely) the ones the government did on
various Mormon communities in Utah. There's some indication her
parents were never found; whether because they were killed or went
into hiding isn't even hinted.
I see. Not a situation to generate a large quantity of mental ability
or normalcy.
Post by Frank McCoy
Post by Laurence Taylor
To recap, there's no legal reason why this girl and her daughter
should be kept incarcerated, but she should certainly be given a home
with suport and love - and perhaps shown that sex isn't necessary for
love.
But she wasn't. All she's known for the past decade or two is being
imprisoned and punished (or so *she* feels) for loving her parents.
She's now an adult, with this attitude firmly set in her mind.
I was afraid of that. Her attitude has been reinforced by the totally
antagonistic response of the authorities and the "kids' prison"
variety of children's home.
Post by Frank McCoy
Her daughter is long gone. Her attitude is set.
Should she be released to pass that attitude on to her own children?
Is it "right" to release a person who has *told* you that she'll
"abuse" any children she has; and is determined to have children?
The problems is: By society's definition, how she plans on raising
her children is abuse of the worst kind. By *her* definition, it's
love of the best kind. On the one hand, she really hasn't *yet*
committed a "crime". On the other, it's society's duty to protect her
children from being abused, if it's known she's "unsane" enough to
hurt them. Would you argue with that attitude, if her view was that
children needed to be tortured and burned and mutilated to grow up
respecting authority?
Ummmm .... no. ALthough I see what you're getting at. The reason being
that torture etc, generally, is unpleasant and unwanted. Sexual
activity, generally, isn't. The bottom line is whether the person
involved objects to what is happening.
Post by Frank McCoy
Society views such sexual activity by children as almost as bad or
even worse. That it *cannot* ever be anything but the worst kind of
abuse; fully as damaging to the child as rape and torture.
And (viewed that way) the woman herself is an example! She's been so
abused she doesn't recognize it as abuse; and wants HER children
raised the same way!
(I always thought the above argument was both circular, self-serving,
and idiotic; but it's commonly accepted reasoning, especially when
dealing with "religious cults".)
Or indeed with anyone who reports not disliking sex when young. (Just
ask any probation officer!)

I still think that the orrect action would be release, along with some
form of SOTP course, or simply a good talking-to, to point out that
just because it was OK for her, it doesn't follow for other people -
with a heavy emphasis on the (legal and social) consequences of
following that philosophy through.
--
rgds
LAurence

... Who is General Failure and why is he reading my drive?
begin Idiot driver of the week: K148 VPM
Frank McCoy
2004-01-29 16:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laurence Taylor
Post by Frank McCoy
Post by Laurence Taylor
Is she a danger to society? Of course not - one teenager with a liking
for the opposite sex is hardly going to
precipitate a breakdown of society.
Not so much a breakdown of society. People are more worried about how
she will raise HER children. It's almost a given that she will
"abuse" them by raising them in the same lifestyle.
Understood, but unless there's any evidence that her own child was
treated this way, then it's all speculation. You can't lock people up
for what you think they want to do. (OK, you can, but that's what
makes her a political prisoner).
Post by Frank McCoy
Post by Laurence Taylor
Although having said that, I'm not sure that, in her condition, she is
actually capable of living by herself; there are very few ways for a
young girl with a child to survive, and most of them are unpleasant.
Well ... She's now a *woman*. Over ten years (maybe even fifteen or
twenty) have passed since she was first picked up. Her daughter has
been adopted and raised by other people. Probably impossible by now
to figure out who or where.
Ah. I didn't get that bit. Although again, if she can be shown to be
capable of looking after herself, with perhaps a bit of, ahem,
re-education as I mentioned before, (presumably nothing like that
happened when she was in Care while a child). If she's now a grown
woman of well over 21, then she is entitled to her own life.
In any case, in order to treat her child the way she has described,
she needs to find a man who is prepared to do the necessary, and most
men would probably run a mile when they found out what she had in
mind.
Presumably her current opinions are checked and found to be unchanged?
Post by Frank McCoy
Post by Laurence Taylor
I'd want to know her background - why was she found living rough? Was
she thrown out of home, or did she run away? If she ran away, why?
Where are her family now? Are they homeless too? If not, why not, and
why isn't she with them?
There's some indication she was picked up in the wreckage of a commune
or other group-housing after a government attack such as those the
government did on Waco or (more likely) the ones the government did on
various Mormon communities in Utah. There's some indication her
parents were never found; whether because they were killed or went
into hiding isn't even hinted.
I see. Not a situation to generate a large quantity of mental ability
or normalcy.
Post by Frank McCoy
Post by Laurence Taylor
To recap, there's no legal reason why this girl and her daughter
should be kept incarcerated, but she should certainly be given a home
with suport and love - and perhaps shown that sex isn't necessary for
love.
But she wasn't. All she's known for the past decade or two is being
imprisoned and punished (or so *she* feels) for loving her parents.
She's now an adult, with this attitude firmly set in her mind.
I was afraid of that. Her attitude has been reinforced by the totally
antagonistic response of the authorities and the "kids' prison"
variety of children's home.
Post by Frank McCoy
Her daughter is long gone. Her attitude is set.
Should she be released to pass that attitude on to her own children?
Is it "right" to release a person who has *told* you that she'll
"abuse" any children she has; and is determined to have children?
The problems is: By society's definition, how she plans on raising
her children is abuse of the worst kind. By *her* definition, it's
love of the best kind. On the one hand, she really hasn't *yet*
committed a "crime". On the other, it's society's duty to protect her
children from being abused, if it's known she's "unsane" enough to
hurt them. Would you argue with that attitude, if her view was that
children needed to be tortured and burned and mutilated to grow up
respecting authority?
Ummmm .... no. ALthough I see what you're getting at. The reason being
that torture etc, generally, is unpleasant and unwanted. Sexual
activity, generally, isn't. The bottom line is whether the person
involved objects to what is happening.
But the attitude of society is that children *cannot* properly object
to sexual abuse ... They aren't aware of how much it "hurts" later on.
Besides, what child will object to what their parents ask, as long as
it doesn't involve physical pain. Even then ....

"A child cannot consent ...."
If the above is true, then a child by-default, objects; whether he/she
enjoys the experience or not.

And ... There's *some* truth to the argument. Even horribly
physically abused children often don't object. They cling to their
parents under incredibly horrible conditions. Some of the worst
examples being some "cults" where children who disobey are feared to
be falling prey to the Devil, or similar hogwash. Extreme, "Spare the
rod and spoil the child," types; or ones where any disobedience or
signs the child doesn't swallow ALL of the religious precepts whole
becomes cause for serious mistreatment. Even then, the child would
more object to being taken away from parents than to the mistreatment.
Post by Laurence Taylor
Post by Frank McCoy
Society views such sexual activity by children as almost as bad or
even worse. That it *cannot* ever be anything but the worst kind of
abuse; fully as damaging to the child as rape and torture.
And (viewed that way) the woman herself is an example! She's been so
abused she doesn't recognize it as abuse; and wants HER children
raised the same way!
(I always thought the above argument was both circular, self-serving,
and idiotic; but it's commonly accepted reasoning, especially when
dealing with "religious cults".)
Or indeed with anyone who reports not disliking sex when young. (Just
ask any probation officer!)
Or most phychiatrists and psychologists.
(It *used* to be almost all. The few not thinking so being viewed as
quacks.)
But then, the idea that sex itself is evil is dropping in this
country. However, there are those diligently working to bring that
attitude back. Bush & Co.
Post by Laurence Taylor
I still think that the orrect action would be release, along with some
form of SOTP course, or simply a good talking-to, to point out that
just because it was OK for her, it doesn't follow for other people -
with a heavy emphasis on the (legal and social) consequences of
following that philosophy through.
Um ... OK ... But just *why* should she believe this fresh crop of
people trying to convince her, when she has every reason to
*disbelieve* the last crop?

All I see is just convincing her to go into hiding with her new
family, as soon as she starts one.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Tim Merrigan
2004-01-29 23:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank McCoy
I still think that the correct action would be release, along with some
form of SOTP course, or simply a good talking-to, to point out that
just because it was OK for her, it doesn't follow for other people -
with a heavy emphasis on the (legal and social) consequences of
following that philosophy through.
Um ... OK ... But just *why* should she believe this fresh crop of
people trying to convince her, when she has every reason to
*disbelieve* the last crop?
All I see is just convincing her to go into hiding with her new
family, as soon as she starts one.
You don't have to convince her of the inherent wrongness of her
philosophy, and she has however many years she's been imprisoned of
examples of the social and "legal" consequences. What she needs to be
able to function in society is to be convinced that her children, if
any, are likely to suffer as she has if they aren't at least taught to
conceal their lifestyle.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.

Tim Merrigan
e-mail: ***@comcast.net
URL: http://home.comcast.net/~tppm/home.htm
AIM: tppm1
YM: Tim_Merrigan

Science Fiction fans please try APA-***@yahoogroups.com --
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/APA-LASFS
This is a general interest Science Fiction fan list - not an "adult" list.

Fans or writers of anime lemons might try
***@Yahoogroups.com --
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_anime_lemons
This *IS* an adult list and requires an age listing of 18 or over in
your profile to join.


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Frank McCoy
2004-01-29 23:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Merrigan
Post by Frank McCoy
I still think that the correct action would be release, along with some
form of SOTP course, or simply a good talking-to, to point out that
just because it was OK for her, it doesn't follow for other people -
with a heavy emphasis on the (legal and social) consequences of
following that philosophy through.
Um ... OK ... But just *why* should she believe this fresh crop of
people trying to convince her, when she has every reason to
*disbelieve* the last crop?
All I see is just convincing her to go into hiding with her new
family, as soon as she starts one.
You don't have to convince her of the inherent wrongness of her
philosophy, and she has however many years she's been imprisoned of
examples of the social and "legal" consequences. What she needs to be
able to function in society is to be convinced that her children, if
any, are likely to suffer as she has if they aren't at least taught to
conceal their lifestyle.
IOW, "go into hiding".
On the third hand, if you believe she's been unjustly treated ....
... Is that such a "wrong" thing?
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Loading...