FREE TAPATALK APP

brodski · 23rd February 2013, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

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.

DreamingNaiad · 23rd February 2013, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

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.

Charlie Wilkes · 23rd February 2013, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

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 · 23rd February 2013, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

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.

sophia8 · 23rd February 2013, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

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.

Charlie Wilkes · 23rd February 2013, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by sophia8

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.

joesixpack · 23rd February 2013, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

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.

joesixpack · 23rd February 2013, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

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?

Matthew Best · 24th February 2013, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

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.

Jekyll's Guest · 24th February 2013, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

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.

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

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.

Matthew Best · 24th February 2013, 06:27 AM

Right back atcha!

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

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

Wrong. Extremely faulty logic.

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

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

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.

Matthew Best · 24th February 2013, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

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.

Caper · 24th February 2013, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

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?

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

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.

Caper · 24th February 2013, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

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?

Matthew Best · 24th February 2013, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

"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?

Caper · 24th February 2013, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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 · 24th February 2013, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

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.

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

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.

Matthew Best · 24th February 2013, 07:27 AM

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.

Caper · 24th February 2013, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

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.

Matthew Best · 24th February 2013, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

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.

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

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.

Caper · 24th February 2013, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

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.......

Matthew Best · 24th February 2013, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

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.

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

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.

WildCat · 24th February 2013, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

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.

Caper · 24th February 2013, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

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?

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

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.

Matthew Best · 24th February 2013, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

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.

Caper · 24th February 2013, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

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?

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

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."

Caper · 24th February 2013, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

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.

WildCat · 24th February 2013, 08:55 AM

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?

Caper · 24th February 2013, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

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?

Matthew Best · 24th February 2013, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

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.

joesixpack · 24th February 2013, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

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.

Matthew Best · 24th February 2013, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

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.

23rd February 2013, 11:31 AM	#321
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon 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 Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,159

23rd February 2013, 11:41 AM	#325
sophia8 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In the dark, dark forest.... Posts: 2,289	Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes 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

23rd February 2013, 12:55 PM	#327
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by Matthew Best 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.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

23rd February 2013, 01:24 PM	#328
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by lionking 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?
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

24th February 2013, 06:17 AM	#331
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by Matthew Best 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.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

23rd February 2013, 11:37 AM	#322
DreamingNaiad Muse Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 516	Originally Posted by brodski 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.

23rd February 2013, 11:37 AM	#323
Charlie Wilkes Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,090	Originally Posted by brodski 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.

23rd February 2013, 11:39 AM	#324
Charlie Wilkes Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,090	Originally Posted by brodski 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.

23rd February 2013, 11:52 AM	#326
Charlie Wilkes Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,090	Originally Posted by sophia8 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.

24th February 2013, 03:43 AM	#329
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,177	Originally Posted by joesixpack 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.

24th February 2013, 06:06 AM	#330
Jekyll's Guest Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,948	Originally Posted by Matthew Best 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.

24th February 2013, 06:27 AM	#332
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,177	Right back atcha!

24th February 2013, 06:33 AM	#333
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths 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 Wrong. Extremely faulty logic. Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths 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 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.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

24th February 2013, 06:40 AM	#334
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,177	Originally Posted by joesixpack 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.

24th February 2013, 06:43 AM	#335
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey 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 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

24th February 2013, 06:48 AM	#336
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by Matthew Best 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.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't. Last edited by joesixpack; 24th February 2013 at 06:50 AM.

24th February 2013, 06:52 AM	#337
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by lionking 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 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

24th February 2013, 06:52 AM	#338
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,177	Originally Posted by joesixpack "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?

24th February 2013, 06:54 AM	#339
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by smartcooky 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 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

24th February 2013, 06:58 AM	#340
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe 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 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

24th February 2013, 07:17 AM	#341
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by Matthew Best 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.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

24th February 2013, 07:27 AM	#342
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,177	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.

24th February 2013, 07:27 AM	#343
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by WildCat 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 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

24th February 2013, 07:28 AM	#344
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,177	Originally Posted by Caper 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.

24th February 2013, 07:34 AM	#345
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by Matthew Best 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.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

24th February 2013, 07:35 AM	#346
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by lionking 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 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

24th February 2013, 07:37 AM	#347
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,177	Originally Posted by joesixpack 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.

24th February 2013, 07:41 AM	#348
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by Caper 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.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

24th February 2013, 07:41 AM	#349
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,476	Originally Posted by Caper 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.

24th February 2013, 07:43 AM	#350
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by Seismosaurus 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 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

24th February 2013, 07:58 AM	#351
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by Matthew Best 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.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't. Last edited by joesixpack; 24th February 2013 at 07:59 AM.

24th February 2013, 08:20 AM	#352
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,177	Originally Posted by joesixpack 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.

24th February 2013, 08:44 AM	#353
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey 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 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

24th February 2013, 08:45 AM	#354
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by Matthew Best 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."
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't. Last edited by joesixpack; 24th February 2013 at 08:46 AM.

24th February 2013, 08:46 AM	#355
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey 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 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023