Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby addams » Mon Dec 02, 2013 4:26 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
leady wrote:I'm quite happy for parents to use this book, so long as when they are elderly and addled they are happy for the same treatment from their children...

That line never works out like we expect, for one thing, the future is so far away, and then it'll be someone else's problem.

People are amazing.
I have seen people that were Frightening be treated very well by their victims.
It is true. Something is wrong with Human beings.

I do not advocate an Eye for an Eye.
But; Really! To have a system in place that requires a family member to care for another family member,
JUST BECAUSE, they share some kind of blood relationship. That is Horrible!

I have heard that lamely advocated for. It is a stupid fucking position.
People are so proud of Their American Traditions? Of?

The Family is Sacred? oh. Excuse me. It turned into a Rant.
I, sort of, will not do it. I walked away, then. I would walk away, now.

This makes me an advocate for the position that The State has a place in our lives.
What a horrible positon. "This person dies old, sick, homeless and alone; Or, You take care of him, her, it."

It does not matter who they are, I would take care of them for a while. I would run, not walk, to The State for help.

Not all families are Horrible. Some are delightful.
The abuse of our people sometimes goes undetected.

The abused think it is Normal. The abusers think it is Normal.
Everyone else thinks, "If that is Normal, I will pass on that."

RUN! Go back to your Normal Family!
What is Normal? Holding people in Fear?

I can laugh about my people. Can you laugh about your people?

My Grandmother had sons. She spent some time around men.
She had six living children. In those days, heteroerosexal sex was about the only way pregnancies ever got started.

I think the evidence is good that she knew some men. She would give other people orders.
Grandma said, "If you will not do it because you Love me. You will do it because you Fear me. But; You are going to do it."

Those are fighting words. What kind of a family did you grow up in?
A nice Christian Family? yes? nice. Not, Me.

It does not, really, matter what kind of families we grew up with? does it?
Did ya' grow up? That is the important question. When will you grow up?

If your parents thumped the Bible then thumped you? Do you think that has hampered your development?
Don't thump children. It hampers their development. Make it a Law. And; Let the fun begin.

Poor babies. It is amazing we have any people that can think at all. We do pretty well for a bunch of Retards.
Yes. I let my dead parents be someone else's problem. Dead people are low maintenance.

I do not feel guilty for walking away. I have been told I deserted those people. That shit is funny.
We as a nation have some Family problems. ech. Maybe, it is, just, me.

Fish!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:44 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Given the choice between the government telling me what I can and cannot read, and the potential of dangerous information being out there, I'll take the latter every day of the week. In my opinion, having the government decide what information is good and what information is bad is far more dangerous.

Absolutely right.

But this doesn't mean Amazon should continue profiting from sales of a book which encourages child abuse.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Red Hal » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:59 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Vahir wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:I think the most dangerous thing about this particular book is not the instructions-for-beating or the dehumanization of children, but the assurance that spanking will produce the desired outcome if applied liberally enough, GUARANTEE FROM GOD promise.


Well, that's just baked into religion. They're all about attributing stuff to higher authorities instead of actually taking responsibility for your own advice. If they weren't, they wouldn't be religions.


That's quite a generalization you have there.


Yup. Feel free to disprove it.


Anas ibn Malik reported: A man said, “O Messenger of Allah, should I tie my camel and trust in Allah, or should I untie her and trust in Allah?” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Tie her and trust in Allah.”


Source: Sunan At-Tirmidhi 2517
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby cphite » Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:15 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
cphite wrote:Given the choice between the government telling me what I can and cannot read, and the potential of dangerous information being out there, I'll take the latter every day of the week. In my opinion, having the government decide what information is good and what information is bad is far more dangerous.

Absolutely right.

But this doesn't mean Amazon should continue profiting from sales of a book which encourages child abuse.


I would have no problem with Amazon refusing to carry the book, or the publisher refusing to publish the book. But I would be strongly opposed to the government telling Amazon that it cannot carry the book; or telling the publisher that it cannot publish the book.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:24 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:
cphite wrote:Given the choice between the government telling me what I can and cannot read, and the potential of dangerous information being out there, I'll take the latter every day of the week. In my opinion, having the government decide what information is good and what information is bad is far more dangerous.

Absolutely right.

But this doesn't mean Amazon should continue profiting from sales of a book which encourages child abuse.


I would have no problem with Amazon refusing to carry the book, or the publisher refusing to publish the book. But I would be strongly opposed to the government telling Amazon that it cannot carry the book; or telling the publisher that it cannot publish the book.

As do all of us, I'm sure. I'd much prefer Amazon execs make the ethical decision on their own. No need to mandate it from the government.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 03, 2013 7:41 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Vahir wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:I think the most dangerous thing about this particular book is not the instructions-for-beating or the dehumanization of children, but the assurance that spanking will produce the desired outcome if applied liberally enough, GUARANTEE FROM GOD promise.


Well, that's just baked into religion. They're all about attributing stuff to higher authorities instead of actually taking responsibility for your own advice. If they weren't, they wouldn't be religions.


That's quite a generalization you have there.


Yup. Feel free to disprove it.


Anas ibn Malik reported: A man said, “O Messenger of Allah, should I tie my camel and trust in Allah, or should I untie her and trust in Allah?” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Tie her and trust in Allah.”


Source: Sunan At-Tirmidhi 2517


My statement could not be reasonably read as "every single thing said by every religious person ever must be attributed to their diety".

It was merely an observation that a commonality of religions is that they engage in ascribing their beliefs to some manner of higher authority. Is it necessary to provide positive evidence of this for Islam? Obviously, a single example where it is not taking place does not disprove that the practice exists.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Red Hal » Tue Dec 03, 2013 8:46 pm UTC

I'm only disproving the absolute, not the principle.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Jave D » Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:08 pm UTC

I too would prefer it if corporations, willingly and on their own, agreed to stop using children to labor in coal mines, rather than the government mandating who they can and cannot hire. That dastardly government, always telling people what to do. It's not right, I say!

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:10 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:I too would prefer it if corporations, willingly and on their own, agreed to stop using children to labor in coal mines, rather than the government mandating who they can and cannot hire. That dastardly government, always telling people what to do. It's not right, I say!

We can ban child labor, but we can't ban books about the potential economic benefits of child labor.

We can ban child abuse, but we can't ban books about rationales for child abuse.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Vahir » Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:15 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:I too would prefer it if corporations, willingly and on their own, agreed to stop using children to labor in coal mines, rather than the government mandating who they can and cannot hire. That dastardly government, always telling people what to do. It's not right, I say!


Censorship is rather different than employment rights.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Jave D » Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:25 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
Jave D wrote:I too would prefer it if corporations, willingly and on their own, agreed to stop using children to labor in coal mines, rather than the government mandating who they can and cannot hire. That dastardly government, always telling people what to do. It's not right, I say!

We can ban child labor, but we can't ban books about the potential economic benefits of child labor.

We can ban child abuse, but we can't ban books about rationales for child abuse.


It's not "about rationales for child abuse;" that there is one whopping pile of euphemism which I'm not sure why you're so keen on serving up. After all if the issue is so clean cut as "not ban any book ever," for all intents and purposes it could be a detailed manual on how to abduct, rape and murder children while escaping punishment. My point however is that this happy alternative proposed about Amazon corporate executives doing the right thing is naive, wishful thinking in the extreme, and is akin to simply waiting for other corporate executives in the past to do the right thing regarding child labor. It's not going to happen.

But then as with most things, change apparently requires a certain amount of blood spilled. We met that amount with child labor in the US, but the sacrificial quota of innocent children has not been met to overcome this absurd insistence on universal, absolute rights to free expression that some Americans are unreasonably fond of.

More blood sacrifice needed, because freedom.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:33 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:
Jave D wrote:I too would prefer it if corporations, willingly and on their own, agreed to stop using children to labor in coal mines, rather than the government mandating who they can and cannot hire. That dastardly government, always telling people what to do. It's not right, I say!

We can ban child labor, but we can't ban books about the potential economic benefits of child labor.

We can ban child abuse, but we can't ban books about rationales for child abuse.


It's not "about rationales for child abuse;" that there is one whopping pile of euphemism which I'm not sure why you're so keen on serving up. After all if the issue is so clean cut as "not ban any book ever," for all intents and purposes it could be a detailed manual on how to abduct, rape and murder children while escaping punishment. My point however is that this happy alternative proposed about Amazon corporate executives doing the right thing is naive, wishful thinking in the extreme, and is akin to simply waiting for other corporate executives in the past to do the right thing regarding child labor. It's not going to happen.

But then as with most things, change apparently requires a certain amount of blood spilled. We met that amount with child labor in the US, but the sacrificial quota of innocent children has not been met to overcome this absurd insistence on universal, absolute rights to free expression that some Americans are unreasonably fond of.

More blood sacrifice needed, because freedom.

Amazon has stopped carrying other books based on public outcry.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Jave D » Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:52 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
Jave D wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:
Jave D wrote:I too would prefer it if corporations, willingly and on their own, agreed to stop using children to labor in coal mines, rather than the government mandating who they can and cannot hire. That dastardly government, always telling people what to do. It's not right, I say!

We can ban child labor, but we can't ban books about the potential economic benefits of child labor.

We can ban child abuse, but we can't ban books about rationales for child abuse.


It's not "about rationales for child abuse;" that there is one whopping pile of euphemism which I'm not sure why you're so keen on serving up. After all if the issue is so clean cut as "not ban any book ever," for all intents and purposes it could be a detailed manual on how to abduct, rape and murder children while escaping punishment. My point however is that this happy alternative proposed about Amazon corporate executives doing the right thing is naive, wishful thinking in the extreme, and is akin to simply waiting for other corporate executives in the past to do the right thing regarding child labor. It's not going to happen.

But then as with most things, change apparently requires a certain amount of blood spilled. We met that amount with child labor in the US, but the sacrificial quota of innocent children has not been met to overcome this absurd insistence on universal, absolute rights to free expression that some Americans are unreasonably fond of.

More blood sacrifice needed, because freedom.

Amazon has stopped carrying other books based on public outcry.


Oh. Well if that's the case I might need to revise the level of self-righteous fury in my post regarding that point.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:02 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Amazon has stopped carrying other books based on public outcry.


Oh. Well if that's the case I might need to revise the level of self-righteous fury in my post regarding that point.

Let's see....The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct was dropped back in 2010. While Amazon didn't drop Paula Deen's planned book Paula Deen's New Testament after her extremely racist comments, her publisher did. I think there are a few other specific examples of Amazon doing the right thing on its own, but I don't recall which books they were.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby morriswalters » Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:19 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:But then as with most things, change apparently requires a certain amount of blood spilled. We met that amount with child labor in the US, but the sacrificial quota of innocent children has not been met to overcome this absurd insistence on universal, absolute rights to free expression that some Americans are unreasonably fond of.
Plenty of blood is spilled ever year. How many children have died as a result of this book, and how many will be beaten to death, starved to death, by people that haven't read the book? There are other problems that are much larger in the US that require attention. Books are banned here, but the danger is that it is a two way street. Not everybody feels like you do and they have books they hold in low regard just like you do. And they are just waiting for a chance.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby cphite » Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:23 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:I too would prefer it if corporations, willingly and on their own, agreed to stop using children to labor in coal mines, rather than the government mandating who they can and cannot hire. That dastardly government, always telling people what to do. It's not right, I say!


The difference is that in the case of a company using child labor, a child is actually being made to work; whereas in the case of the book, someone is merely writing about discipline. Granted, what they're writing is utterly awful and despicable, but it's still just writing. If someone actually does the things that are described in the book, that person is ultimately responsible.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby cphite » Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:13 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:But then as with most things, change apparently requires a certain amount of blood spilled. We met that amount with child labor in the US, but the sacrificial quota of innocent children has not been met to overcome this absurd insistence on universal, absolute rights to free expression that some Americans are unreasonably fond of.

More blood sacrifice needed, because freedom.


Child labor involves actual children, who are actually laboring.

In the case of the book, clearly there are at least a few examples of people who have read this book and have followed the asinine advice within; and in this particular case, it resulted in the death of a child. But there are many, many more people who commit horrible acts of abuse against their kids without ever hearing about this book. Likewise, there are plenty of people who've read books like this one who would never do any of the things that are advocated.

The point is, it's not the book that abuses children; it's people who abuse children. And frankly, I believe that if someone is willing to starve a child, beat them, and leave them to sleep outside in the cold; that person is a monster whether or not they read this book. I find it very hard to believe that there are that many people out there who wouldn't do these things except that they read about them in this book.

You may find the insistence on the right to free expression to be absurd and unreasonable; you're entitled to that opinion. I find it absurd and unreasonable that a government should tell it's people what they're allowed to write, or to say, based on nothing more than the belief that someone might read it or hear it, and then do something stupid.

It's my belief that when someone does something stupid, or dangerous, or even evil, that they themselves are to blame. No matter what they've read, or who they've talked to.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Jave D » Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:44 pm UTC

Let's consider the subject of suicide. If someone kills themselves, they're the ones responsible. But what if before they died, someone kept telling them to do it? Let's say by written words on the internet, or text messages, or in person.

Now, that person is still responsible for killing themselves - and plenty of people kill themselves without being told to, and plenty of people are told to kill themselves but never do. No doubt, a person who kills themselves already had some sort of prediliction toward doing so (much as child abusers who follow the Child Abuse Guidebook* already had a prediliction) But does the right to free expression really extend to that? If not, why not, since after all the bully killed no-one, being told to commit suicide does not strictly speaking necessarily cause it, and freedom freedom freedom.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby morriswalters » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:25 am UTC

Jave D wrote:Let's consider the subject of suicide. If someone kills themselves, they're the ones responsible. But what if before they died, someone kept telling them to do it? Let's say by written words on the internet, or text messages, or in person.

Now, that person is still responsible for killing themselves - and plenty of people kill themselves without being told to, and plenty of people are told to kill themselves but never do. No doubt, a person who kills themselves already had some sort of prediliction toward doing so (much as child abusers who follow the Child Abuse Guidebook* already had a prediliction) But does the right to free expression really extend to that? If not, why not, since after all the bully killed no-one, being told to commit suicide does not strictly speaking necessarily cause it, and freedom freedom freedom.
If you wish perfect answers, invent perfect people. Perhaps the more direct way to answer you is with this link, from the UK.

A 300-strong crowd of had gathered underneath, with a few shouting abuse at him and urging him to jump. One teenager even yelled: "How far can you bounce?"

Eventually Shaun leapt 60 feet onto the pavement below, dying instantly.

Police said none of those who were shouting at him were actually committing an offence.
It's an ugly world you live in. I don't like it and you don't like it. Banning that book won't change anything. It will still be ugly. And just for the record, the moral dilemma is slightly different in the case of the book. He isn't urging anybody to kill. And the children have no power to choose at all.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:34 am UTC

Those people are assholes, sure, and were doing an ugly thing indeed. However, not every single bad thing can be criminalized without criminalizing good things. The law simply isn't that granular, and can't reasonably be. The question is if it's worth banning the good to stop the bad.

I look at authoritarian governments throughout history, and even contemporary excesses of power, and I say no.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby addams » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:58 am UTC

ok. We have a poster on the xkcd forum that reads Dutch.
I would like to know what the Dutch Courts have decided about the banning of books.

Then the Belgium's. Because the people of Belgium seem to have a thing for books.
We should not recreate the wheel. There may be a perfectly usable wheel.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Jave D » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:04 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Those people are assholes, sure, and were doing an ugly thing indeed. However, not every single bad thing can be criminalized without criminalizing good things. The law simply isn't that granular, and can't reasonably be. The question is if it's worth banning the good to stop the bad.


So you are saying that banning books that incite violence, or banning hate speech or bullying, just isn't possible without also banning good things too? Why not?

morriswalters wrote:It's an ugly world you live in. I don't like it and you don't like it. Banning that book won't change anything. It will still be ugly. And just for the record, the moral dilemma is slightly different in the case of the book. He isn't urging anybody to kill. And the children have no power to choose at all.


I am aware that banning the child abuse manual is not going to magically transform the world into a utopian paradise full of merriment and rainbows. However, it will change a few things. This vaguely fatalistic argument that the world is shitty and will always be shitty and nothing can change it so let's not make laws to address it goes against every moral fiber I have, and I don't even have that many.

And yes the moral dilemma are slightly different, of course they are, but the point remains. People's actions, even if they are legally responsible for their own actions (i.e. parents who abuse kids or people who commit suicide) can and are influenced by other people's actions (i.e written guides and verbal harassment, respectively). One side argues that to censor in any way the latter two is just plain wrong always because of an absolute and universal approach to the concept of free speech and expression and I am trying to figure out just what's seen as so great about it that it's worth other people's lives.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby morriswalters » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:10 am UTC

Jave D wrote:I am aware that banning the child abuse manual is not going to magically transform the world into a utopian paradise full of merriment and rainbows. However, it will change a few things. This vaguely fatalistic argument that the world is shitty and will always be shitty and nothing can change it so let's not make laws to address it goes against every moral fiber I have, and I don't even have that many.
What things will it change? Will children still be killed? The illusion is that banning that book is meaningful. The other is that your point of view is the only one.
Jave D wrote:And yes the moral dilemma are slightly different, of course they are, but the point remains. People's actions, even if they are legally responsible for their own actions (i.e. parents who abuse kids or people who commit suicide) can and are influenced by other people's actions (i.e written guides and verbal harassment, respectively). One side argues that to censor in any way the latter two is just plain wrong always because of an absolute and universal approach to the concept of free speech and expression and I am trying to figure out just what's seen as so great about it that it's worth other people's lives.
Maybe nothing. But I give up a lot to gain the things I gain from agreeing to live in the world with you peacefully. How much should I have to give? To ban a book I want you to show me a significant gain against the loss that I risk from allowing you to censor my ability to see other points of view. If it were as simple as the author suggests we beat children to death it would be and easy question. But he does no such thing.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:46 am UTC

Jave D wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Those people are assholes, sure, and were doing an ugly thing indeed. However, not every single bad thing can be criminalized without criminalizing good things. The law simply isn't that granular, and can't reasonably be. The question is if it's worth banning the good to stop the bad.


So you are saying that banning books that incite violence, or banning hate speech or bullying, just isn't possible without also banning good things too? Why not?


Because people use different things differently. Earlier someone mentioned Mein Kampf. Yeah, kind of an ugly book written by a terrible human. Still, there are lessons to be learned from it, even if they are "these are mistakes you want to avoid and watch out for others making". There would be an actual loss from destroying all copies of it...and that's an extreme example.

And of course, the history of book banning itself shows that people have different values, and it seems almost inevitable that the censors will not be perfect. Sure, the comic code may have been created with the best of intentions, but it resulted in all manner of stupidity.

Hell, some of the greatest works are interpreted multiple ways. Is Fight Club glorifying violence and rebellion or is it a criticism of those things...or is it something else altogether? Hell, it might be all of those at the same time. Any set of rules for censorship would have to either rely on the subjective judgement of individuals or rely on some fixed code that cannot possibly encompass the totality of human experience and expression.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:50 pm UTC

While rational people may universally agree that To Train Up A Child is a steaming pile of swineshit (with apologies for demeaning steaming piles of swineshit everywhere), the arguments against legislated censorship are more than robust enough to cover it. Religious people are still going to beat their children regardless of whether this book remains legal, so having access to this book can help us characterize how abusive parenting practices propagate. It can help us figure out whether a given abusive parent is an intentional abuser (like the Schatzes and the Williams) or an unaware abuser (like my parents). And hopefully we can use it to help reeducate people.

Certain types of hate speech and bullying can be banned because they constitute harrassment. But in even in those cases, we aren't restricting freedom of speech. Those things are legal to say; you just can't say them in an abusive or harrassing or violence-inciting way.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby morriswalters » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:11 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:Religious people are still going to beat their children regardless of whether this book remains legal, so having access to this book can help us characterize how abusive parenting practices propagate.
You paint with a pretty wide brush, although I don't think you mean to. Most Religious parents won't abuse their child, for that matter most people of any stripe won't.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:27 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Religious people are still going to beat their children regardless of whether this book remains legal, so having access to this book can help us characterize how abusive parenting practices propagate.
You paint with a pretty wide brush, although I don't think you mean to. Most Religious parents won't abuse their child, for that matter most people of any stripe won't.
Sorry, no brush intended -- I should have prefixed it to be more clear. "There will be religious people who are still going to beat their children...."

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:48 pm UTC

Doesn't advocating for child abuse fail the imminent violent action(the old test was clear and present danger) test? Trying to stop this book via free speech exceptions doesn't seem to cut it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio That guy was a KKK member and talking about vengeance against Jews, and blacks.

What's wrong with a public outcry leading to less people buying this book? Why do we have to ban it? Alternately, a less legal option would be to punish any parent who buys this book when they beat their kids. Honestly, this book isn't any worse than any other questionable discourse about religion, vaccines, etc etc.

As for why we don't censor as much as Europeans, we do censor, just not officially. Journalists and the media routinely self censor their views during WWII, the red scare era and, with China as a recent case. One big reason we shouldn't censor is that it leaves us with material that offends no one as oppose to offending a minority. The other big reason is the thought crime and lack of action nature of the offense you're alleging. The parents were charged with a crime, is there any evidence that the incidence of child abuse went up? Like did the parents say they thought that beating children was a bad idea until they read the book? If we made those same parents read a book on the virtues of suicide, would they kill themselves? What if I wrote a book that anyone who read this child training book should kill themselves because you get to go to heaven. Would that be illegal?

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:00 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Doesn't advocating for child abuse fail the imminent violent action(the old test was clear and present danger) test?

The nature of the writing is such that its advocacy is time-independent, so I think there's no imminency involved.

sardia wrote:What's wrong with a public outcry leading to less people buying this book? Why do we have to ban it?

I don't think many people actually want to ban it legally. They just want retailers to voluntarily stop carrying it based on public outcry.

sardia wrote:The other big reason is the thought crime and lack of action nature of the offense you're alleging. The parents were charged with a crime, is there any evidence that the incidence of child abuse went up? Like did the parents say they thought that beating children was a bad idea until they read the book?

Well, yes. Sometimes. That's where the religious nature of this becomes so pernicious; it's an appeal to authority used to convince parents that their beating-my-kids-is-bad intuition is wrong. But it's also religious speech.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby cphite » Thu Dec 05, 2013 4:34 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Religious people are still going to beat their children regardless of whether this book remains legal, so having access to this book can help us characterize how abusive parenting practices propagate.
You paint with a pretty wide brush, although I don't think you mean to. Most Religious parents won't abuse their child, for that matter most people of any stripe won't.
Sorry, no brush intended -- I should have prefixed it to be more clear. "There will be religious people who are still going to beat their children...."


Only religious people?

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:25 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Religious people are still going to beat their children regardless of whether this book remains legal, so having access to this book can help us characterize how abusive parenting practices propagate.
You paint with a pretty wide brush, although I don't think you mean to. Most Religious parents won't abuse their child, for that matter most people of any stripe won't.
Sorry, no brush intended -- I should have prefixed it to be more clear. "There will be religious people who are still going to beat their children...."


Only religious people?

No. Did I say "only"? I didn't think I said only.

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby oxoiron » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

To be fair, only religious people will feel those beatings have a divine mandate.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby addams » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:29 pm UTC

oxoiron wrote:To be fair, only religious people will feel those beatings have a divine mandate.

oh. Don't be so sure.
There are people that do not believe in God and think they are God.
No one to judge those people. If they feel like beating you to death, then they will.

No need to ask God. There is no God.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby oxoiron » Thu Dec 05, 2013 6:34 pm UTC

If you believe you are a god, I would be inclined to say you are religious.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby addams » Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:17 pm UTC

oxoiron wrote:If you believe you are a god, I would be inclined to say you are religious.

Really? If there is no God above you and your friends; That is a Religion?

What is its name?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby cphite » Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:25 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Those people are assholes, sure, and were doing an ugly thing indeed. However, not every single bad thing can be criminalized without criminalizing good things. The law simply isn't that granular, and can't reasonably be. The question is if it's worth banning the good to stop the bad.


So you are saying that banning books that incite violence, or banning hate speech or bullying, just isn't possible without also banning good things too? Why not?


Because it isn't possible for the law to determine any universal definition of "bad" things. If the law can ban this book, then it can ban other books that are deemed "bad" by whoever happens to be in charge. Those things may not necessarily be what you or I consider to be "bad" things...

I think we can all agree that the "discipline" advocated in this book is horrible. However, there are people who believe that even a light slap on the behind does irreversible damage to a child; does that mean we ban books that talk about spanking? Who gets to decide where the line is?

I am aware that banning the child abuse manual is not going to magically transform the world into a utopian paradise full of merriment and rainbows. However, it will change a few things. This vaguely fatalistic argument that the world is shitty and will always be shitty and nothing can change it so let's not make laws to address it goes against every moral fiber I have, and I don't even have that many.


It will change what, exactly? The book has barely been sold. Of the number of monsters out there who abuse their children, it's safe to say that a tiny, tiny fraction of them have even heard of this book, let alone read it.

And yes the moral dilemma are slightly different, of course they are, but the point remains. People's actions, even if they are legally responsible for their own actions (i.e. parents who abuse kids or people who commit suicide) can and are influenced by other people's actions (i.e written guides and verbal harassment, respectively). One side argues that to censor in any way the latter two is just plain wrong always because of an absolute and universal approach to the concept of free speech and expression and I am trying to figure out just what's seen as so great about it that it's worth other people's lives.


First off, there is a clear difference between harassment against a specific person, and writing a book. The most obvious difference being that reading a book is a choice made by the reader. If you wrote a book that contained nothing but pages and pages of reasons someone should kill themselves, that isn't the same thing as saying those things, or sending those things, to a specific person against their will.

Second, in regards to censorship, the problem is as described earlier - who gets to decide what is bad? You can argue all you want that books that are harmful should be banned - who gets to decide what "harmful" is? Who gets to decide what "bad" is?

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 809
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby MartianInvader » Thu Dec 05, 2013 10:29 pm UTC

addams wrote:Really? If there is no God above you and your friends; That is a Religion?

What is its name?

I hereby proclaim myself an autotheist!
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Jave D » Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:29 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Jave D wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Those people are assholes, sure, and were doing an ugly thing indeed. However, not every single bad thing can be criminalized without criminalizing good things. The law simply isn't that granular, and can't reasonably be. The question is if it's worth banning the good to stop the bad.


So you are saying that banning books that incite violence, or banning hate speech or bullying, just isn't possible without also banning good things too? Why not?


Because it isn't possible for the law to determine any universal definition of "bad" things. If the law can ban this book, then it can ban other books that are deemed "bad" by whoever happens to be in charge. Those things may not necessarily be what you or I consider to be "bad" things...


That's like saying that the law can't determine a universal definition of bad things, so if it can ban one action (i.e. murder) then it can ban other actions that are deemed bad by whoever happens to be in charge. And yet no one has a problem with murder being a crime on the basis that if one action is deemed bad why ANY action COULD be deemed bad by the law and that this is to be avoided. This is because it is possible, even for the law, to be against one thing and not necessarily also all things of that or similar type.

(And yes, I know that murder is also different from writing a book. The point of the comparison is to illustrate a principle that the slippery slope need not always apply.)

I think we can all agree that the "discipline" advocated in this book is horrible. However, there are people who believe that even a light slap on the behind does irreversible damage to a child; does that mean we ban books that talk about spanking? Who gets to decide where the line is?


How do we decide anything? How are laws made? How are they upheld?

I am aware that banning the child abuse manual is not going to magically transform the world into a utopian paradise full of merriment and rainbows. However, it will change a few things. This vaguely fatalistic argument that the world is shitty and will always be shitty and nothing can change it so let's not make laws to address it goes against every moral fiber I have, and I don't even have that many.


It will change what, exactly? The book has barely been sold. Of the number of monsters out there who abuse their children, it's safe to say that a tiny, tiny fraction of them have even heard of this book, let alone read it.


This is one reason why I think there needs to be much stricter and more widely upheld laws about child abuse in the USA. We have a lot of leeway... enough that child abuse manuals get to gleefully describe how to get away with child abuse based on the "leaving a mark" technicality.

As for the book, even if it has only sold X copies, and of them only helped "guide" X numbers of abuse situations, I am still for banning it as long as X is greater than 1. And the ban would set a precedent that the country is no longer approving of this kind of "discipline." Sends a message, you know. Of course that message would be much less impacted if nothing else changed, i.e. stricter laws and enforcement thereof about child abuse in general.

And yes the moral dilemma are slightly different, of course they are, but the point remains. People's actions, even if they are legally responsible for their own actions (i.e. parents who abuse kids or people who commit suicide) can and are influenced by other people's actions (i.e written guides and verbal harassment, respectively). One side argues that to censor in any way the latter two is just plain wrong always because of an absolute and universal approach to the concept of free speech and expression and I am trying to figure out just what's seen as so great about it that it's worth other people's lives.


First off, there is a clear difference between harassment against a specific person, and writing a book. The most obvious difference being that reading a book is a choice made by the reader. If you wrote a book that contained nothing but pages and pages of reasons someone should kill themselves, that isn't the same thing as saying those things, or sending those things, to a specific person against their will.

Second, in regards to censorship, the problem is as described earlier - who gets to decide what is bad? You can argue all you want that books that are harmful should be banned - who gets to decide what "harmful" is? Who gets to decide what "bad" is?


From the perspective of the one making the "speech" or "expression," the difference is moot regarding the ideal of free speech and expression. A bully might well (and probably has) excused their actions using that justification. Sure, telling someone something "against their will" might be mean and all, but the constitution doesn't say freedom of speech except when someone doesn't like it. Of course it's not exactly the same as a book, but this same argument - that people should be free to express themselves, in written word or verbal - would seemingly apply. And yet it doesn't, inasmuch as there are laws about slander and libel, and increasingly some measures against hate speech, harassment or bullying. The fact that we as a society can agree to make the discernment that some speech and some expressions are not allowed, constitutional or no, suggests that yes, it would be possible to ban a book without turning into an Orwellian dystopic totalitarian authoritarian thought-police state.

As for the how, the implementation of such, well there are plenty of ways but I have no useful suggestions as per the details. If I did, I'd be writing letters to congressmen or some shit instead of whining on an internet forum. I'm just arguing against the idea that freedom of speech must always apply in defense of any and all speech including this book; we clearly draw a line somewhere already, it just so happens that this book falls (apparently) on one side of that line and I'd like it to fall on the other.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:17 am UTC

Jave D wrote:This is one reason why I think there needs to be much stricter and more widely upheld laws about child abuse in the USA. We have a lot of leeway... enough that child abuse manuals get to gleefully describe how to get away with child abuse based on the "leaving a mark" technicality.
There are quite a few laws on child abuse now. Family courts are overloaded. And their aren't enough Social Workers or money to hire more. Like most things related to families proceeding are closed and sealed. And the Government isn't very good at doing what it needs to do. My recent memory can come up with at least two cases in Kentucky where a child under supervision by CPS died.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Dec 06, 2013 5:39 am UTC

The government has more than enough money to fund a functional CPS. They'd just rather buy military hardware.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests