Posted on 05/17/2002 3:36:51 AM PDT by L.N. Smithee
Not to pounce on you with an elephant gun, but your post makes me think of a little girl I know who is 8 years old and having to deal with the 'guilt' of tearing the world apart because she told what her daddy was doing to her. A confession that had to be coaxed. The really sad part is that her mother still wants to be with him... thats the part that reminds me of your post -- should the world pretend 'its all ok' when it really isnt?
In short, the girl in school can be shielded from these adult-realm condemnations, but given the realities these days (as in my example) I wonder if we are protecting or disarming the children.
Let's see you are comparing a father raping his little girl with a mom earning a living as a topless dancer?????????????????
I sure am. In the associative sense, not in the quantitative sense. Its a cultural question:
How long would the little girl who was raped remained silent if 'our' culture was different than it is now. It was sheer luck and acute perception that these rapes were even detected, because these rapes met the legal definition of penetration - amounting to parting of the labia - there was no penetration that would cause pain...
So the question becomes, applicable or not to this particular case --- How much does the sexualization of children by our culture permit and promote child abuse?
No one knows, but we can make educated inferences.
Im probably the most libertarian person you'll meet, but with those principles you must accept the rights of people who do not wish to associate with persons (or thier children) who are contrary to thier values.
THAT, however is on the legal level. On the philosophical level I will admit the school is being a bit of a stickler considering the age of the kid, but it does appear they tried to accomodate the mother with other means.
Personally, I got no beezkneez in forming any opinion on how the woman is raising her kid because Im way too far afield to form one. I applaud her for being a christian, but even that is qualified because, well, topless single parents is what our current situation needs less of. Sorry.
Did you check out the web site on one of the links on one of the threads? It doesn't take long to have a pretty good idea of what they do. The difference between a high class gentleman's club and a sleazy joint is the cleanliness of the bathrooms and the price of a drink.
While it is true all things are 'different' in some manner, there are nearly always logical mappings to be made between catagorical types. When one puts forth situation B, the intent is to point out the relevent simularities to situation A. The antagonist, when they invoke the 'apples and oranges' argument, incur the burden of showing exactly HOW these differences override or erode the simularities involved.
This you have not done. You expect me to buy the fact that the dissimularities make the simularities null and void without putting forth any arguments as to why this should be so.
Go ahead, I'm listening.
In the meantime, I will bonk you on the head with my refutation of the 'apples and oranges' logic-
The diffence in color, taste and source of origin of the two fruits has no bearing when the context is the question of the amount of pain one endures when either is used as a suppository.
The context in our case is 'the sex culture and its effects on young children' - to dispute that makes the whole article and principles involved trivial.
1. This is a private Christian school. In the United States churches have the freedom to establish their own schools so they can teach kids the values they believe in. It amazes me how many so-called freedom lovers apparently believe that private organizations should not be allowed to establish criteria for membership.
2. It is irrelevant whether the people in this church school are being un-Christian, hypocritical, pious, mean, or insensitive. They are practicing their religion they way they believe and if you don't like it don't go there. Why do so many people think a church should be forced to accept behaviours they believe are sinful?
3. I am sending my own kindergarten-age daughter to a private Christian school. We also went through a rather grueling screening process of interviews etc. And we had to sign a lengthy agreement as a condition of being admitted. It is impossible for this woman not to have known that the church wouldn't approve of stripping.
That being said, the church is no doubt merely looking after the interests of the parishioners and parents who send their kids to this school. I am sending my kids to private school for the exact reason that I want to keep them away from such deviancy for as long as is possible. And I would be very upset if after spending the extra dollars the school was no different than a public school.
And finally, does no one see the irony in how all these posters are coming down in a most harsh and judgmental fashion on those who are being judgmental? Hey - in this country people are allowed to think stripping is sinful.
I guess it is, to your argument. It is apples and oranges.
Nor have you offered any rebuttal to my argument.
While the 'is NOT! is TOO!' form of discourse is recognized as valid in the schoolyard, in the adult world failing to rebut arguments or support assertions results in default.
I am not here to win an argument. I am here to test the principles I hold by exposing them to challenge and learn where they are wrong -- to learn HOW and WHEN they can be applied validly.
Most peoples motives are not in accordance to this. They are out, like a roving street gang, to find someone to dominate and intimidate. Ideology is merely the *type* game they use to do this. Might as well be boxing or checkers, because they are only interested in fundamentals *as a means to* win. To dominate.
To validate themselves and thier position -- it's a form of 'my country, right or wrong'.
I *expect* you to discount all of this simply because we already disagree on topic X, and I *expect* you to be contemptuous because I have called-you-out on the type of game you (and most, even myself) are tempted to play.
Such is the nature of man.
The only way to improve ones correctness is to discover how they are wrong -- in what context does a principle lose validity and WHY. The dominance game is not conducive to that, it is merely the varnish on a mind that has atrophied.
Your wife is selling *herself* short if she actually would agree to you selling *yourself* short at $2000 a night.
Your assessment sounds right on. It's the difference between godly sorrow (sorry for doing it and willing to change) and worldly sorrow (sorry that you got caught and blaming everyone else for you doing it - like Bill Clinton).
Actually it is short because there is no argument. You are comparing apples and oranges. Actually a more apt description would be apples and cyanide. A mom titty dancing for a living is not a father screwing his daughter. If you can't see that something is wrong.
The two have one thing in common- cultural decay. They are peas in a pod, not apples and oranges.
The school, and Christianity itself, are in opposition to this decay, it is rightfully their perogative to determine who they are going to serve. Denying that perogative is simular to denying free speech- you may not 'agree' with thier position or you may think it is too harsh, but at some point you must respect their right of association and allow them to excersize it how *they* see fit.
A society that dictates 'tolerance' is no better than the Taliban, for both infringe on liberty.
Read my quotes. Nowhere do I say that the school had no right to do what it did. I would have discreetly told the mom not to come back a month after they did, WHEN THE SCHOOL YEAR WAS OVER AND THE CHILD WOULDN'T BE A VICTIM OF THEIR "RIGHTEOUSNESS". I said they hurt the child not the mom. I think they are a bunch of Pharisees who pound their breasts in front of the synagoge. They hurt a little girl with their "righteousness". I think they are worse than the mom.
Everybody in this whole affair except for the innocent little girl disgusts me.
The girl in my story is also 'hurt' because her father is not (really) a part of her life anymore, and will barely be so again. She is also hurt because her mother still wants to be with him and she does not really understand that it's not her fault.
Its that darn 'righteousness' -- that both her and her mother fail to recognize.
So where is the line where we forfeit righteousness in order to make little girls happy? Lets ask God about all the little girls who drowned in the flood.
Still stuck in the Old Testament ehh?
As Christians we don't hurt little children when it can be avoided. It could have been avoided but for the pharisees rush to be publically righteous. They sicken me as much as the mom.
The girls mother has gotten her to recant, so now she may lose all her kids in probate even if her husband gets off.
These two situations are not comparable period. You have got to get a grip on reality!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.