From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue May 07 2002 - 04:10:01 MDT
Hi Samantha, thanks for the narrative by way of giving examples of
how horrible child abuse can be. There's no denying that you and
your siblings needed a lot of help that your community (nowadays
we say "society) should have provided.
> have been much worse. When I got away my best friends family
> took me in because they do were afraid that my father would
> seriously harm me.
Well, I spoke a little hastily: your community did offer some
support, but there sure could have been more.
Again, I only think that diminutions of legal freedoms are not
the best answer, for reasons I gave. There are many other ways,
e.g., other parts of the community including friends and family.
The trouble with that from your perspective is probably that
it isn't certain that they'll be able to "solve" the problem.
Well, neither is it certain that the sheriff and the laws will
"solve" it either. Even today, despite uncountably many laws,
a great deal of abuse still occurs.
> You'll get no support from me for theoretical arguments that
> child abuse laws are inherently wrong. I will agree that some
> of them go much too far and the practices of the authorities in
> such matters today is sometimes disgraceful when it resembles a
> witch hunt.
I understand. And we do agree that today's laws in fact also
help create problems. Until the "authorities" become more
saintly, those witch hunts will be proportional to the legal
power they have.
Lee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 9:04 PM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: Re: Reproductive Cloning
>
>
> I strongly disagree with your point of view re child abuse laws.
> Having the sheetrock broken in several rooms of the house by
> my body that was slammed into it because my father was pissed at
> the world in general and he was sure that somehow I was up to no
> good is not at all what I would consider ambiguously termed
> "abuse". Being hit on the head when you are 8 years old with a
> hammer (thankfully lightly enough not to do really serious
> damage although I did see stars and hear ringing in my ears)
> just because you look a bit sullen after being yelled at for not
> hand mowing the yard fast enough and being ordered to clean
> Dad's muddy work boots as punishment is nothing other than
> abuse and a clear and present danger to the child. Being told
> several times a week that you are utterly worthless and need to
> have your will totally destroyed to amount to anything at all,
> is pretty damn abusive in my book. Is it ambiguous when watching
> your younger siblings get physically and emotionally scarred up
> year after year and being old enough to understand what is
> happening to them and even why your father is like he is to some
> degree. Law is a very important tool for the safety of children
> in such cases. I also deeply loved my father. He didn't have
> all bad qualities. He had some very good ones. But that didn't
> make him any less monstrous or dangerous. I first ran away when
> I was 9 because frankly I was afraid he was going to kill me the
> way he was going. I left for good at 16 or barely 17. A society
> that offers no protection and no recourse from such abuse is not
> at all civil in my book.
>
> In "the long run" I could easily have been dead or brain
> damaged. As it is I have a deviated septum from a punch that
> landed (I was generally a fast ducker and a good blocker), a
> somewhat skewed left shoulder and slightly trick left wrist and
> hand because of an accident in school that my father, insisting
> I was faking, never took me to a doctor for. It could easily
> have been much worse. When I got away my best friends family
> took me in because they do were afraid that my father would
> seriously harm me. It was by no means ambiguous.
>
> You'll get no support from me for theoretical arguments that
> child abuse laws are inherently wrong. I will agree that some
> of them go much too far and the practices of the authorities in
> such matters today is sometimes disgraceful when it resembles a
> witch hunt.
>
> - samantha
>
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > Samantha writes
> >
> >
> >>>But questions concerning children or animals are tougher yet:
> >>>just what do reasonable people actually do when seeing some
> >>>parent beating a child in public? You definitely have to "be
> >>>there" before you even have the first clue. For societies to
> >>>attempt to write laws about that, it's true, does keep a lot
> >>>of dangerous bureaucrats sidelined who would otherwise do far
> >>>greater damage when directing their omnivorous gaze at economic
> >>>issues, say, but cannot otherwise said to be accomplishing any
> >>>good.
> >>>
> >>What? My father was extremely physically and emotionally
> >>abusive. Are you telling me that laws against treating children
> >>that way are unjustified and accomplish nothing?
> >>
> >
> > I don't think that they accomplish anything that is
> > good in the long run. I disagree, as I've said, that
> > there should be such laws. For more details, read my
> > previous posts, but basically (i) abuse is too hard to
> > define and too hard to stop (ii) families form a
> > cohesive unit that to a great degree makes it possible
> > for everyone else to butt out, especially the authorities.
> >
> > Lee
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:52 MST