You couldn't for example decide to keep your child at home and make them work the garden (as you would a slave) in lieu of going to school because that would be illegal (at least in the US it would). Children have certain rights that supersede your parental authority, which means that you don't "own" them.
So, every time a kid says "no, I don't want to do that", how comes it's the parent's will that is superposed? If you tell your kid to take out the trash and he says no, then you do't have the right to insist, right?
But this is a tradition that has been embraced by the majority for so many decades now
Most human beings on the planet are not circumcised. What about countries were this is not a tradition? China for example. How come Jews and Muslims can circumcise their kids in any country? Given that the "it's a tradition" isn't valid in that country, it should be considered illegal (and criminal). But that is not the case. They are trying to ban this in Germany but the backlash is considerable. What if my family's tradition is to cut part of my external ear? What about the New Jersey mom who brought her 5-y-o to the tanning salon? Tanning is a tradition in New Jersey so why was everybody against that? The truth is people have a blind spot vis-a-vis certain issues. The law is wrong because it is partial.
the law happens to be on the side of the majority.
As I just said, that is clearly not the true.
And people are actually questioning this parental right both inside and outside the US, so it may not always be this way.
Questioning doesn't mean the law will change. The leeway we have given to certain minorities is astonishing.
the courts determine what constitutes harassment and what (if any) punishment should be dealt to the harasser. It doesn't matter what you or I think is harassment, what matters is what the law says in a given jurisdiction and what the jury decides that day.
The problem here is that harassment is not prosecuted automatically by the state. The victim has to press charges. That's why Perez Hilton hasn't been to jail. As soon as someone presses charges, the slimy lawyers get in the game, they settle and that's the end of the story.
It doesn't matter what you or I think is harassment, what matters is what the law says in a given jurisdiction and what the jury decides that day.
Actually, what matters is the opinion of 12 people that have no idea of what the law is. Having a jury is by itself insane.
Unfortunately, as Ghandi said, "an eye for an eye" mentality just leaves everyone blind![quote]
> Uhm, I don't see why that would be true. I'm not a thief, I'm not a murderer so why would I get punished? The "an eye for an eye" mentality simply provides criminals with an equivalent punishment. So, a person can kill someone but his own life is too precious to be taken away. And by the way, Ghandi's mentality was very much wrong. It is this pacifist, left-wing (I'm a lefty btw) approach that has turned our society into an unsafe place. Criminals just get out (if they ever get in in the first place) and take it up.
[quote]I would rather Bobby's mother have learned a valuable lesson from the tragedy that she lived through.
That's the attitude I'm talking about. I don't give a flying *beep* about that ugly *beep* I don't care about how she feels. The tragedy that she lived through? She drove her son to suicide and she's in pain? What about the victim?
As horrible as she seemed to him, I still got the sense that she did what she did because she loved him.
Well, that changes everything! Hallelujah, the son is resurrected!
She was just very misguided
That's why we should ban some people from procreating.
That is something that she'll have to live with (the death of her son) for the rest of her life.
So do all criminals. Should I forgive a murderer because he will be facing demons for the rest of his life? I don't care.
reply
share