R@pe victim forced to apologize to congregation

[KissMeDeadly]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Give him a break on the history thing Saya, afterall, it's not like he's actually Irish.

ba dum chhh

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Americans can work when they are 14. You can join the Army and get sent to Iraq at age 16. You can drive at 15.

For the record different states allow you to work or drive (in Va you have to be over 16 to drive and there are serious work restrictions until 18) but you need a parent or guardian's consent to do any of those things before age 18 in all US states.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Saya

How quickly forget how you wanted to excuse the church for tricking women into thinking they are abortion clinics, you defended the right of Catholic members of a PUBLIC school board for firing a teacher for being transexual, and I suppose the skinny jeans thread didn't involve the church but yeah, every thread lately that had to do with misogyny and transphobia, and now saying that the **** victim should have just not gone to the church that brainwashed her, you've been raging for the machine, haven't you?

Apples and oranges. My defence of the church based clinics and the Catholic based schools has no bearing on this case here. In both previous cases, I did feel the church was being attacked. Not once in this thread have I defended what this church did. You have continually tried to say I have, and people who have no even read my replies have jumped on to your replies claiming I did, but the reality is I never defended this church.

Yes, the first two I did support the church, for the reasons outlined in the respective threads. I won't bother rehashing those arguments here, as thats why they are in separate threads. You should have left them them as well, because trying to use those threads as a reason to attack me in this thread makes your argument look even weaker, especially since you have continually misconstrued my statements on this particular thread.

But if you want to look at threads collectively, one would have to wonder why every thread you post seems to blast organised religion. I mean, you do come across as an atheist on a mission to pot anything you can to attack any church based structures.

In this case, I do feel the critisim is appropriate (contrary to what you continually try and say I support), but that is not withstanding the fact your previous two posts I felt were misguided.

He's older than 15, you twat.

Really? We should ask him. I only say this because he himself told me a while back he was only 14 when we were discussing driving licenses in the UK.

But they can't leave school until their 16, so she'd be hard pressed to find full time work.

Not true. I know of a dozen people who left high school, in America, prior to turning 16. Your parents can sign a waiver and you can be released from attending school. You also can sue for independence if you feel it is appropriate, and that can be done at any age (although you have to prove you ability to support yourself in court).

Full-time work is 40 hours a week. Part-time is up to 30, and that does not include overtime. I worked as a dishwasher my first job while in junior high - at age 14 - and during the summer was doing 40-50 hours a week. The laws have not changed as I have a cousin right now who is 14 doing the same. This may however vary from state to state.

But they can't vote so they're imbecile children according to you, right?

No, your sarcasm is lost as my point was either they are adults, are they aren't. If one lives in a country where certain adult rights are bestowed at a certain age, you cannot argue they are children. You cannot have it both ways. Either a child is a child or an adult. Sure there are exceptions to every rule based on mental capacity, upbringing, etc - but then, are we arguing the girl in this specific article was a child because of her age or because of the rights she had? That was really my point all along, as at 15 the average American kid is pretty damn independent. To argue she was some wilting violet because all American children are incapable of doing anything for another two years seems a bit daft to me, because of the laws and my personal experiences there

[quoe]Again, she can't drop out of school, its very difficult for children to get emancipation from their parents, so she legally has to obey her mother anyway, and she wasn't old enough to join the army and go to Iraq, so no that wasn't an option.[/quote]

You are making excuses for her lack of action when you have no real concept or idea of what went on. She couldn't drop out of school? Why? Did you ask her? She wasn't old enough enough to join the army? I mean, your assertions here that these things were not options are conjecture considering the article does not mention any other routes she may have had or things she may have tried. To argue she was in a corner when the article does not even touch on these topics is to put words and ideas into an article that clearly does not have that information available.

Convexly, she could have run away to one of the many charity groups that looks after abused kids. It doesn't say she didn't try, we could then argue those charities failed her, but hey, thats if we want to just make up stuff and excuses as to why she didn't do things that never happened, they she had the option to try.

Actually, Ireland didn't get rid of Magdalene Asylums until fourteen years ago, way to know your own history. If it had happened in early 1996 in Dublin, it could very well have happened to her. At the same point in time, Canadian women were enjoying sexual liberty and the right to chose abortion even when they were *****, which Irish women and children still cannot chose, fancy that.

Oh yes, you must have got The Magdalene Sisters over there on DVD recently. Yes, the last one closed in 1996, but sure, no one has been sent to one in decades. The inhabitants in the last one were comprised of older women who had been there all their lives. It's not like they just stopped taking people on the day it closed.

Contrary to what you see in American film, Ireland is and has been a modern country for sometime now. HP, Microsoft, eBay, Google, etc all have their European headquarters here. We have fiber optic cabling 4G modems, and all the bells and whistles ye have in America. To try and say in 1996 we still had active asylums for unwed mothers in which women were interned operating on the scale they did 100 years ago is silly. People were well able to use the internet and drive their own cars - we weren't sending smoke signals and riding horses as you would suggest in 1996.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

First you claimed JC was 14 (see your first post above.) Then I corrected you ...

and I stated you were off and NOT JUST BY A YEAR OR TWO!

Which means logically that he can't be 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16.

But you came back with a comment saying that your argument is still valid if he's 15. So you can't read or you can't add.

I'm just going on what he told me, as previously mentioned, in an earlier discussion. The reality is, even if he is 17, then the argument is still valid. He is under the age of 18. A person who is not legally considered an adult having an opinion that another almost identically aged person who is not an adult is not capable of free thought begs the question how then can anyone trust your opinion when you think others like yourself are incapable of such thought?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by JCC

TI'm not making a case for fifteen year olds being universally incapable of making an informed decision, because I didn't state a case at all, I made it clear that I thought you were a dick and left it at that. If I was to imply that someone was incapable of making an informed decision, and I do not believe that is entirely the cause of what happened and your inability to accept the inability to make an informed decision is not why I think you're a dick, it would not be on the grounds that they are fifteen. This fifteen year old girl was raised in an environment that was incredibly controlling and hierarchical; I have never been exposed to that, nor have I ever been exposed to fundamentalist Christianity or evangelical religion to any serious extent, it has certainly never been a fixture of my life.

So you are arguing only kids who are raised outside of organised religion have the ability to make informed decisions before they are 18?

Were I fifteen years old, which I am not, my age would be the only thing that I had in common with this girl. She has been raised in an environment which has systematically destroyed any sense of independence or freedom of thought and will in her and as such her inability to come to an informed decision would only be compounded by her age, not created by it, and I think that a woman of thirty could be just as adversely affected by her upbringing as this girl potentially was.

You sure are reading a lot into an article that says none of this. Like Saya, you continually blast the church and claim this girl was incapable of any free thought of her own, when the article clearly says nothing about this. You are implying what you think the issue is, based on what you think about organised religion, and continue to absolve the girl, even though there is no evidence either way that what you or Saya claim to be true is true or not.

However, I don't believe that her inability to make an informed decision to leave was the cause of this incident. If this girl is fifteen years old and her family has taken her to this misogynistic, deeply divided and hierarchical church her entire life, an informed decision would tell her that it would be ill-advised to defy them. Who knows how her family would have reacted?

Who knows how she reacted? Again, you are putting way to much into the article and this girls life that is not in the article. It's like you're writing a whole back story for her based on your perception of what happened, even though there is no evidence what-so-ever to support what you are saying here.

Deeply Christian families are unfortunately not known for their tolerance and understanding when it comes to disobedience.

Again, your perception which you are transfixing upon this girl even though the article never makes any mention of this.

Per your first quote above, you claim you grew up outside organised religon, which is why even at your age you can make informed decisions, yet you claim to know the inner workings of the Christian families - which seems a bit contridictory considering you claim not to have been raised in such an environment. That then begs the question, how do you know so much about a lifestyle you claim to have never lived?

It comes down to perception. You can't project your beliefs or values on some person in a story just because it 'appears' to 'you' that their course of action was taken based on what you personally know in your own life. That is called projection, and is tandamount to story telling. You can try and justify it in your own mind in this manner, but the reality is, unless you get some more information on this girl, you can't make these broad claims her parents or religion were the precise factors in this story. We you can, but you are just hypothesizing and have no real bass on which to base those hypotheses.

She probably thought something along the lines of "I'm not in the position where running away from home is a viable solution to my problems, if I do something impulsive like that I may end up living a life worse than Hell, frequenting a Goth forum to blindly and consistently be an apologist for Christian religious institutions, proselytise people with whatever stance the Trotskyists are taking, make ad hominems about teenagers who are somehow unfathomably intellectually superior to myself as a substitute for an argument and start addressing people as 'laddy' and other clichés that reinforce my false Irishness. I'd best just cave to the pressure and apologise."

Whose apologising? No one is saying the church is right in this matter. Again, like Saya, my previous stance on two separate incidents have no bearing on this story. To claim they do is to overlook pretty much every response I have posted in this thread, which you like a few others have done in every response.

Also, 'laddy' is a Scottish thing. We don't say that here bhoy!

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Hit a nerve? What nerve did you hit? You don't know why I'm being shitty with you. But I'll tell you why. It's not because you're a threat to me intellectually. It's because I FEEL like calling you names and insulting you. It's not because my world view is being shattered, it's just because it tickles my fancy to be a dick to you.

Well, at least we know you are mature.

Here's the score. This is what I've gleaned from your posts:

You're blaming a child for being ***** and that it's somehow her fault for allowing her community to abuse her.

No, but then again you say you 'gleened' information, which is the same as cherry picking information you like to support your point and ignoring anything to the contrary. It is easy to support any theory when you selectively choose what you want to read.

I have in no post here supported this church or its actions, nor have I blamed the girl in the story. I merely pointed out, time and time again, that there were options available and only made a point of mentioning it was odd she did not look into this other options.

That is not defending the church in this case, nor is it 'attacking' the girl. It was and still is a valid question which has yet to be addressed.

You CONSTANTLY claim to support radical groups that are anti-American that want to wipe out whole groups of people.

This again is open to interpretation. I am not anti-American. I am against many government policies. The same can be said about many of the groups you are referring to in your above quote. Much like the british trying to say America is 'attacking' britan because they are attacking BP, it is not true. You can be angry and take issue with a government or policy and not have issue with the people there. If the people there want to construe this as an attack on themselves, then that is their choice, not mine and definitely no my intention. The same can be said about many of the 'radical' groups you are referencing.

You support groups who are NOT egalitarian, but are more so a theocratic political lean than a real Marxist lean.

That I agree with, but the reality is, right now those groups are the only alternative in many cases to the failed policies and the only groups which are supporting proper change in many cases.

You say you're a Marxist/Socialist when you are quick to defend or support groups that don't share your ideals, but only a common enemy.

Also true. Some may ask is the enemy of my enemy my friend? I like to think that through proper diplomacy that we can work together against a common cause and after that goal is achieved then we can iron out any differences in ideology.

You FAKE an Irish accent on-line. You call yourself Irish and try to distance yourself from being American.

Heh, I never thought one could even have an accent online, considering it is all text here. Could one not argue that it is the way you read it which is causing the issue? If you are referring to my colourful colloquialisms, then that is not an 'accent' but rather the local lexicon which I do interject into my posts as this nomenclature is used on a daily basis in my own life. Just to point out, it seems a bit silly and is a bit telling if something as minuscule as this irritates you. One has to wonder if it isn't something bigger that you harbour a grudge against, eh?

You ARE bigoted towards Americans.

Redundant, because you addressed this point above previously in this post. Again, being against a government and/or it's policies does not make you against the people there.

I mean, does America hate Iraqis? It invaded Iraq claiming it hated the leader and supported the people. To argue I hate America is to say inadvertently that you believe you cannot hate a government without hating it's people.

You come off as if every problem in the world is somehow linked to America or that they're responsible for the misery in the world.

Not every problem, but the ones I post about because these are the ones that directly effect my life and the lives of my friends and family. Sure, no one in Angola has ever done anything to effect my life, whereas I can cite many issues to the contrary based on American foreign policy - as can people around the globe.

You SIDE with the left NO MATTER WHAT it is. You refuse to think critically about your ideas. You simply chose to be a leftist and you don't CARE how the left gets any sort of leeway, just so they do. You are WILLING to bend the truth, twist the facts, or omit anything presented so that it will serve your leftist leans.

I would only partially agree with you on this statement. I do support the left on pretty much all topics, but I don't agree I do this blindly as you so claim. I put forth valid arguments to back my views, and if you don't agree with them that is your choice, but I don't come to a conclusion first based merely on political posturing.

From all of this, you just strike me as absolutely phony. Mostly because of your political ideals and the lengths you're willing to go to make something true when it isn't.

Thats your view, and you are welcome to it. I back my arguments with facts and figures. My views are like your views are open to interpretation, by my views are still not withstanding still my views and what I think/feel about a particular argument, no matter what you think.

A true Marxist would NEVER side with Hamas. A true Marxist would commend the United States for starting to get a more universal healthcare program.

One has to ask which is more important when it comes to human rights. Again, you are correct about Hamas. They are right wing and a bit theocratic, however, like in my previous statement above, they serve a valid purpose right now as people are dying. It is also true that a true Marxist would prefer that the working class in israel band together with the working class in Palestine to overcome the ruling class and at the same time end the middle east conflict, and one day that will happen, but in the meantime women and children are dying and something has to be done to stop the suffering of the civilians, and the only group which is even trying is Hamas. Its by no means a perfect system, and this is by no means a perfect group, but their humanitarian goals are noble and worth supporting considering the alternative of letting people die in the streets and live in absolute squaller.

A critically thinking person would know that neither side of the Gaza conflict for example is particularly good bunches of people. A critically thinking person can identify aspects of other cultures that are just plain wrong and messed up and that not all of them are equal. A critically thinking person can identify and understand why certain groups have to do what they have to do to ensure their survival such as Israel enforcing a blockade.

A critically thinking person would not discount the humanitarian effort being made by groups labeled 'radical' by the west. More importantly, a critically thinking person would not stand idly by for all this time while an illegal blockade which was meant to collectively punish a race of people whose only crime was being born in one area was in any way acceptable in society.

A critically thinking person can see WHY it's fucked up that a teenaged girl who got ***** and then psychologically forced to apologize to her community.

Again, for the umpteen time, no one said it was not 'fucked up' as you put it. I merely asked why other routes were not taken, why the safety nets put up by society had failed. Certain people, aparently yourself included here, seem to read more into that statement and automatically put words into my mouth even though my statements clearly say the opposite. This must be the 'gleening' you spoke of earlier in effect again.

Sternn, you're just not being a critical thinker. THAT'S why I disagree with you. Me being an asshole and calling you names is NOT a part of why I disagree with you, it's just because I FEEL like being a dick to you because I don't like you.

So critical thinkers are name callers? Gotcha. You're right, I don't lower myself to name calling as I stopped doing that in grade school. One day when you grow up you will find in the real world that behaviour like that is not socially acceptable.

Now see? I have engaged with you intellectually and addressed the meat of your current posts without resorting to name calling.

Partially - there still was much name calling throughout, but yes, at least you did put forth a few good arguments in that post sure.

From the list that I have made of what I've noticed about you, you can explain yourself. As a critical thinking man, I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong or mistaken. By all means, explain yourself.

Done and done.

PS: You're a fucking douchy Irish poseur.

Looks like your intellectual side lost out in the end to your immature side, eh? Don't worry, there is hope for you yet. One day you will get a real job, and you know, move out into the real world and who knows? You might be able to carry on a conversation without cursing at people who disagree with your views.

Then again, I am not holding my breath.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Bullshit. I work with a REAL Irish person, and I showed her your posts. She says you're a goddamn idiot. You countrymen don't stand with you; You're a fucking nut who stands with other fucking nuts in his fucking nut club. Every thursday you get together at "Batshit Insane O'Gradies" and talk about batshit insane things.

You should show her this post and these links and ask her about her thoughts - I would be interested in hearing what she has to say.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...1&id=567511840

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...3&id=567511840

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...8&id=567511840

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...3&id=567511840

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...4&id=567511840

Seriously, I would really like to hear what she thinks of those sure.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Solumina

For the record different states allow you to work or drive (in Va you have to be over 16 to drive and there are serious work restrictions until 18) but you need a parent or guardian's consent to do any of those things before age 18 in all US states.

You can drive in Virginia when you are 15 - you get your learners at that age.

You can work at age 14 - you can get a work permit at that age.

Granted you are not supposed to drive after 11 PM until you are 16 and you can't be scheduled for more than 30 hours if you are under 16, but you can work and drive at thse ages, as I lived in Virginia and did both sure.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

So you are arguing only kids who are raised outside of organised religion have the ability to make informed decisions before they are 18?

Crazy misogynistic cult that makes a woman apologise for being ***** /= all organised religion.

That misrepresentation is basically all your post is about so I won't bother quoting the rest.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I know of a dozen people who left high school, in America, prior to turning 16. Your parents can sign a waiver and you can be released from attending school.

You've made the assumption that her mother would sign the waiver. That's a bad assumption, since her mother supported the church and was part of the problem. I am not making an assuming when I state that her mother was part of the problem ... I base that statement from these lines of the original article:

When she was 15, Willis volunteered to teach her to drive after her mother refused to do so.

Anderson said she realized several months later that she was pregnant, and her mother took her to the pastor at Trinity Baptist Church for counseling.

Note the mother was unwilling to teach her to drive, and the mother did not take her to the police but took her to the pastor of the church instead. The initial call to the police was made a day later by the pastor according to the article.

SO you're the one making an assumption here that goes contrary to what is related in the initial news article, and it's a bad assumption at that.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

You also can sue for independence if you feel it is appropriate, and that can be done at any age (although you have to prove you ability to support yourself in court).

Well, yeah, that pesky proof of financial independence is problematic. Sometimes proof of a steady job is required. Sometimes a set amount must be held in a bank savings account (typically $1000 or more.)

But more importantly, this occurred in New Hampshire. She can only petition for emancipation in the state of her parents/guardians residence, so the emancipation laws of New Hampshire apply. They are:

TITLE I
THE STATE AND ITS GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 21-B
COMMON LAW RULE ABROGATED

Section 21-B:1
21-B:1 Age of Majority Changed. – The common law rule that a person is a minor to the age of 21 is hereby abrogated. A person who has reached his eighteenth birthday is hereby declared to be of majority for all purposes, except as prohibited by the constitution of New Hampshire and of the United States.

Source. 1973, 72:73, eff. June 3, 1973.

21-B:2 Recognition of Emancipation Decrees From Other States. – A person who is under the age of 18 years, but who has documentation which supports a claim that he has been emancipated in accordance with the laws of the state in which he previously had been residing, shall be considered to be emancipated in the state of New Hampshire.

Source. 1990, 201:1, eff. June 26, 1990.

SOURCE

Other than that, the state of New Hampshire makes no legal avenue for emancipation of minors available. Only about half of the 50 states do, and it is extremely difficult to accomplish even if it is available.

Extra credit reading: Emancipation of minors - Cornell University Law School

Again, you've made a bad assumption in thinking an option was available to her that was not.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

You are making excuses for her lack of action when you have no real concept or idea of what went on. She couldn't drop out of school? Why? Did you ask her? She wasn't old enough enough to join the army?

By federal law (10 U.S.C., 505), the minimum age for enlistment in the United States Military is 17 (with parental consent) and 18 (without parental consent). So here you've made another assumption that was ill-informed. I've already dealt with the other points in that quote.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I mean, your assertions here that these things were not options are conjecture considering the article does not mention any other routes she may have had or things she may have tried. To argue she was in a corner when the article does not even touch on these topics is to put words and ideas into an article that clearly does not have that information available.

So far I've debunked your assumptions that she could quit school, become an emancipated minor or join the army. There is serious question as to how difficult it would have been for her to get a driver's license (I think we can both hope she stopped taking lessons from Mr. Willis) and her mother wouldn't help her, but that is not addressed either way in the article. Also her ability to get a job independent of parental support is suspect but not dealt with, but lets be reasonable and guess that it might be problematic at best, okay?

In point of fact, I think the only foreseeable way for this young lady to get out of her circumstances would have been to petition to child protective services for removal from parental custody due to abuse. Even the many charity groups that look after abused kids would have had to route her to that government agency. And we can't know based on the information in the news article whether they would have succeeded in proving parental abuse. I suspect that it may have been difficult, since the source of the physical abuse was a babysitter (unless mom continued to let the babysitter have access to her after the girl reported her pregnancy.) How would she prove her mother was abusive? I'm not sure, especially if she had a whole church community standing up and saying what an upright citizen mom was. My general experience with child protective services is that they will take the words of a group of adults over the words of a single child every time.

But CPS might have been able to initiate a legal case against the r@pist depending on the circumstances and the information that they uncovered. Based on the information in the article we cannot know if that would have happened.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Convexly, she could have run away to one of the many charity groups that looks after abused kids. It doesn't say she didn't try, we could then argue those charities failed her, but hey, thats if we want to just make up stuff and excuses as to why she didn't do things that never happened, they she had the option to try.

It's vexing to note that this entire debate started out because you were the one making assumptions not supported by the information in the article. Since it seems to come down to the fact that her hopes of doing something to get out of that situation boil down to talking to a government agency, for that 15-year-old girl to do as you suggested, she would have had to:

1) Relate the details of her r@pe to complete strangers on several occasions (to the agency reps, to law enforcement officials and later again in the required court case.) This is something that is extremely difficult to do under the best of circumstances. It requires the victim to relive the event in her mind and to experience the humiliation of telling strangers about this most intimate of violations. Most r@pe victims have a hard time shaking off the feelings of shame associated with this traumatic attack, even though logically we know they are not at fault and should not feel shame ... it would be incredibly insensitive to expect a 15-year-old girl to do so easily. And Sternn, you and I will never know what that feels like, so I advise you tread lightly in offering r@pe victims advice on how they should be willing to go through that process in the pursuit of justice. There's a reason why discussions by women about r@pe call the process of having to relate the experience to strangers as "re-victimizing the victim."

2) Prove that her mother was significantly abusive enough to warrant the government agency removing the girl from the home and placing her in foster care. As I've already stated, that would be extremely difficult to prove, and is not supported by any information in the original news article. And how would her circumstances change if she was turned down by CPS or failed to prove abuse? Can we agree that they would not get better?

So, you've come into this discussion, assuming things that were not supported by the news report in question, to ask why a 15-year-old girl didn't take steps that were going to make her life incredibly more difficult in the short term, had very slim hopes of succeeding and quite likely would make her life harder in the long term.

This just makes you look like an ignorant, hateful misogynist.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by JCC

I don't know any left-wingers who would take Sternn's stance. Or right-wingers. He is a straight-up nutjob.

*Gives JCC a Cookie* You Earned it

[Saya]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Apples and oranges. My defence of the church based clinics and the Catholic based schools has no bearing on this case here. In both previous cases, I did feel the church was being attacked. Not once in this thread have I defended what this church did. You have continually tried to say I have, and people who have no even read my replies have jumped on to your replies claiming I did, but the reality is I never defended this church.

Yes, the first two I did support the church, for the reasons outlined in the respective threads. I won't bother rehashing those arguments here, as thats why they are in separate threads. You should have left them them as well, because trying to use those threads as a reason to attack me in this thread makes your argument look even weaker, especially since you have continually misconstrued my statements on this particular thread.

But if you want to look at threads collectively, one would have to wonder why every thread you post seems to blast organised religion. I mean, you do come across as an atheist on a mission to pot anything you can to attack any church based structures.

In this case, I do feel the critisim is appropriate (contrary to what you continually try and say I support), but that is not withstanding the fact your previous two posts I felt were misguided.

Every thread I post? Yeah the Earth Is Awesome thread is totally blasphemous. My point if you can recall a few posts ago is that you are not a radical and you can't claim to be here just to provide some radical opinion that we are lacking. You're here to support those who oppress.

Actually, this is whats weird about you. You don't know that I'm not an atheist, I'd get it if a newbie didn't know but a regular for years would know by now my views on religion, you don't know JCC's age after all the times we've mentioned it and even had a big birthday thread for him not long ago, and you very rarely participate outside of political threads. You are not apart of this community, no one likes you, I don't remember anyone ever liking you, and yet you and Deadman keep coming back claiming we need to open our eyes to something. You guys should really get together IRL and take up knitting or something.

Really? We should ask him. I only say this because he himself told me a while back he was only 14 when we were discussing driving licenses in the UK.

A while back as in a few years ago? His age is very well known.
Ben addresses everything else very well (thanks Ben for the research), so that theory of yours blasted out of the water, lets skip to the end.

Oh yes, you must have got The Magdalene Sisters over there on DVD recently.

Never seen it.

Yes, the last one closed in 1996, but sure, no one has been sent to one in decades. The inhabitants in the last one were comprised of older women who had been there all their lives. It's not like they just stopped taking people on the day it closed.

The inhabitants were indefinite prisoners of the church, yes, and lots of them cannot function in society today because their lives were robbed from them. I've read nothing to suggest that no one got sent there post early eighties, but many of the inmates were definitely being sent there while the sexual revolution was going on in the rest of the developed countries.

Contrary to what you see in American film, Ireland is and has been a modern country for sometime now. HP, Microsoft, eBay, Google, etc all have their European headquarters here. We have fiber optic cabling 4G modems, and all the bells and whistles ye have in America. To try and say in 1996 we still had active asylums for unwed mothers in which women were interned operating on the scale they did 100 years ago is silly. People were well able to use the internet and drive their own cars - we weren't sending smoke signals and riding horses as you would suggest in 1996.

I don't recall technological achievement proves that a country isn't misogynistic. Actually, the asylums got worst after the half of the century, and one of the women who have been very public about her experience was forced into the asylum in the seventies, it was hardly a hundred years ago, and in 1996 the church still had women there who were essentially slaves, some of them still live with nuns because they can't take care of themselves and many more in group homes. Its a man's country, I guess, but the girl's **** and the cover up was not an American problem, Ireland is just as guilty of institutionalized misogyny if not more so, and if it had happened there it would not have been better, very possibly worse.

[Delkaetre]

If anyone's still having trouble understanding why the girl may have had difficulty getting the hell out, read this- http://issendai.live journal.com/572510.html (remove the space, since this place hates LJ links)

It goes over what constitutes a sick system- like abusive relationships, workplaces or other hierarchies. How they keep people in, make it hard to even think of getting out, hard to recognise the problems.

Now imagine being in one of these for your entire life, and everyone you know being in it. It gets harder to know people outside who might advise you to leave. You've been raised in it, and an entire life of certain thought and behavioural patterns are hard to break. That's even aside from the absolute terror of isolation and abandonment that any thought of leaving the problem group may elicit.

[Malice In Wonderland]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

HA! You FUCKING idiot, IRISH FUCKING POSEUR. Do you fake your fucking accent in real life as well? You artificial fuck. The reason I don't argue with your points is because you're clearly fucked up. I can do some intellectual grappling with you if you'd like, but it's just bloody easier to call you stupid, a nut job, and a fucking Irish poseur.

you were BORN in America. You're American. At best your an American Irish. You're about as Irish as a furry is a furry.

Appropriate?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

You've made the assumption that her mother would sign the waiver. That's a bad assumption, since her mother supported the church and was part of the problem. I am not making an assuming when I state that her mother was part of the problem ... I base that statement from these lines of the original article:

Note the mother was unwilling to teach her to drive, and the mother did not take her to the police but took her to the pastor of the church instead. The initial call to the police was made a day later by the pastor according to the article.

SO you're the one making an assumption here that goes contrary to what is related in the initial news article, and it's a bad assumption at that.

No, unlike your statements I merely pointed out options that were possible. I never said she should have done anything, just pointed out options were available.

Well, yeah, that pesky proof of financial independence is problematic. Sometimes proof of a steady job is required. Sometimes a set amount must be held in a bank savings account (typically $1000 or more.)

But more importantly, this occurred in New Hampshire. She can only petition for emancipation in the state of her parents/guardians residence, so the emancipation laws of New Hampshire apply. They are:

*snip*

Other than that,the state of New Hampshire makes no legal avenue for emancipation of minors available Only about half of the 50 states do, and it is extremely difficult to accomplish even if it is available.

Again, you've made a bad assumption in thinking an option was available to her that was not.

Emancipation is always an option. Besides, if she had even attempted to go down that avenue, spoke to any local government official and/or attorney about the issue, it would have been abundantly clear immediately the situation she was in and safe to say someone might have taken some action on her behalf. But, like your statements previous - that is all conjecture based on something that never happened, so we could sit here all day and ask what-ifs, it won't change the story.

You are just reinforcing my point that 99% of what people are complaining about here is all based on scenarios that no one has a clue if they happened or not.

So far I've debunked your assumptions that she could quit school, become an emancipated minor or join the army. There is serious question as to how difficult it would have been for her to get a driver's license (I think we can both hope she stopped taking lessons from Mr. Willis) and her mother wouldn't help her, but that is not addressed either way in the article. Also her ability to get a job independent of parental support is suspect but not dealt with, but lets be reasonable and guess that it might be problematic at best, okay?

You state I say she could have done any of those things - the reality is, she didn't even try. So how exactly have you 'debunked' any options she may have had if there was a total lack of never trying.

Per my first paragraph above, if she had approached any government official, attorney, special organisation workers, etc. and attempted to look for alternatives, the ones I listed or even some I may have overlooked, then would you not agree that someone would have possibly raised a red flag and contacted the appropriate authorities?

Again, not saying that would have worked, as right now your are dealing directly with 'what-ifs' in an imaginary world of things that never happened, but since we are in this realm one would say anything is possibly, correct?

In point of fact, I think the only foreseeable way for this young lady to get out of her circumstances would have been to petition to child protective services for removal from parental custody due to abuse. Even the many charity groups that look after abused kids would have had to route her to that government agency. And we can't know based on the information in the news article whether they would have succeeded in proving parental abuse. I suspect that it may have been difficult, since the source of the physical abuse was a babysitter (unless mom continued to let the babysitter have access to her after the girl reported her pregnancy.) How would she prove her mother was abusive? I'm not sure, especially if she had a whole church community standing up and saying what an upright citizen mom was. My general experience with child protective services is that they will take the words of a group of adults over the words of a single child every time.

Hey! The first thing we both seem to agree on here. Again, this is a big 'if', as you yourself seem to note as you say 'I suspect...' - which is exactly what my post was saying. In fact, that paragraph you have right there is pretty much my sentiments in a nutshell and what I have been saying now in a dozen posts.

Sure it could be hard to prove, you can't say would as we are talking about something that never happened so to put it in direct unbending terms like many others here is silly - as I stated - people seem to be putting constants in claims that have no way to be judged in the real world since none of this happened.

IF she went looking for some type of help she might have found it. It would appear that we both agree on that.

But CPS might have been able to initiate a legal case against the r@pist depending on the circumstances and the information that they uncovered. Based on the information in the article we cannot know if that would have happened.

Bingo! Again, another good statement here, as sure, know one knows what would have happened if something in the past happened, because it didn't happen, so to assume the best (or conversely as many of the posters here are trying to do) assume the worst is nothing more than fictional conjecture.

It's vexing to note that this entire debate started out because you were the one making assumptions not supported by the information in the article.

Untrue, I merely pointed out she had options. In fact, that was my exact statement, a statement which you, yourself above seem to agree with. Even though you say the options in your opinion probably would not have worked, the reality is no one can say they would or would not have, since she didn't even go down that route.

Since it seems to come down to the fact that her hopes of doing something to get out of that situation boil down to talking to a government agency, for that 15-year-old girl to do as you suggested, she would have had to:

1) Relate the details of her r@pe to complete strangers on several occasions (to the agency reps, to law enforcement officials and later again in the required court case.) This is something that is extremely difficult to do under the best of circumstances. It requires the victim to relive the event in her mind and to experience the humiliation of telling strangers about this most intimate of violations. Most r@pe victims have a hard time shaking off the feelings of shame associated with this traumatic attack, even though logically we know they are not at fault and should not feel shame ... it would be incredibly insensitive to expect a 15-year-old girl to do so easily.

And then your off on another one of those constants that never happened. You are putting words into her mouth and feelings into a person who never lists them in any article. I'm not saying what you have described above is by no means untrue, but saying you cannot make a statement like the one above with the evidence you have in the article.

Broad claims stating she did not go to police because of shame cannot be asserted unless the victim herself says so. Just because you watch a TV special on the topic or spend your nights watching SVU does not make you a criminal psychologist, and asserting direct statements about a person in an article as to their frame of mind is nothing more than fantasy if the article itself does not contain any direct statements or quotes from the actual person in question.

That was my second point made in the posts from yesterday.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but you equally cannot discount that I might be correct.

And Sternn, you and I will never know what that feels like, so I advise you tread lightly in offering r@pe victims advice on how they should be willing to go through that process in the pursuit of justice. There's a reason why discussions by women about r@pe call the process of having to relate the experience to strangers as "re-victimizing the victim."

Thats very true, which is why I have yet to say definitely what happened any why, unlike many here who continually say 'she did this because...' or 'she didn't do that because...' - the reality is we do not know so sitting here arguing why some person did or didn't do something is nothing more than creative writing.

[CptSternn]

2) Prove that her mother was significantly abusive enough to warrant the government agency removing the girl from the home and placing her in foster care. As I've already stated, that would be extremely difficult to prove, and is not supported by any information in the original news article. And how would her circumstances change if she was turned down by CPS or failed to prove abuse? Can we agree that they would not get better?

The question is - who knows? You cannot say CPS would be ineffective especially if they were never called. To make such a broad claim with little to no fact is quite a stretch from reality. Thats like saying a murder victim had no chance even if he had dialed 911 as the police would not have arrived on time. Unless someone does something, you cannot say for sure what might have happened.

So no, we can't agree that things would not have gotten better if she did something that she didn't do because honestly, neither of us can say for sure because it never happened.

So, you've come into this discussion, assuming things that were not supported by the news report in question, to ask why a 15-year-old girl didn't take steps that were going to make her life incredibly more difficult in the short term, had very slim hopes of succeeding and quite likely would make her life harder in the long term.

This just makes you look like an ignorant, hateful misogynist.

You like many here have taken a stance on facts that have not been presented. Assuming that no matter what she had done, she would have gotten no help. Nothing she would have tried would have worked. Claiming she was in some type of pit with a gun to her head scenario. I am not saying by any means what happened was not horrible and totally wrong, the only thing I say was, I questioned why a youth, who had the ability to move freely did not seek any sort of help in the matter. I think it is a valid question, and you claim, like others here, that there would have been no help, and nothing would have worked.

But again, no one can make that claim as nothing was even attempted.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by JCC

Crazy misogynistic cult that makes a woman apologise for being ***** /= all organised religion.

That misrepresentation is basically all your post is about so I won't bother quoting the rest.

Whereas I would not disagree with the statement that this group is a 'crazy misogynistic cult', you have to realise that this is not actually a cult, but a protestant church group in America that is pretty much like dozens of others, and since cults are illegal in America and monitored by law enforcement - this is not what the government there defines as a cult.

Therefore again, I agree not just because the situation described here is nothing short of crazy, it is routine for a large chunk of Americans who practice similar religions.

So you can't really write it off as an isolated group of nut jobs especially when this is more than likely not an isolated occurrence.

I could continue on to why I think protestant religions are bad, but that would just send us off on a tangent on religion in general and would be quite off topic, so I shall refrain on that today and save it for another thread.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Saya

Every thread I post? Yeah the Earth Is Awesome thread is totally blasphemous. My point if you can recall a few posts ago is that you are not a radical and you can't claim to be here just to provide some radical opinion that we are lacking. You're here to support those who oppress.

I don't follow all of your posts like some here, so I can't account for anything outside of the forums I do frequent. You have to admit - if you look at your posts in the news and politics sections, one could safely say you have certain views which are prevalent.

Actually, this is whats weird about you. You don't know that I'm not an atheist, I'd get it if a newbie didn't know but a regular for years would know by now my views on religion, you don't know JCC's age after all the times we've mentioned it and even had a big birthday thread for him not long ago, and you very rarely participate outside of political threads. You are not apart of this community, no one likes you, I don't remember anyone ever liking you, and yet you and Deadman keep coming back claiming we need to open our eyes to something. You guys should really get together IRL and take up knitting or something.

Heh, are you going to take your ball and go home? You really should have look at your profile and mine - you do know I have been here since the site was founded, even helped code a bit of this site - years before you even joined. Do I care the most recent group of blow-ins do not like my opinions? No.

Have a look at the oldest posts in the POLITICS forum. Talk about venom spewing - the last group of 'regulars' that came here also hated my opinions. I say 'regulars' in quotes as they too all joined this site years after meself and tried to claim some sort of seniority in posts almost identical to this one here sure. They eventually all fecked off to parts unknown and have never been seen again.

A while back as in a few years ago? His age is very well known.
Ben addresses everything else very well (thanks Ben for the research), so that theory of yours blasted out of the water, lets skip to the end.

Again, I rarely spend time reading threads about someones birthday or other things of that nature. Also, I do post in the music forum when there is something worth addressing. I used to (if you check my old posts going back to 2003) be the attack dog who marshaled the music section and bit the heads off the n00bs who posted shite about manson and him, but these days the posting in that forum is down to a trickle so it makes no sense to stop the little traffic which is going there.

Also, again, it is not a 'theory' - JCC like yerself in on my Windows Live Messenger list and he stated during a conversation his age. I didn't just pull the number out of the air sure.

The inhabitants were indefinite prisoners of the church, yes, and lots of them cannot function in society today because their lives were robbed from them. I've read nothing to suggest that no one got sent there post early eighties, but many of the inmates were definitely being sent there while the sexual revolution was going on in the rest of the developed countries.

I agree with you there, but we again are talking back in the 1950's, not in recent history as you would have us believe.

I don't recall technological achievement proves that a country isn't misogynistic. Actually, the asylums got worst after the half of the century, and one of the women who have been very public about her experience was forced into the asylum in the seventies, it was hardly a hundred years ago, and in 1996 the church still had women there who were essentially slaves, some of them still live with nuns because they can't take care of themselves and many more in group homes. Its a man's country, I guess, but the girl's **** and the cover up was not an American problem, Ireland is just as guilty of institutionalized misogyny if not more so, and if it had happened there it would not have been better, very possibly worse.

You sure seem to want to make lots of broad statements about a country which you have never visited and seem to know little about.

Sure people were still there because they couldn't take care of themselves because many had disabilitys and the Church took care of them. Nothing sinister in that, no matter what you are trying to infer.

And again, Dublin as far back as the 90's has always been pretty much like NYC in many ways. To try and say it is more like Saudi Arabia in the 90's when the dot com boom was in full swing is a clear indicator that you really have no idea about things here - then or now.

[CptSternn]

From my messenger logs...


24/01/2009 5:38:03 PM Sternn : do you drive?
24/01/2009 5:38:47 PM JCC : No, I'm not old enough.


Since the legal age for a provisional license is 15, I then deducted JCC was 14 and that was 2009.

We had a nice conversation on anarchy, and I used an example involving drivers licenses.

If ye say I am now wrong, then fine, he might be 15, but the question then is why would he tell me differently? I really don't care, just wanted to point out it wasn't me who just pulled some number out of the air.

[JCC]

The age for a provisional license is 17.

[Ben Lahnger]

Sternn, you are a thick-headed man who is stubbornly adamant even on points you have been proven wrong on (ie: you insisted that emancipation is ALWAYS available after I PROVED that was not true in this case), you ignore parts of people's posts that you can't argue against (I proved your assertion that she should have joined the Army was not possible) and you continue to defend an abhorrent position. I don't come here to do extensive research on legal, medical and psychological matters to joust with such a stubborn, insensitive person, so I am done talking to you.

[Alan]

You guys are pissing me off. Why are you dedicating so much effort on this idiot?
Sternn pretends to portray himself as an anti-Imperialist left wing champion, when he's just a cartoonish anti-American wannabe radical.
As soon as an issue involves church, we immediately see him devolve into a more right-wing idiot than Deadman.
That's all you need to know, and that's all that matters. Don't argue under his terms until he acknowledges he'd sooner join a catholic National Front analog than a secular social democratic party.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Alan

You guys are pissing me off. Why are you dedicating so much effort on this idiot?
Sternn pretends to portray himself as an anti-Imperialist left wing champion, when he's just a cartoonish anti-American wannabe radical.
As soon as an issue involves church, we immediately see him devolve into a more right-wing idiot than Deadman.
That's all you need to know, and that's all that matters. Don't argue under his terms until he acknowledges he'd sooner join a catholic National Front analog than a secular social democratic party.

Alan + +

We really shouldn't be bothering, guy's brain is pretty turned-in on itself.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Have a look at the oldest posts in the POLITICS forum. Talk about venom spewing - the last group of 'regulars' that came here also hated my opinions. I say 'regulars' in quotes as they too all joined this site years after meself and tried to claim some sort of seniority in posts almost identical to this one here sure. They eventually all fecked off to parts unknown and have never been seen again.

They couldn't have joined the site "years" after you did due to the fact that you came in 2003 (unless of course this isn't your original account here), I got here 1 year later and many of them had been here for quite some time. Not to mention that many of those people were made mods, and most people would consider active mods to be regulars, or the fact that they posted more frequently than you.

Also many people who were regulars in those days are still in contact with each other and it was well known where they went off to, you just weren't included because you always caused drama.

Back then you were the only steady member who constantly had conflicts with everyone, sure there were some people that butted heads frequently (hell even I had some nasty fights) but even the trolls caused fewer problems than you. There were tons of conversations and debates where people held vastly different opinions but most of them were quite civil, unless they involved you. I'm not sure if the problem is your arrogance, you inability to admit when you are wrong, your ignorance, or just the fact that you're kind of a dick, but the problem was you. I mean there were times when I was arguing with someone and getting people to see where I was coming from and then you would come in and spew a lot of shit that agreed with me and it was just done in such a way that any progress I had made was instantly lost and sometimes even made me start questioning my position because you were just that much of an asshat.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Solumina

They couldn't have joined the site "years" after you did due to the fact that you came in 2003 (unless of course this isn't your original account here), I got here 1 year later and many of them had been here for quite some time. Not to mention that many of those people were made mods, and most people would consider active mods to be regulars, or the fact that they posted more frequently than you.

Yeah, he was banned at one point.