Utopia Talk / Politics / Courts gone wild

Habebe Member	Sun May 09 22:07:49 http://nyp...-could-cost-a-mom-her-kid/amp/ An appellate court has ordered a mother of a mixed race child to get rid of a rock in her garden that has a crude stars and bars flag on it or else they may take custody away from her....WTF! no wonder people are.fleeing NYC and LA in droves. People vote with their feet. Could you imagine if this was a foreigner who had their home nations flag up and that home nation had a questionable past?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 10 05:30:22 Is this real?
Habebe Member	Mon May 10 05:37:41 As far as I know, my only apurce being this article.
Habebe Member	Mon May 10 05:42:28 http://www..._og2ZYPPaHNXb-wS4waX4Bg44:1104 Its been covered apparently by most major news atleast.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon May 10 14:07:36 it's not as crazy as implied there's a custody dispute between father & mother, & some court suggested the rock is relevant (so not like they would take the kid away & make it a ward of the state or something... nor likely take away kid at all, just saying a factor in deciding custody arrangement)
Habebe Member	Mon May 10 14:16:11 Umm, regardless, they are threatening to take custody ofnher. Child by force of law. Because of a painted rock. I think the example of a pride flag was relevant.
Habebe Member	Mon May 10 14:16:41 Or how about BLM flag?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon May 10 14:58:30 it's not necessarily (or likely) to be taking custody away completely, just saying a factor in determining who gets kids when (& likely wouldn't be held up on challenge) but regardless, the mother should just get rid of the rock... (presumably white mother, half-black kid, but not sure it says anywhere)
Habebe Member	Mon May 10 15:23:35 Yeah, If it wad me, Id just wash the rock...whatever. But it clearly as "crazy as implied" A judge may take a womans child because of a painted flag on a rock. This is the sort of thing that makes people fear the government. What if instead of a flag it was because she openly spoke against Trump or something.
Seb Member	Mon May 10 16:15:58 Habebe: "because of a painted flag on a rock." The word because is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. It is, as Tumbleweed suggested, a white woman, black father, mixed race kid - and the rock was raised as part of evidence why the father should have full custody. The court ruling was that split custody was not going to be open, but if the rock was not removed it would be considered changed circumstances and grounds for the court re-considering custody settlement. It does not suggest the rock itself, or failure to remove it, would necessarily be grounds for awarding full custody to the father.
Habebe Member	Mon May 10 16:50:40 Of course Sen is downplaying this. The judge should be permanently disbarred and never allowed to practice law again. Lets use his actual.words. "The “presence of the confederate flag,” when “viewed pragmatically,” “is a symbol inflaming the already strained relationship between the parties,” the judges said." What if the mother was a supporter of Joe Biden and the father a Trumpet, should she have to take down her Biden 2020 fan as it would further strain their relationship? The only defense as far as I see from you two is that it was just ONE factor and not the sole factor, however we don't know the other factors. This should have no bearing at all for the government to strip a parent of parental rights of a child, it's literally beyond absurd.
Habebe Member	Mon May 10 17:00:13 The most damaging aspect is They said if the rock is not removed by June 1st, 2021 the court will consider it a change in circumstances....insanity.
Seb Member	Mon May 10 17:03:59 Habebe: Ah yes. Of course - a Confederate flag is just like a Joe Biden election sign. A better comparison might be an ISIS flag. So let's get this straight: 1. The court isn't threatening to take away custody. 2. The court supported the continuation of split custody. 3. The court has said if the flag - taken to be a provocation aimed at the father - isn't removed, they might consider that grounds for re-opening the question of custody (not a determination of who should get custody). And, er, yes, the courts do tend to get involved if they think a parent in a custody fight may be seeking to influence the child against the other parent, and they do consider how a child is being raised in terms of which parent is more suitable to have custody.
Habebe Member	Mon May 10 17:13:53 "Ah yes. Of course - a Confederate flag is just like a Joe Biden election sign." Absolutely, in the sense it annoys a large segment of the population. "3. The court has said if the flag - taken to be a provocation aimed at the father - isn't removed, they might consider that grounds for re-opening the question of custody (not a determination of who should get custody)." They said if she doesnt take down a painted rock that it will have the legal consequence of a change in circumstances. An ISIS flag, fine. Its a fuckingg flag. What if the kid was half chinese and she had a Chinese flag painted on a rock? Maos china has murdered/enslaved probably more people than ANY regime in history. This is probably a more apt analogy.
Habebe Member	Mon May 10 17:16:07 Answer me this one simple question, please. Should a court consider a painted rock flag in any wau shape or form when deciding custody of a child any more than who they voted for or ethnicity?
hood Member	Mon May 10 17:56:50 Apparently being a liberal is just as inflammatory as being racist. What a world.
kargen Member	Mon May 10 17:56:55 "Ah yes. Of course - a Confederate flag is just like a Joe Biden election sign." Both divided a country. Both have underlying racist tones to them whether intended or not.
Habebe Member	Mon May 10 18:52:31 How inflammatory something is , isnt relevant and is subjective to the beholder. The problem I see commonly is that democrats ( some, not all) will try to push their beliefs on people. It happens on both sides.Tucker being a weirdo and not wanting people to wear masks. For all I care you can walk around in a Batman outfit while waving a pride, ISIS and Nazi flags. He'll I remember I was bored in jail.one time and walked around with a du rag and a Hitler mustache. A symbol is someone's self expression. Remember the "I eat as A" guy? Unless your out hurting someone they should let you do whatever you want basically.
Seb Member	Tue May 11 02:49:30 Habebe: "Absolutely, in the sense it annoys a large segment of the population" Just like an ISIS flag too! It's not just a flag - it can and should be taken as prima facie evidence of beliefs that may merit further investigation to avoid moments where you go "Oh, so *that's* why he was ordering all of that fertiliser" moments. " the legal consequence of a change in circumstances." Yeah. A change in circumstances would be, for example, if the court felt that the circumstances around which split custody had been arranged were no longer true, justifying the court considering custody again. For example if they felt one parent was now deliberately antagonising the other or attempting to influence the child's attitude to the other. For example, if one of them was black, and the other decided to try and influence their child in ways that were prejudiced against black people. And I can guarantee you right now that if one of the parents was Muslim and was flying the flag of ISIS, a court would probably not allow custody, citing risk of the kid being indoctrinated or abducted to go live in Syria. "What if the kid was half chinese and she had a Chinese flag painted on a rock?" Then nothing because the Chinese flag isn't associated with a symbol of racial segregation and inferiority of black people in the way the confederacy flag is. It's almost as if this stuff is contextual and requires judgement. Perhaps if we had some sort of process and rules, perhaps with an official duly appointed to hear evidence from both parties, consider the facts holistically and come to a just ruling on the issue.
Seb Member	Tue May 11 02:53:50 Habebe: "Should a court consider a painted rock flag in any wau shape or form when deciding custody of a child" As evidence for the kind of environment and it's suitability to raise a child in, and evidence of behaviour? Absolutely. Selectively arguing each piece of evidence is just an inanimate object shorn of context is an argument against any evidence being considered. "any more than who they voted for" If a parent was a vocal (because the ballot is secret, that's the only way we would know) member in the NMBLA and said they voted for their candidate in elections, yeah, I would probably consider that as something relevant in terms of whether they should have custody of a child. "or ethnicity?" What would that have to do with parenting?
Seb Member	Tue May 11 02:57:56 The argument is simple: the father claims the child is being raised in a way that is damaging to the child and designed to antagonise the child against him, showing that the mother is not acting in best interests of the child, therefore he should have sole custody. To this he offers as part of evidence, the Confederate flag stone. The court clearly thinks this is weak evidence, says "this matter is settled, we see no reason to alter the split custody ruling, but get rid of the stone or we will consider that maybe he has a point and reopen the decision to hear further evidence as to whether there should be sole custody."
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 03:18:30 "Just like an ISIS flag too! It's not just a flag - it can and should be taken as prima facie evidence of beliefs that may merit further investigation to avoid moments where you go "Oh, so *that's* why he was ordering all of that fertiliser" moments." Your fucking crazy, in certain parts of the country the Rebel flag is as common as the coca cola symbol. This is clearly court over reach. "For example, if one of them was black, and the other decided to try and influence their child in ways that were prejudiced against black people. And I can guarantee you right now that if one of the parents was Muslim and was flying the flag of ISIS, a court would probably not allow custody, citing risk of the kid being indoctrinated or abducted to go live in Syria." I get we will never see eye.tp eue on this, Im fine with that. I dont want big brother threatening my parental rights because of a painted rock. You see the rebel flag as a terrorist anti black symbolmof hate because thats your view of it. How about the people with Che flags/shirts? A literal mass murderer and war criminal, should that factor into a courts decision to determine a parents rights? And again, how about BLM, an ACTUAL Marxist orginization. You know the guy who called it a necessity to to use violent murderous force. "Then nothing because the Chinese flag isn't associated with a symbol of racial segregation and inferiority of black people in the way the confederacy flag is." The Chinese flag is associated with the largest mass murder and CURRENT mass.genocide of uighers
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 03:23:13 "As evidence for the kind of environment and it's suitability to raise a child in, and evidence of behaviour? Absolutely. " Yeah, your crazy. "If a parent was a vocal (because the ballot is secret, that's the only way we would know) member in the NMBLA and said they voted for their candidate in elections, yeah, I would probably consider that as something relevant in terms of whether they should have custody of a child." Apples to oranges. What your proposing is if a parent openly supports child rape thats the same as a rebel rock? A symbol popular in pop and historical culture. He'll, down here black people fly.rebel.flags all the time. What of she listened to Leohard Skynard? Would that not be in the childs interest as well?
jergul large member	Tue May 11 03:37:47 Habebe You can't SovCit your way out of the fact that the flag is also used by white supremists. The court has to rule on what is best for the child given that the parent's could not agree. The flag is a factor in the court's deliberations.
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 03:51:22 Jergul, And the Qur'an is also ised by terrorists and murderers.....So what? So os the Bible for that matter. A flag without evidence of a deeper issue is nothing but a painted rock.
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 03:53:22 Again, how is this different from a BLM flag or a Che flag? Is she mistreating the kid? Apparently the cpurt thinks that soley hinges on the rebel rock because that isnthe ONLY thing they have required her.to change to not fave legal consequences.
Seb Member	Tue May 11 03:55:31 Habebe: "Apples to oranges" Yeah, because a Joe Biden poster is the same as the Confederate Flag. NMBLA famously does not advocate rape, it advocates lowering the age of consent. Muh freedom of speech. The issue isn't the rock defacto proves that the mother is unfit. The issue is the father claims it is evidence that the mother is ignoring the concerns of the father and intentionally antagonising the child against the father. Whether that claim is *true* is a matter for the courts.
Seb Member	Tue May 11 04:19:22 Listening to Habebe, you'd think the mother lost, rather than the ruling being in her favour.
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 04:39:53 Seb, Your obviously missing the point. I dont care who wins.I have no stake in who gets the child when. I do have a stake having "judges" demanding the removal of cultural identity symbols because ot offends some snowflake. This is insanity. Again, you have a foreign woke perspective of the Confederate flag. "Yeah, because a Joe Biden poster is the same as the Confederate Flag." Honestly if you polled my current state more people would likely be offended by the Biden poster than a confederate flag. At the very least it would be close. You have preconceived notions that it is a symbol for racist southern whites. Again, what if the Father had a BLM flag? Should henhave.to remove it or.face legal action? Comparatively the rebel flag is associated with far better human rights records than communism.
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 04:45:55 For that matter, I have no stake in rebel symbolism.Im a Yankee born and raised in SE Pennsylvania. But I get that some people like to express themselves and their Dixie culture. And here in Muricah mI respect that I won't always agree with people's beliefs but they are free to express themselves.
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 04:48:25 What does the rebel flag represent that is harmful for any child or black and or mixed child? Has she whipped the child? No Has she.forced him.to pick cotton in the feilds? No. She painted a rock. The audacity.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue May 11 05:50:00 A more credible and contextual comparison is ANTIFA flag/symbol. It is not credible, I agree, to compare it with the Islamic state banner. The Islamic state is an active terrorist groups, that has de facto declared war on the USA. Someone raising the confederate flag, may also carry around deplorable racist ideas, but being racists isn't illegal, nor does it amount to sympathizing with a terrorist group. The confederate, while indeed representing an entity that declared war on the USA, is a bit more complex, additional meaning has emerged over the decades.
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 05:58:28 FYI I am partially named after a Yankee war hero ( The north) thats just how Yankee I am. And as to the Antics comparison, again I personally disagree with what they do amd stand for, However I fully support their right to fly an antifa flag. Ive always thought it crazy to ban burning the US flag. I feel banning the burning of the US flag goes against what that flag represents....Muh Freedom. All we've ever wanted is the right to make our own mistakes.
Seb Member	Tue May 11 08:07:36 Nim: "A more credible and contextual comparison is ANTIFA flag/symbol." Not really, as in the end that's a protest organisation and the ideology it targets is fascism, which is a political ideology not a racial or ethnic group. The closest credible analogy is probably more like the flag of the third reich for the gentile mother of a child whose father is a jew. The NAZI's political ideology was not - in their mind - specifically about killing Jews. That's just a thing they did. Similarly, the Confederacy was not specifically about slavery (so it's defender argue), it was a thing they were very famously associated for. "The Islamic state is an active terrorist groups, that has de facto declared war on the USA." Famously, the Confederacy relationship with the US was entirely peaceful. "Someone raising the confederate flag, may also carry around deplorable racist ideas, but being racists isn't illegal" However, it may be considered grounds - in the case of a mixed race child - to favor awarding the other parent full custody. "nor does it amount to sympathizing with a terrorist group." Sympathizing with a terrorist group, provided you break no other law in doing so, isn't a crime either.
Seb Member	Tue May 11 08:12:43 Habebe: "What does the rebel flag represent that is harmful for any child or black and or mixed child?" Again, you are conflating the arguments being made here by the court. The court is not suggesting that the flag is harmful to the child therefore the child must be taken away. They are saying the flag is prima facie evidence that the mother may be trying to turn the child against the father - which would be harmful - and that they will be prepared to hear arguments and evidence regarding that *if* the mother does not remove the stone. If the mother does not remove the stone, then there will be a hearing where the lack of harm of the stone can be presented; and any other evidence that she's trying to manipulate the feelings of the daughter against the father can also be heard - and a custody decision (which may well simply be to retain split custody) can be reached. "Has she whipped the child?" Not that we know of, but that would be a separate issue, and is not the only issues that would affect custody, so is not relevant. "Has she.forced him.to pick cotton in the feilds?" Not that we know of, but that would be a separate issue, and is not the only issues that would affect custody, so is not relevant. No.
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 08:27:22 "Famously, the Confederacy relationship with the US was entirely peaceful." In all fairness, the Confederacy was not the aggressor. "The court is not suggesting that the flag is harmful to the child therefore the child must be taken away." But it will open thendoor.for.that if she.does not follow.their court orders by their deadline. Your really hung up on a minute detail. If I sat in your kitchen with a gun saying you have 5 minutes to empty your safe or I may shoot you, its still pretty threatening. If she doesn't remove that rock by Jume 1st they will reconsider taking her parental rights.And considering their opinions on the matter thw threat is real. We absolutely know she hasn't flogged and forced the child to do manual labor or that would drastically change the story like if she had branded him. **Again, if the Father had a BLM. Flag should he be forced to remove it if the mother objected?**
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 08:33:34 "The closest credible analogy is probably more like the flag of the third reich" Actually the Union Jack would.be closer considering they were the ones bringing the actual slaves ( Or the Great British flag before 1801) to the south.
Rugian Member	Tue May 11 08:51:31 Habebe Never mind the Union Jack, any iteration of the US flag prior to 1861 would be the most comparable to the Stars and Bars. Seb is just being completely revisionist here. No, the Confederacy wasn't the same as the Nazis, Jesus Christ.
TJ Member	Tue May 11 09:45:56 There is considerably more to their situation than a painted rock. http://www...r/3dseries/2021/2021_02847.htm
Seb Member	Tue May 11 10:43:39 Habebe: Do you think the court should reconsider custody arrangements where one parent is trying to drive a wedge between the child and the other parent?
Seb Member	Tue May 11 10:48:52 Habebe: We didn't go to war for the explicit right to continue to enslave black Americans. Indeed we'd abolished slavery by the time - and that was the main reason we didn't intervene on the side of the confederates. When you are lagging the British Empire on racism, you kinda know you are morally fucked.
Sam Adams Member	Tue May 11 12:57:23 Fun fact: The british empire did more good for the world than bad. By far. Too bad you were too cucked to maintain it eh seb?
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 15:04:07 Seb is delusional....But I knew this already.
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 15:04:30 Again he didnt answer the BLM flag question.
Seb Member	Tue May 11 17:49:40 Sam: Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. No matter what advances Joseph Mengle made, that doesn't absolve him of the torturing of children in making them. It was the US that actively destroyed the British Empire after WW2: we exhausted our strength defeating the NAZIs and couldn't resist the combined efforts of independence movements and US anti colonialists. I think all said, that's a good thing, but if you don't, look closer to home.
Seb Member	Tue May 11 17:52:54 Habebe: You didn't answer my questions. But to answer yours, no BLM flag doesn't bare comparison. It's a flag of a movement asserting that black lives have value. I'm what world is that a controversial statement, unless you think black lives don't matter. This is rather different from the flag of a group of States that broke from the Union in order to assert their rights to treat black people as sub human.
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 18:25:26 "Habebe: Do you think the court should reconsider custody arrangements where one parent is trying to drive a wedge between the child and the other parent?" Perhaps, Thats not the point though. The point is the rebel flag. "We didn't go to war for the explicit right to continue to enslave black Americans. " Neither did the Confederacy, they fought a war because they were invaded. Also....Opium.wars? Indian slavery? "But to answer yours, no BLM flag doesn't bare comparison. It's a flag of a movement asserting that black lives have value. I'm what world is that a controversial statement, unless you think black lives don't matter. This is rather different from the flag of a group of States that broke from the Union in order to assert their rights to treat black people as sub human." To be fair, legally speaking they were not people, only 3/5ths according to the SCOTUS at the time. BLM was.founded by violent Marxists.Why not all lives matter unless you are.asserting blacknlives are more important. Sounds way more.racist than the ALM. Movement. But regardless, not the point, the point being if it drove a wedge between the parents, wasnt that the point?
Habebe Member	Tue May 11 18:37:07 It boils down tonthis for me. Superficial symbols/art and or forms.of.expression should not be considered without underlying evidence of wrong doing. Its a terrible.precedent. It opens the door to a pandoras box of litigation. You said yourself it was the issue of antagonizing someone with a symbol. As.the article points out a pride flag would offend Jews, Christians and Muslims. Etc. Etc. There is nothing uniquely evil about the rebel flag.
jergul large member	Tue May 11 19:59:19 habebe A pigheaded insistence on keeping the rock is testimony to the environment the kid might be growing up in. Getting rid of it is such a no-brainer in a custody case.
Seb Member	Wed May 12 01:24:38 Habebe: "Thats not the point though" It literally is. "Also....Opium.wars? Indian slavery" Are not as relevant to black Americans, who are the subject of this conversation. There are plenty of people that look at the Union Flag as a symbol of their oppression. You can start with Irish Catholics. The Confederate flag is associated with white supremacy and as much as many in the US may be in denial about this, the rason d'etre of the confederacy was to perpetuate slavery. "BLM was.founded by violent Marxists." Trumpy nonsense. "Why not all lives matter" Because people already behave like white lives matter. It's black lives that people's behave as if they don't. "point being if it drove a wedge between the parents, wasnt that the point?" None of the examples you have given could be taken that way. "You said yourself it was the issue of antagonizing someone with a symbol. As.the article points out a pride flag would offend Jews, Christians and Muslims. Etc. Etc." No, it couldn't. Most Jews, Christians and Muslims are perfectly able to respect LGBT rights. The idea that a pride flag would somehow influence a child to have negative feelings towards a religious parent is nonsense, and a court would be unlikely to accept such an argument. As it is, they barely accepted the Confederate flag as such. Courts have a low tolerance for stupid edgelord bullshit. It sucks for those that have elevated such infantile behaviours into their overriding approach to life, but that's a trap of your own making.
habebe Member	Wed May 12 02:41:02 "BLM was.founded by violent Marxists." Trumpy nonsense." Look it up yourself. From the founders own words.... You clearly have no idea what your talking about and knowingly or unknowingly lied.
habebe Member	Wed May 12 02:45:23 The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. Its a confirmed statement.
Seb Member	Wed May 12 03:30:56 Trumpy nonsense as in it is a total non-sequitur. It's like the whole "You know who else was vegan?? Hitler!" bullshit. The international scout movement was founded by an admirer of Hitler. Ergo scouts = violent fascists. Seriously, this is what happens when you lock yourself in an echo chamber. You think this crap is mic dropping argument winners rather than just dismisible BS.
Seb Member	Wed May 12 03:44:55 "This lunch is a violent Marxist entity! The chef was trained in Dialectic Materialism and the side salad is but one step away from violently overthrowing the state!"
habebe Member	Wed May 12 04:00:13 So then gow is the rebel rock different? Just because she has means nothing, right. Your smarter than this.You seriously mean to tell me that a political movement created by self proclaimed politically ideological Marxists has no bearing onthe orginization. If someone started Aryan lives matter who said "My freinds and I are ideologically trained Nazis" You would say, that has no bearing on their political group. You are probably beyond hope. This is likely why you are against crypto at a visceral level. At the very least you share some Hegelistic ideas that you need a divine omnipotent state in order to thrive
Habebe Member	Wed May 12 04:29:10 I mean you are literally arguing that a person's political ideology has no more bearing on a political movement/Orginization than their choice of food? Just because the Confederacy was linked to racism doesnt mean the mother is. And yet you would argue THAT is a matter the courts should consider but a BLM flag wouldnt be. Wouldn't that grant legal precedent to do just that?
Seb Member	Wed May 12 04:30:44 habebe: "So then gow is the rebel rock different?" Because it a symbol of a cause that was fundamentally about perpetuating slavery. This is very different from saying Black Live Matter is fundamentally a Marxist organization because one of it's founders says she was trained in Marxist thinking (which is just to say, Dialectic Materialism), and thus extending the idea that because some Marxists are violent, and she's a Marxist, ipso facto BLM is marxist and violent. "has no bearing onthe orginization." In what other, specific way is BLM Marxist? And if it is, in what specific way, how would that antagonise an individual in the same way as in this case? "This is likely why you are against crypto at a visceral level" The non-sequiturs come thick and fast with you don't they! If you think anything I have said against Crypto currency is visceral, you are an idiot. My points are about effectiveness as monetary policy; and the potential use cases of the technology being far less than has been sold. About as dry and technical as you can get. Your desire to turn everything into ideology and tribal purity tests says more about you than me. "you need a divine omnipotent state in order to thrive" Humans thrive with systems of trust, rules and cooperation is about as uncontroversial statement as can be possibly be made. It is basically the statement "Civilisation is a good thing". How have you managed to turn this into some insane ideological dividing line? I am very open to consider other models, but they must actually work to deliver the same outcomes. My criticism isn't that the untrusted model of society is undesirable in and of itself, it is that the technology does not deliver a platform on which anything remotely as complex as modern society can run in an untrusted way - nor does it appear to offer the means to do so - and so will be highly constraining and ultimately will not scale out. Therefore it is - in the long run - likely a bad investment as when it's limitations become apparent there will be a price correction. Until then, it looks like a volatile and difficult to value asset. As I have said, I certainly would not ban crypto currencies. But that is a very different thing to saying that I think they can deliver what you believe they can.
Habebe Member	Wed May 12 04:33:45 Wow....
Seb Member	Wed May 12 05:49:55 Habebe: "Just because the Confederacy was linked to racism doesnt mean the mother is." If the courts thought it was proof the mother definitely was racist, they'd have proceeded immediately to review custody arrangements. You are setting the absurd precedent that a plaintiff must first prove their case definitively before it can be heard. The ruling was mild: the court clearly didn't think it proved the mother racist, but did think she might be trying to fuck about with the father and daughters relationship; and gave the mother an option to resolve the issue before actually looking into the claim fully. You are just butt hurt that the Confederacy doesn't have parity of esteem with BLM or Joe Biden. No shit: it was a sordid political project with the aim of perpetuating slavery so toxic that not even colonial powers of the time would recognise it despite overwhelming commercial and political benefits.
Habebe Member	Wed May 12 06:53:46 "You are just butt hurt that the Confederacy doesn't have parity of esteem with BLM or Joe Biden. " By your definition though it does. If you beleive this courts ruling was correct. The standard of proof is of the opposing party finds it as antagonizing. You just happen to think ypur opinions are facts. You really have reached a new level of delusional. The food and vegan comments? You think the Confederacy was inherently evil. You dont think that about Marxism. When discussing im the context of CREATING A POLITICAL ORGINIZATION (BLM) saying it comes from her ideological beleif of Marxism doesn't make it an inherently Marxist movement is absurd. Its just not worth arguing with a wall when you have these looped arguments regurgitaded.
Habebe Member	Wed May 12 06:57:25 People vote with their feet. This is the sort of wokism run amok that is having people flee CA and NY and go to FLA and TX.
Habebe Member	Wed May 12 07:14:41 http://www...-for-southern-pride-poll%3famp I wont quible over which view is more dominant, only that its obviously a matter of debate that the Confederate flag is racist.
Seb Member	Wed May 12 09:19:45 Habebe: "The standard of proof is of the opposing party finds it as antagonizing." No. I don't think you have properly understood the process. Standards of proof vary depending on the circumstance. Here, it's something akin to prima facie: is this enough evidence to suggest that the mother has a case to answer regarding the father's claims, or is the father's claims too weak to justify even considering custody arrangements again? The answer was if she removes the rock, then no. "You think the Confederacy was inherently evil." I haven't used the words inherent or evil. It is, however, indelibly and undeniably linked with the cause of slavery. Whether you think that makes it evil or a lost cause for "white civilisation", or anything else, is a normative choice. But any reasonable person would link it to slavery and recognise it's potential as a provocation. "You dont think that about Marxism." Do you know what Marxism is? It's just a set ofn political, economic and social theories. It's taught in political science courses all over the world. It boils down to some basic ideas like: There exists different classes: notably labour and capital. These classes have differing and conflicting interests and therefore struggle against each other in the social, economic and political arena. Most of social, political and economic history can be understood in terms of these class struggle dynamics. Oh my God. So controversial! Such violence. You are acting like being a Marxist is the same as reverent belief in the violent redistribution of capital and advocating for the cultural Revolution. It just isn't. That's you protecting your mad Trumpy misconceptions onto the world. "saying it comes from her ideological beleif of Marxism doesn't make it an inherently Marxist movement is absurd." 1. It's no more absurd than saying the scouts, though a pseudo military boys club set up by a Hitler sympathiser, *isn't* the same as the Hitler Youth. 2. In what meaningful way is BLM Marxist?
Habebe Member	Wed May 12 19:41:31 1. The issue is that a painted rebel flag is enough evidence for you to think it meets thenlevel of prima facie, but a BLM flag would not be. You already admit your bias when you said "But any reasonable person would link it to slavery and recognise it's potential as a provocation." But you dont beleive that about say BLM. As for your Marxism, it IS inherently violent as a necessary function, ot a.side.effect. Violence is as essential to Marxism as slavery was to to the confedarcy. They are built on the shoulders of such Marx himself says its a necessary function, not a side effect. R coincidence. We have loads* of real world evidence. The two best would be Germany and Korea where the main difference would would be Marxism or a branch there of. You cant have Marxism without violence and murder/threat there of both in ideology and obviously in the real world where it has been yhe most destructive political force probably of all time. How is BLM ( be like Marx? Hmmm) a marxist orginization? Well first off they they won't fully.come.out and say this bluntly because they know that will fly like a lead balloon in the states. But what we can do is look at their words and real world actions. They want to in their words (paraphrased) Disrupt the western prescribed nuclear family. Defund the police Transform America Overthrow the patriaechy Now each of these, individually without context one could argue is a cpincidence and not indicative of a violent revolutionary group. But again context, these are the people hanging out with Maduro and ptaising his marxist utopia..... Then we have the real world actions.Clearly the BLM had ALOT of violent and destructive marches/riots. But this is just a coincidence? I think ot boils down to you would give a BLM group the benefit of the doubt and not the confederate group. The reality is the vast majoeirt of people displaying connections to either movement are vastly separated from the initial/core of them. People where both as a fad or as a cultural tool to bond. Most african Americans are not im support of marxist ideas like the leadership of BLM. Nor the gender stuff either. Most people (white or black) who wear stars and bars related merchandise do not want to return to slavery nor hate black people pr anything. Muchblike college/HS kids wearing Che shirts. 99% of the time it's a fashion or clique related choicw and not indicative of the actual alignment with the beleifs ofnthe source. To that point, a painted rock in the abscence of other evidence pf mistreatment or antagonizing behaviour should have no bearing even at the standards of prima facie.
Habebe Member	Wed May 12 20:28:35 "But any reasonable person would link it to slavery and recognise it's potential as a provocation." Reasonable people can disagree. And linking something to and being the primary focal point are vastly different.
Habebe Member	Wed May 12 20:28:35 "But any reasonable person would link it to slavery and recognise it's potential as a provocation." Reasonable people can disagree. And linking something to and being the primary focal point are vastly different.
jergul large member	Wed May 12 20:34:28 Habebe The point here is that if you are having a custody dispute and the court suggests you do something, then do it. Anyone willing to risk custody for a stupid garden ornament is demonstrating questionable judgement.
Habebe Member	Wed May 12 20:35:10 When I think of the flag(s) my immediate thoughts are of tjings like BBQs and pick up trucks, redneck, cheap beer, rock and roll music etc. As in the modern times that's what its more associated with. Thats not to say it doesnt have racist and slavery links. It absolutely does. It is also commonly linked to actual WS racists, clearly. But 99% of the people with a flag, sticker or t-shirt are not.
Habebe Member	Wed May 12 20:45:34 Jergul, If it were me, yes I would. The point for me is that the court shpuld not be asking that, I find it morally repulsive and unconstitutional. I don't see that following the courts ruling dogmatically as The point. It wouldn't major news of it wasn't so controversial. Im not sure what her legal options are at this point, but for me, Inwould just get rid ofnthenrock but pursue the right to it.
jergul large member	Wed May 12 21:26:50 Its not major news and is an example of manufactured outrage. Family courts have huge discretionary powers. Often, they rule on custody between to people with equal rights, so the merits of each party become quite nuanced. A black father finds civil war memorabilia to be offensive and potentially harmful to the child. The court asks the mother to remove it so it does not actually have to make a determination based in part on that issue. Up to the woman if she wants the court to consider the father's argument or not.
habebe Member	Wed May 12 21:56:43 This os not manifactured outrage, but government over reach. Family court is probably (in the US) the most corrupt court system we have, even worse than drug courts.This is not something to be celebrated. "The court asks the mother to remove it so it does not actually have to make a determination based in part on that issue." I don't think asking is an appropriate term when of she does not she will face legal consequences. It's a thinly veiled threat " Get rid of it or risknus siding with your husband" is what a reasonable person would get from the reading.
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed May 12 22:53:48 I love how Retard Rod 2.0 actually believes a Joe Biden sign is on the same level as a Confederate flag. You keep doing your namesake proud!
Seb Member	Thu May 13 01:50:25 Habebe: It's not bias to believe BLM logo is not equivalent to the Confederate Flag. One is a protest movement demanding black equality. One is the flag of a political organisation created specifically to perpetuate slavery and white supremacy. Failure to grant them parity of esteem isn't unreasonable bias. Secondly, you have confused Marxism - a political theory applied to analyse socio-economic events; with Communism a political ideology applied to governing a society. Those are two different things. This is what happens when you immerse yourself in Trumpy bullshit.
Habebe Member	Thu May 13 01:53:07 A foreigner thunks he understands what the flag symbolizes more than the people who libe here... That's some ivory tower colonialism if I ever heard it. But oh, right orange man bad makes it all right. Talk about cult mentality.
Seb Member	Thu May 13 03:55:35 Habebe: "A foreigner thunks he understands what the flag symbolizes more than the people who libe here..." You agree it's linked to racism, white supremacy etc. So then there clearly are grounds to have a hearing then, where the mother can explain what she means by it etc. Your argument is that because some people, rather tastelessly (and a symptom of how the South never really came to terms with the moral bankruptcy of the confederacy as a political project) has normalised the flag, it *cannot* under any circumstances be considered prima facie evidence of attempting to antagonise the fathers relationship with his daughter. That's ridiculous and absurd. "orange man bad" No. Your shitty non-sensical arguments make it bad. I don't blame Trump, it's always been very clear he is a clown. He's the symptom, not the cause. It is unsurprising that a nation thats managed to get circa 40% of voters with the moral and intellectual sophistication of a toddler then elects one to the highest office. If you enclose yourself in a bubble of self congratulatory bullshit, your mind rots.
Habebe Member	Thu May 13 04:08:08 "You agree it's linked to racism, white supremacy etc." That word linked is.now doing a lot of heavy lifting. Then you randomly throw in Trump in an argument that has nothing to do with him, but I'm the one not making sense... Whatever, I'm done debating a wall.
Habebe Member	Thu May 13 04:16:26 "it *cannot* under any circumstances be considered prima facie evidence of attempting to antagonise the fathers relationship with his daughter." I suppose Im not done... I said that being evidence alone. Again there have been reports of racial slurs or abuse. Afaik this is the only evidence. If there is more evidence other than what you yourself call normal activity, Id love to see it.
Seb Member	Thu May 13 04:38:35 Habebe: It is the flag of a political entity that came to exist almost entirely to defend the continuation of slavery. That is not heavy lifting. "Trumpy" is as good as adjective as anything else to describe the soup of nonsense that he and his supporters have out about "I said that being evidence alone." Indeed. And I'm saying that taking the stone as sufficient to warrant holding a hearing where the full range of evidence and arguments would be brought forward by both parties is absolutely fine. Your argument is that the threshold for the court to even hear full evidence needs to be far higher. That's absurd.
Habebe Member	Thu May 13 04:44:20 "It is the flag of a political entity that came to exist almost entirely to defend the continuation of slavery. That is not heavy lifting." Didn't you just say it has been normalized? Your words. "Your argument is that the threshold for the court to even hear full evidence needs to be far higher." The stakes are pretty high. My issue is that it also comes off as basically a thinly veiled threat from the court, which again, would lead to even sillier claims ( slippery slope etc.) In all honesty though im growing bored with this thread. Would you like to explain to me why white supremacy is Americas greatest threat because so far in that thread no in is really sure why.
Seb Member	Thu May 13 06:25:58 Habebe: "Didn't you just say it has been normalized? Your words." Among some people. Not universally. Because you have to be pretty blinkered to fail to understand it's historical context. Pretty dumb to adopt a flag of a white supremist movement devoted to race based slavery to mean "freedom from oppression"; can't really complain when those people who - had the confederacy been successful - would be treated as sub-human, object to it. "The stakes are pretty high." In both directions. The court isn't the one failing to take this seriously - you are! "My issue is that it also comes off as basically a thinly veiled threat from the court" It's not a threat - it's a consequence: the father alleges there is some kind of antagonism going on, he cites this as part of the evidence, the court gives the mother an opportunity to avoid having to plead her case by simply removing the rock. "would lead to even sillier claims ( slippery slope etc.)" There is a reason they call it the slippery slope fallacy. There is nothing wrong with this particular situation, and the sillier examples you have raised are easily dismissed. "Would you like to explain to me why white supremacy is Americas greatest threat" Who said it is the greatest threat? But it is certainly not consistent with democracy or freedom.
TJ Member	Thu May 13 09:39:44 There is something wrong when a 7 year old has episodes of spitting, kicking and swearing at home and in school. Maybe neither parent is worthy of custody. There doesn't seem to be a problem with her two other children that I can find in print. I also haven't read anywhere that ownership of the stone has been established. Poor mother of three who has moved at least four times in seven years(the father says six or seven times) suggest she rents the property. It's possible the LL owns the stone and it would be illegal for her to remove. That, I'm certain, will be revealed during court proceedings. One or both are pushing the limits. There is only one reason this has become a national conversation and it has nothing to do with the welfare of a little seven year old girl. Proof of that is in this thread. What do you think the Judge will do if the stone belongs to the LL? Make her move or make the LL remove the stone. The mother is at risk of the court removing all three of her children.
Seb Member	Thu May 13 15:35:29 TJ: "What do you think the Judge will do if the stone belongs to the LL? Make her move or make the LL remove the stone" Probably neither, particularly if the mother can show the stone has nothing to do with her and so isn't reflective of the values or ideas she's exposing the child to; nor evidence she's deliberately trying to influence the child. I seriously doubt that a court would rule that it was in the best interests to move home again, or remove custody (given the court explicitly approved of the stability and decided for school purposes her current home should be considered the primary residence) simply to avoid *seeing* a Confederate flag. The basis of the ruling is it's role in the relationship with the father and what it indicates the values the mother is inculcating in the child. All of that falls away if it's just a fixture of the land lord. But even so, in the situation described, the simplest solution would be to wrap the stone in a piece of sack cloth. I don't think the LL could oobject,. "The mother is at risk of the court removing all three of her children." Not really sure that's true, it's the custody of this one that's over consideration.
TJ Member	Thu May 13 16:57:29 I agree that the Judge shouldn't consider it a factor if the stone isn't legally hers. Should have been the obvious point I was making. Unknown resolve that will require more fact finding by the court. I wouldn't be so sure about the LL when it comes to removing or covering the stone, that is if he does own the damn thing. You'd think the mother would have done everything possible with the painted stone if she could. Taking the chance of losing joint custody rather than the stone should be a no brainer. Both have been neglectful with court ordered stipulations. One can never be sure about custody battles. The two other children in the home depends on the discovery. The judge could possibly find reason and give DCFS temporary custody and place them into foster care. I suspect no one read the link I posted. Both parents have negative arguments against one another. Not exactly a shocker. I wouldn't make any bets on the final outcome concerning custody of any of the children. No problem with the other two makes me a little suspicious about what is really going on. If not for the stone the situation would have zero editorial value.
Forwyn Member	Thu May 13 17:05:32 "A better comparison might be an ISIS flag." Lol. Fucking retard
Seb Member	Fri May 14 03:39:00 TJ: I did read. It doesn't look a great story and all such incidents inevitably involve a great deal of human misery. I completely agree that the incident shouldn't be a political football and that's part of my objection to the immediate attempt to frame this in terms of cancel culture and free speech. Such situations are highly contextual and judges operating to judiciously apply principles rather than hard and fast criteria are still the best way to handle such issues; though custody trials are literally require the judgement of Solomon. In many ways it is similar to the interventions of US lobby groups into situations with children with fatal condition in the UK to try and create cause celbres for their health care policies back in the US. For the reasons I set out, I don't think this courts rulings are likely to have been frivolous, or present a slippery slope to censorship. I can see a reasonable basis for them, and the implications and current situation are far from the "court threatens to remove child just because the mother has a Confederate flag" framing - which in my view is a fundamentally dishonest account (cf. "Man goes to jail for sending text message" when it turns out the content of said text message is e.g. insider information as part of market manipulation) In this case the court was unconvinced of the merits of either side to change custody arrangements, seems to have supported the mother in terms of which parent is primarily in charge of the school admin (I assume this is the effect of being the primary residence for school purposes: she will be the point of correspondence for school and the kid will be treated by local govt as in the school district of her residence, is that correct?). The bit about the stone just seems to me to indicate the courts zero tolerance of bullshit that might further get in the way of communication between parents and the child, which seems to be (in the courts opinion) a major contributory factor to the problems this child faces. Separation is hard enough but parents actively in conflict - even passive aggressively - will be so much worse for a child. "If not for the stone the situation would have zero editorial value" Indeed.
TJ Member	Fri May 14 13:15:18 Seb: I agree with most everything in your post. My focus has always been on the important issue and the stone is my smallest concern, since it is a deflecting excuse, and isn't the root cause of the child acting out as expressed. The parents need to forget about their own selfish feelings and focus on the child's wellbeing. From the small amount of information I'm aware of neither seem capable. I'm also certain they are unaware of the damage their behavior is actually causing to their daughter. That is me providing them the benefit of doubt and contributing it to their ignorance. The child's stress reaction is caused by the current environmental situation. It is definitely in need of altering by the court. Her behavior is an expression of fear, insecurity and frustration and it will take complete control of her ability to resist. In other words, she is living a hellish life and desperately needs appropriate attention. Maybe the court will get through the disguised weed field, even though I have doubts that it will. I do know that she is helpless in resolving her own situation. The little girl lashing out is caught in the grip of a rising tide of intense feelings that she simply can’t contain or control at peak. She can only temporarily exclude it from her consciousness, but it will eventually consume her every action. She is alone trying to resolve an impossible challenge. As the old saying goes: "Misery loves company" might explain the selfish behavior of the joint custodians. It is of my opinion that neither parent will ever consider themselves as possibly being a part of the child's problem. You and I both know the position that places the child and she has already probably been mentally damaged for life. There is no shortage of emotional children in the sense that I'm am communicating. The reoccurrences are compounding, which presents a real danger, from my perspective, to the long term stability of a civil and peaceful society. The challenge is an endless endeavor.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: