Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet's cut to the core. There are two positions: positivism and naturalism.
There are certain issues involved.
The positivist says that law is what is written and there is no morality or
amorality in rules, and they are the sole source of normative certainty.
Naturalists, on the other hand, say that something is right or wrong regardless
of what the law says, as there are atemporal and universal concepts. If I read
correctly, you embrace the former school of thought.
So, what you are saying, in summary, is that if the law does not mandate to take
action against a kiddie fiddler outside of a particular institution, then there are
issues, gray areas, and it is debatable, on a case by case basis, the substance
of culpability and, henceforth, how to proceed.
Correct?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou seem to be a little rattled.
Yes that was the same time you escaped from the Germans in world war I by floating across the English channel in a lucky bag with the Red Barron as a prisoner.
I am sure once I download and send your foul mouthed rants, including such expletives as, you're 'a prick', 'bitches', 'shut the f*** up' and 'bell end', they will have concluded that they ...[text shortened]... speaking to you because you are a foul mouthed religious bigot not because of your vain threats.
Originally posted by SeitseI am not entirely sure I understand what you are saying as you are using some terms that I am unfamiliar with. My text was not an attempt to address law or whether law has an inherent morality or not but a practical perspective on some of the issues that have a bearing on the reporting of child abuse for ministers of religion and what may have been the reasons for non reporting where law was not mandatory.
Let's cut to the core. There are two positions: positivism and naturalism.
The positivist says that law is what is written and there is no morality or
amorality in rules, and they are the sole source of normative certainty.
Naturalists, on the other hand, say that something is right or wrong regardless
of what the law says, as there are atemporal and u ...[text shortened]... case by case basis, the substance
of culpability and, henceforth, how to proceed.
Correct?
The issue is not that of taking action against criminality but of reporting and dealing with criminality in view of such things like penitent privilege and corroborative evidence on one hand and the need to protect those who are vulnerable on the other.
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERI see them more as a kind of Zombie apocalypse, FMF bites divegeester and he becomes a zombie, divesgeester had a bite at Randolph and now he's a zombie and so the go on slobbering and drooling their way through cyberspace cloning as they go.
they are more and more like the stepford wives every day one brain [cell] between them
12 Feb 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"the walking dead?" no they are the talking dead
I see them more as a kind of Zombie apocalypse, FMF bites divegeester and he becomes a zombie, divesgeester had a bite at Randolph and now he's a zombie and so the go on slobbering and drooling their way through cyberspace cloning as they go.
can FMF turn dive from just a love bite
12 Feb 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have never accused you of defending child abuse, as you well know. I have confronted you for defending and seeking to justify the cover up of child abuse.
These were the issues that I put on the table for reasonable rational debate and which FMF contorted into his vile and slanderous accusation of defending child abuse and I thank you for the opportunity to present them here.
Originally posted by GHOST HUNTERYes just a single nooky bite to the neck and jivejeester becomes a rabid clone of his zombie master, 'you seem rattled Robbie', 'oh it seems that I touched a nerve', 'you're such a juvenile Robbie', 'Im telling the elders on you Robbie', drool drool drool. Even Randy Andy is now a clone.
"the walking dead?" no they are the talking dead
can FMF turn dive from just a love bite
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDoes your organization [1] foster an atmosphere in which pedophiles can come forward or "repent" safe in the knowledge that their crimes won't be reported, or does your organization [2] foster an atmosphere in which children who are victims of sex crimes can come forward safe in the knowledge that the adults around them will report their abusers to the authorities? It can't really be both. So which is it? [Bump]
Yes just a single nooky bite to the neck and jivejeester becomes a rabid clone of his zombie master, 'you seem rattled Robbie', 'oh it seems that I touched a nerve', 'you're such a juvenile Robbie', 'Im telling the elders on you Robbie', drool drool drool
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 326101
Originally posted by FMFYawn.
Does your organization [1] foster an atmosphere in which pedophiles can come forward or "repent" safe in the knowledge that their crimes won't be reported, or does your organization [2] foster an atmosphere in which children who are victims of sex crimes can come forward safe in the knowledge that the adults around them will report their abusers to the authorities? It can't really be both. So which is it? [Bump]
Still going on? What a sad life you lead, FMF.