fran_beta@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in
news:1125045856.307029.180560@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> The BBC actively campaigns for the Democrats
>> >> (at 2 am for the local audience).
> So the "bias" isn't much of an issue then.
Quite. It's a curiosity. But it's something we can see in respect of a
foreign nation, which we miss in respect of our own.
Point to BBC bias in respect of domestic issues, and you come up against
objections like truth, that side is wrong, do not deserve fair
treatment, or even "that's racist," a problem for the BBC when Muslims
started bombing. To date, it is still, by writ of the BBC lexicon,
racist to question Islam's status as a religion no more or less
legitimate than Christianity or Hinduism.
>> In that case, you will spend the rest of you
>> life pay compensation for 'emotional damage.'
>
> As I said, measurable harm should be the starting point.
Clever and mendacious lawyers and doctors can land you a sizeable bill
for 'emotional damage.' In most cases, that 'emotional damage' does not
exist.
> And *some* and often *much* of the harm is caused or aggravated
> by community responses to the events in question.
There is no evidence that anyone can be caused any emotional damage by
any experience s/he has after his or her seventh birthday. The evidence
is strongly against the possibility that emotional damage can be caused
to anyone after their second birthday. Freud is well argued, highly
intelligent, makes sense, and plain wrong.
>> You mean that if a Defendant claims the latter,
>> the evidence society can reasonably expect to
>> be available in sup****t of his innocence, is much
>> greater. That's not the same as ****fting the onus
>> of proof.
>
> I think in practice it is.
You're right, but if no evidence is presented, the Defendant is
convicted, if the onus is officially moved from the Prosecution to the
Defence. You also risk opening the flood gates to the position of
Defendants being further undermined, with the clamour for ever harsher
punishments.
> I can recall a funny but sad story of a dog being
> hung hundreds of years ago for refusing to recant
> its invovement in witchcraft and name names.
I think that law was finally abolished, after in the 1980s a Police
Officer had to give evidence on oath that he had spoken to a dog,
saying, "you are being formerly charged with . . .."
Forget the name of the Judge, but he asked a woman accused of being a
witch, "they say you claim you can fly. Is this true? Can you fly?"
Woman replied, " [pause] Yes. Yes it is."
Entire court gasps as the death penalty is mandatory for witchcraft.
Judge said, "very well then, you can go free. There's no law against
it."
>> Jesus Christ allegedly had it right,
>> "put not your trust in any man" (or woman).
>
> Well he *would* say that. But in practice, there are
> all manner of fiduciary duties recognisable at law.
As there would not be, if trust had anything to do with it.
>> S/he is bullying the child into believing trust has anything to
>> do with human relations outside one's close family: it does not.
>
> Well trust is the basis of *in loco parentis*.
I don't think that works. In that position, one must care for the child
as if one were that child's parent. Stretching that to a right to the
child's trust, is bullying that child, and telling the child trust is a
reasonable part of normal tools used outside one's close family, when it
is not.
>> I'm with you, but the very introduction of the term
>> 'trust' suggests the care giver should not be giving
>> care before the problem of *** arises.
>
> That's not practical -- school straddles all of childhood and youth.
I was trying to say if someone demands trust, they should not be in
charge of other people's children, so the question of them abusing such
a position for *** with a child or children should not arise.
>> You've said it. Informed consent is not trust, is it?
>
> Correct, though some trust remains. One still takes a qualified risk.
Trust and risk are essentially different concepts. I walk in front of
motor vehicles, parked behind a red light, because I think the risk is
minimal. One can call that trust, I suppose, but it's not the normal
use of the term.
>> [ . . . ] into using 'trust' as if it were
>> a legitimate tool in ordinary human relations.
>
> I think it *should* be part of any rational community, [ . . . ].
So do I. For just as people normally obey societal rules - like not
crossing the road until the green man shows in Germany - without any
additional law enforcement, so we can - if sufficient of us want - create
such a society.
> though it is deeply deformed in *this* community.
Exactly. Or in this community as well.
>> As a numerate former inmate of UK local authority
>> "care," I know. I know this is pulling rank, and
>> unfair, but it's also true, and worth knowing, most
>> child *** abuse is intra-, not inter-, generational.
>
> Perhaps.
Ask them. When you've passed the complaints about adults, you should get
to the truth. It's normal for children to abuse each other. What makes
you think the bullying regimes so well known in schools, do not continue
into Childrens' Homes at night?
> Correct
Thanks. I was speaking for personal experience, but I do mean thank
you.
> A better balance between legal certainty and social context
> needs to be developed if individual autonomy is going to be
> an outcome of social policy here.
I was not aware the term individual autonomy survived into twenty-first
century English. Nowadays we are all supposed to follow our leaders,
whom we trust, especially that John Howard, and join with two minutes
silence for every murder, and nothing for every member of our armed
forces killed in a war they started with lies, and cannot win.
--
T Moore
N E Manchester, England
http://sitemenu.tom-moore.com/
|
