Pelican
Are you in favour of policies of compulsory child support, compulsory state indoctrination (ooops education) of children, and banning polygamy? Or not?

If you are, then you are in favour of using force to compel people to comply with your opinions, aren’t you?

I’m asking you at what stage, short of killing, would you disapprove of violence to enforce the policies you advocate, and you keep on not answering.

“Fancy opposing polygamy which has historically meant huge disadvantages for women (usually involving abuse) and in those cultures where it is only men who take on more wives.”

Marriage, to be legal, requires the consent of both parties, and that is as it should be.

So there is no issue here of non-consensual marriages; you are not any more opposed to them than I am. But you want people to be punished, correct me if I’m wrong, for entering into *consensual* polygamous marriages, even when there is *no* question of abuse. Don’t you?

It’s not a question of opposing polygamy as a matter of social opinion. It’s a question of opposing it as a matter of advocating aggressive violence and threats. Isn’t it true that you think polygamy should be illegal?

Yes? Then you are in favour of locking people up to force them to comply with your opinions – and then you have the gall to criticize religious bigots for abusing people!

“I must also be evil for arguing that people take responsibility for their actions and help support the raising of their own children rather than let the taxpayer pick up the entire bill.”

Again, it’s not the arguing that people take responsibility for their actions that’s the problem. But you think they should be shot if they don’t comply with your opinion – don’t you?

If not, then what’s the answer to my questions that you keep evading?http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4438&page=0#113771

At what stage, in the escalation of violence that is used to enforce policies, do you finally disclaim and denounce using force as a matter of principle?

“Why should taxpayers have to bear the burden of another's failure to live up to their responsibilities?”

They shouldn’t.

If you were *really* against the use of aggressive violence and threats, you would be opposed to the taxpayer being forced to pay *any* part of the bill for other people to look after their own children.

“For the record I have already said for myself I would never insist on child support if I found myself in that position. “I would rather go it alone hopefully with extended family support, than have a deadbeat dad around that does not care about the welfare of his children.”

Then that’s good and for yourself, you can rightly say you are not in favour of violence, and. But do you still advocate it against others?

“This coming from a person who believes in free markets which do more to exploit labour than any other system.”

Free markets, being based on consent, do not exploit labour. Voluntary employment is mutually beneficial, otherwise it wouldn’t take place.

“ Why do you believe in a system that fosters exploitation and violence?”

I don’t. I believe all social relations should be based on consent, excepting only the use of force to repel the use of force.

“Why do you place a higher value on property than a fair value on someone's labour (also their 'property')?:

I don’t. The fair value is the agreed value.

A value arbitrarily made up by a coercive monopoly – the state - and imposed on the parties by violence and threats, thus preventing a mutually beneficial exchange, is an unfair value.

“ So violence and oppression is alright as long as you agree with it and it suits your sense of morality?”

No, unlike you, I think there should be a blanket ban on it. But you think it’s okay for no other reason than that you don’t approve of other people’s consensual relations.

This is not off-topic because those who defend compulsory state schooling are every bit as violent, indoctrinated and irrational as those who defend the bigotry of Muslim schooling.

I do not think you deserved that serve Pelican.
Peter in my view is well of subject and wandering.
I can not, ever remember a post from you that fitted the charges against you.
I do however recommend some do read the post history of our author and contributions to those threads.

Yes Belly, thank you, I am not sure what set him off this time. I am not sure how continuing this round of circular arguments has any benefit.

Peter's definition of force and violence is different to most. I aceept that some force is required (as he defines it) to imprison people who break the law. Much rather that than have criminals force their violence and intrusions on the rest of us.

Peter there is not much point in continuing with these circular arguments. I am surprised Graham has not yet deleted all of our comments as being completely off-topic.

Perhaps if you find my views so repgunant you can exercise your free will and just ignore my comments in the future as I will yours.

Totally agree except the off subject bit.
Graham rarely controls our habit of breaking down that fence, maybe its for the best.
This morning a story in the Australian, in my view a tainted paper not yet having cast off the biases of its owner.
A story of great worth is seen.
Hold the horses,my advice will start heated debate, but read and under stand.
Australia's Body representing our Muslim population,has put an issue to government.
Sharia law, now get a grip on those horses, a seemingly reasonable moderate version.
In some not all laws.
I question again, bigoted as some say blindly, I am.
WHY,we fail to let the first Australians live by the laws they had century's before we came.
Why is the freedom to practice ANY religion, any at all.
Reason to introduce ANY LAW based on that religion.
Why should a western country, one that teaches its children we came via evolution,have any laws other than its majority lives by.
How can this 21st century version of Multi Cultures work if we modify our law for 1% do we do it for every group?
10 Different sets of laws 100?
Some say Multi culture of the post war years has built this country, I am among that group.
We are one country many faces, but do not blind your self, do not call me racist.
Show me a Greek or any one who wanted to bring is laws and dress with him.
A figure of 170 migrants a year is our target.
1.7 Million in ten years, just migration? refugees?
What do we change after we introduce Sharia law?

I think you would have no difficulty recognizing the violence and abuse involved if a Muslim imam were to threaten to imprison people in order to get the money to fund the religious indoctrination of children, and then threaten the parents with imprisonment in order to compel them to send their children.

However compulsory state education involves exactly the same: getting the funding by threatening to imprison people; and getting the physical custody of the children by threatening to imprison their parents, for state indoctrination of children.

Belly and Pelican, since, correct me if I’m wrong, you both favour state-funded state-curriculumed compulsory schooling, then you have a choice.

Either you admit that you favour the use of imprisonment and threats of imprisonment against people who are not harming anyone, in order to get the money to force their children to undergo compulsory state indoctrination, in which case you put yourself in the same ethical category as the religious bigots that you criticise.

Or you deny that compulsory schooling policy involves the use of force or threats to get the money and to compel attendance, in which case you need to be able to say at what stage you disown and condemn the escalating range of force that is used to implement these policies, which you have both conspicuously failed to do.

So instead you pretend to wide-eyed innocence (“What? Me? Violent?”), imply that you’ve never suggested the *enforcement* of the policies you advocate, while Pelican insinuates that the definition of violence doesn’t include the violence or threats used to enforce such policies including arrest and imprisonment, and wishes that Graham would silence my critique.