This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's the extension of jurisdiction to Italy that is key here -- if Italy (or Vatican City I guess) thinks that the treatment is literal torture, they could ban it.
What even are the mechanics of this -- is the state taking over custody of this kid? ie. if the parents show up with an ambulance and a bunch of Vatican doctors, the police will prevent them from moving the child?
Well the child was a UK citizen and the Italians only gave citizenship as part of this issue, so whether Italy thinks its torture or not may or may not be relevant depending on your point of view. If you can find a jurisdiction that allows you to beat your child with a coathanger to death (clearly not the case here, of course) and Childabusetopia offers you and your child citizenship so that you can take your child there, should the UK government allow you to do it, if it thinks such a thing is torturous?
Just as with all exercises of state power it would in theory be enforced with violence. If the parents had attempted to flee with the child to Vatican City, I imagine they would have been arrested, should the police have been aware of it in time. In general the courts don't have to take full custody, they can simply mandate certain decisions are made (or not made), and only take full custody if the parents continue their course of action.
For example where Jehovah's Witness children were treated with blood products (after doctors going to court), the child is still generally left with the parents. The courts aren't saying all your decisions are harmful to your child, just that this one is. For example in this case, treatment was rendered but full custody was not sought or given by the court.
Moylan said he hoped that the boy’s parents would understand. “I am extremely grateful to [the boy’s] father for so clearly and calmly explaining to me the position held by himself and [the boy’s] mother,” said the judge. “I have no doubt at all that they love their son dearly. I also have no doubt that they object to the receipt by [their son] of a blood transfusion because of their devout beliefs. I hope they will understand why I have reached the decision which I have, governed as it is [their son’s] welfare.”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link