[Vision2020] Angry Hens

[Art Deco]

Where to start?

Kai writes:

'So, Wayne, if you really believe the relationship between two people is nobody else's business, then you really should "butt the f--k out".'

Show me where I said or implied anything like that.

Many elements of relationships between two or more people are public business.  We have a plethora of laws and case law on such, e.g. divorce law.  Part of the debate is where should these laws regulate relationships and what reasons can be given to support the pros and cons of such regulation.  Further, irrespective of the law, the issue your comments raise is:  Should freedom of expression be abrogated so that some of these relationship matters, which likely would adversely impact a third party, cannot be commented upon and/or discussed in public?

In fact, these issues are what Rose, Saundra, Tom, Paul, you, and I are doing, in part.  However, you going beyond that, say stop exercising your freedom of expression with respect to this case by discussing the facts and values relevant to this publically announced wedding.  Freedom of expression means that any topic is game for comment and discussion, not just those of which you approve, or only for reasons which you deem worthy.

The following is for Paul, also.

No one is arguing that Sitler and his bride-to-be do not have a legal right to get married.  [Although in some jurisdictions, pedophiles can be/are prohibited by law or by court order from living with, having unsupervised contact, or any contact with their own children.]

To say or imply that some of us are denying that Sitler has a legal to marry is simply arguing against a strawman, or less politely, lying.  That issue has been already decided by the courts:  pedophiles cannot be denied the right to marry.

The issue, and one that Rose has very clearly and succinctly articulated is:  Should this union occur if children are to be a product of it; and why are at least two so-called religious sects condoning this union given some of its likely outcomes?  

To say there is not a public issue worth discussing here by saying the welfare of potential victims of sexual predation is nobody's business is certainly a position many of us would vehemently disagree.  And if you have followed Vision 2020 for a awhile, it is not only with respect to the Christ Church Cult that this issue (sexual child abuse) has been openly and candidly discussed.


Which of the following do you disagree with, and why?

1.  Sitler is a serial pedophile with numerous victims and instances of sexual predation in at least three states.  Now convicted.

2.  Many, if not all of Sitler's victims have been very young children.

3.  The probability of recidivism of serial pedophiles increases in direct proportion to the number of victims and the total number of sexual contacts with all victims, and inversely with the age of the victims -- the younger the victims, the higher the probability of recidivism.

4.  It is far more likely than not that Sitler will be a repeat offender given his history and the example again attached.

5.  The public has a legitimate interest in protecting children from sexual predators.

6.  The public interest in protecting children from sexual predation includes the freedom, if not the obligation, to discuss any situation where sexual predation may likely occur, and to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

Personally, I would not be concerned enough to comment in a public forum if Sitler's bride-to-be were sterile and had no interest in future adoptions.  I might think the union to be less than prudent and another instance of hypocrisy from the unholy cult and its ally, the Nazarene Church, but so be it.  

The probability of the advent of children as a product of this union and their probable fate changes the ball game, drastically for me, for those who have candidly commented upon it here, and, for many more who have discussed this proposed union in person with one or more of us.

If either Kai or Paul disagree with 5 and 6 above, then further discussion would be useless.  The schism of value differences between us is too great to be bridged.

If not, then there is room to at least discuss the public interest issues raised by Sitler's sexual predilections and his pending marriage.


Wayne A. Fox
1009 Karen Lane
PO Box 9421
Moscow, ID  83843

waf at moscow.com
208 882-7975



----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kai Eiselein 
  To: deco at moscow.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 3:01 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Angry Hens


  Gee, I don't hear anyone screaming about murderers or rapists getting married. Nope, just this one individual. Methinks that if he wasn't a member of a particular congregation, there'd be nary a peep.
  What about the right of the woman to marry whomever she wants? (For the life of me, I can't imagine anyone wanting to marry someone like him.) What has SHE done? So, now we are talking about trampling on the rights of someone, who, as far as we know, is an innocent party.
  For that matter, what about all of these "jailhouse" marriages that take place all over the country?
  Opens up a nice can of worms, doesn't it?
  You cannot legislate stupidity. If someone is idiotic enough to marry someone knowing full well that person has a "history", well then, "stupid is as stupid does".
  So, Wayne, if you really believe the relationship between two people is nobody else's business, then you really should "butt the f--k out".
  You can't have it both ways without supporting my argument that society has the right to deem what is acceptable.
   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: deco at moscow.com
  To: fotopro63 at hotmail.com
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Angry Hens
  Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 14:17:46 -0700


  Kai writes:

  "Anybody for a big steaming helping of hypocrisy?"

  How hypocritical are those who pretend to be advocates of freedom, especially free speech, but when someone expresses opinions to which they disagree they say:

  "Now, stop acting like a bunch of gossiping women at the hairdresser and take your own advice and butt the f--k out."

  ?

  In other words, "Shut up, this is a subject you should not discuss."

  So much for the so-called libertarians; but we most of us knew that already.  Many of life's more complex and difficult situations are not amendable to a simple one sentence philosophy.

  Just because something is legal, doesn't mean that is right.  If you need a big, hard to miss example, try subprime loans.  In the meantime, as a former publisher, Kai, you might want to think a little more about the importance of free expression.

  w.

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Kai Eiselein 
    To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
    Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:37 PM
    Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Angry Hens


    Saundra, you seem to have missed my point.
    The same people who engaged in much gnashing of teeth over anti-gay marriage laws a few years ago are now gnashing their teeth over what appears to be a marriage that is completely legal.
    As I argued before, it is the community's right to choose what is socially acceptable. That argument was met with plenty of derision right here on the ol' viz. Now it seems that position has changed and a number of people who disagreed with my argument then have proven my point, in spades, I might add.
    Anybody for a big steaming helping of hypocrisy?
    As for Wilson, I haven't read any of his books, pamphlets, comic books, novels or flyers. I'm sorry, I'm just not all that interested in his religious or world views, so I cannot comment on what he may or may not have said based soley on the word of someone who appears to have an axe to grind with him.
    If there is a legal issue, then by all means take it to the courts, council, commission, or wherever it needs to be addressed.
    This constant screeching about every little thing is just plain childish and I believe it goes deeper than any legal issues. In fact, I believe it is an ideological clash and despite all of the "Coexist" stickers on cars in this town, there is a deep seated hatred towards anybody or anything that doesn't fit in with the local liberal lockstep.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    =======================================================
     List services made available by First Step Internet, 
     serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                   http://www.fsr.net                       
              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
    =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110505/ac049179/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Sitler Molestation Letter.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 223576 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110505/ac049179/attachment-0001.pdf