^^Totally missed the point. The point is that stuff like this is a slippery slope. You approve of it because today they're taking away kids from criminals which violates their rights but that's 'OK' with you because they're just criminals/mob so nobody (you) gives a shit. But, it sets a precedent and opens the door to taking kids/other-things away from any other group based on the dislike of what that group believes, i.e. political groups/religious -groups/sex-orientation/etc... I know this happened in Italy but look at what the IRS is doing here based on political-ideology and then tell me something like this couldn't happen to other groups....
The point isn't lost on me at all. I'm disagreeing with it, and calling it chicken-little-ish.
If you look up slippery slopes, say in google or on Wikipedia (or Bing, I guess), the first hits are discussions of logical fallacies. Because that is what an argument of "slippery slope" is: not logically consistent.
The people in question are not "just mobsters", they're convicted mob bosses whose children are also accused or convicted of criminal activity. Those are the only children removed from the home. As a society we place limits on rights, that's been the way since the founding of the nation. Libel, for example, or owning nuclear weapons. Both of these are illegal, though when taking absolute readings of the 1st and 2nd amendments, the banning of both should be unconstitutional. These people are demonstrating that they are deliberately raising their children to become criminals.
That is exactly why it isn't at all like political dissent. It isn't about raising their children to believe that the government should be smaller, or that the drug trade should be legalized (I agree), its about raising them to do, to commit action, which is against the law, including murder. A whole hell of a lot of murder. Raising your child to believe that abortion is wrong is completely different from raising them to kill abortion providers.
Also, the IRS delayed the applications of some groups applying for tax-exempt status, but didn't deny them. To emphasize this - no one has a right to run a tax-exempt social welfare group. 501(c)4 is a status solely for groups whose primary mission is direct social welfare work, not political activity, which is allowed only in support of the social welfare mission and not as a primary activity. This is the reason the Occupy movement was also caught under the same dragnet, (in other words, it did happen to other groups) Furthermore, none of these groups were denied their applications and several people were forced to resign (except Lois Lerner, the head of the department in question. She refused, and was placed on permanent leave by the new deputy commissioner. I would prefer her being fired.)
I'll never be one to declare that atrocities could never happen here, (or, that they aren't currently happening), but focusing our attention on actual problems that haven't been resolved is more important than deliberately raising outrage. The IRS was right to face scrutiny (and to continue facing it), and it was right for those people to lose their jobs. But trying to declare that this is the trumpet-call of war against a powerful and politically-relevant group of people is waste of energy. The Tea-party groups faced some challenges, and won. They got their approval, and got people fired. Its time to file this under "reasons to remain vigilant" not "current out-rage generators", or else the NAACP would never have to do anything besides constantly bring up COINTELPRO.
Pin it! 
4 comments
Login to comment →
High_Binder 11 years, 3 months ago
If the govmnt doesn't like your lifestyle they are free to squash your human rights. Today it's mobsters, tomorrow its political opponents/etc..
Italy is only a few years ahead of us...
Reply
DirtDoc 11 years, 3 months ago
Naturally, because teaching your children that murder is a normal business practice is totally the same as political dissent. /s
Reply
High_Binder 11 years, 3 months ago
^^Totally missed the point. The point is that stuff like this is a slippery slope. You approve of it because today they're taking away kids from criminals which violates their rights but that's 'OK' with you because they're just criminals/mob so nobody (you) gives a shit. But, it sets a precedent and opens the door to taking kids/other-things away from any other group based on the dislike of what that group believes, i.e. political groups/religious -groups/sex-orientation/etc... I know this happened in Italy but look at what the IRS is doing here based on political-ideology and then tell me something like this couldn't happen to other groups....
Reply
DirtDoc 11 years, 3 months ago
The point isn't lost on me at all. I'm disagreeing with it, and calling it chicken-little-ish.
If you look up slippery slopes, say in google or on Wikipedia (or Bing, I guess), the first hits are discussions of logical fallacies. Because that is what an argument of "slippery slope" is: not logically consistent.
The people in question are not "just mobsters", they're convicted mob bosses whose children are also accused or convicted of criminal activity. Those are the only children removed from the home. As a society we place limits on rights, that's been the way since the founding of the nation. Libel, for example, or owning nuclear weapons. Both of these are illegal, though when taking absolute readings of the 1st and 2nd amendments, the banning of both should be unconstitutional. These people are demonstrating that they are deliberately raising their children to become criminals.
That is exactly why it isn't at all like political dissent. It isn't about raising their children to believe that the government should be smaller, or that the drug trade should be legalized (I agree), its about raising them to do, to commit action, which is against the law, including murder. A whole hell of a lot of murder. Raising your child to believe that abortion is wrong is completely different from raising them to kill abortion providers.
Also, the IRS delayed the applications of some groups applying for tax-exempt status, but didn't deny them. To emphasize this - no one has a right to run a tax-exempt social welfare group. 501(c)4 is a status solely for groups whose primary mission is direct social welfare work, not political activity, which is allowed only in support of the social welfare mission and not as a primary activity. This is the reason the Occupy movement was also caught under the same dragnet, (in other words, it did happen to other groups) Furthermore, none of these groups were denied their applications and several people were forced to resign (except Lois Lerner, the head of the department in question. She refused, and was placed on permanent leave by the new deputy commissioner. I would prefer her being fired.)
I'll never be one to declare that atrocities could never happen here, (or, that they aren't currently happening), but focusing our attention on actual problems that haven't been resolved is more important than deliberately raising outrage. The IRS was right to face scrutiny (and to continue facing it), and it was right for those people to lose their jobs. But trying to declare that this is the trumpet-call of war against a powerful and politically-relevant group of people is waste of energy. The Tea-party groups faced some challenges, and won. They got their approval, and got people fired. Its time to file this under "reasons to remain vigilant" not "current out-rage generators", or else the NAACP would never have to do anything besides constantly bring up COINTELPRO.
Reply