Comments on: Mother's crime http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html Because everything has a reason! Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:52:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2239 Unpretentious Diva Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:55:41 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2239 <blockquote>How can the person sell his/her parental right without the consent of the child and without the child’s right to revoke it. </blockquote> No child decides who should be or would be his parent. There is no consent of child to take birth in a particular house/parent. Who is saying that child-parent relationship is not allowed? But it is non-voluntary. No child offers a consensual deal for a couple to be his parent. The child rights remain intact even if a person sells his parental rights over child because the child rights have nothing to do with parents. No matter a father rapes a 9 year old girl or a person in neighborhood, if the 9 year old girl is being sexually used, it is against her child right. Being a parent does not provide you to molest your child. Parental right has nothing to do with child right. it is so simple. Parental rights can be sold off, Child rights cannot be sold. Child rights cannot be sold because for selling them, the child need to be able to make a meaningful consent but before a certain age of maturity we do not accept a child to be able to make any meaningful consent. Still we cannot affirm the same age limit for a child in all cases. As for example, a 9 year old girl has a proper right to denounce his parent and seek for some outside help if she find herself in some understandably difficult situation in her parental house, as for example, if a the girl is being forced for child marriage, she can surely deny marrying and demand for outside help/asylum. <blockquote> And if the parent-child relation is not voluntary, having children should be banned or other non-voluntary relationships should be allowed.</blockquote> it does not make sense. Parent-child relation is obviously non-voluntary, because no child decide for who should be his parent. he just takes birth without deciding it, taking birth in a particular house for a particular couple cannot be a pre-decided action of a child. Obviously, such non-voluntary relation is legal and applicable. Where is your doubt?

How can the person sell his/her parental right without the consent of the child and without the child’s right to revoke it.

No child decides who should be or would be his parent. There is no consent of child to take birth in a particular house/parent.

Who is saying that child-parent relationship is not allowed? But it is non-voluntary. No child offers a consensual deal for a couple to be his parent.
The child rights remain intact even if a person sells his parental rights over child because the child rights have nothing to do with parents.

No matter a father rapes a 9 year old girl or a person in neighborhood, if the 9 year old girl is being sexually used, it is against her child right. Being a parent does not provide you to molest your child. Parental right has nothing to do with child right.
it is so simple. Parental rights can be sold off, Child rights cannot be sold.
Child rights cannot be sold because for selling them, the child need to be able to make a meaningful consent but before a certain age of maturity we do not accept a child to be able to make any meaningful consent.
Still we cannot affirm the same age limit for a child in all cases.
As for example, a 9 year old girl has a proper right to denounce his parent and seek for some outside help if she find herself in some understandably difficult situation in her parental house, as for example, if a the girl is being forced for child marriage, she can surely deny marrying and demand for outside help/asylum.

And if the parent-child relation is not voluntary, having children should be banned or other non-voluntary relationships should be allowed.

it does not make sense.
Parent-child relation is obviously non-voluntary, because no child decide for who should be his parent. he just takes birth without deciding it, taking birth in a particular house for a particular couple cannot be a pre-decided action of a child.
Obviously, such non-voluntary relation is legal and applicable. Where is your doubt?

]]> By: Sanket http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2238 Sanket Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:40:08 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2238 What he sells is his parental rights over the child. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How can the person sell his/her parental right without the consent of the child and without the child's right to revoke it.  And if the parent-child relation is not voluntary, having children should be banned or other non-voluntary relationships should be allowed. What he sells is his parental rights over the child.
———————————————————————————–
How can the person sell his/her parental right without the consent of the child and without the child’s right to revoke it.  And if the parent-child relation is not voluntary, having children should be banned or other non-voluntary relationships should be allowed.

]]> By: GP http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2237 GP Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:10:39 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2237 @Unpretentious Diva get it right, law is not above Individual life, whenever the law tries to subvert individual liberty, people revolt to change the law, that is why even constitution has provided space for amendments. Indian law and supreme court is full of idiotic premises. Afzal Guru was sentenced death penalty though he never killed anybody, he was penalized because some bogus phone bills suggest that he was talking with some people connected with parliament attack. Such is indian law and its sanctity. <<<<<<<<I never said anywhere in my statements that people are above the laws or constitutional amendments are not at all required. Regarding Afzal Guru case, my understanding is - SC have awarded him death penalty to re-assure general public that such acts(i.e. Attacking on indian parliment) won't be taken lightly and whosoever involved in such activities directly or indirectly would be punished severely. Its like teaching lesson / setting a precedent for any such future cases. So again, legally speaking - he shudn't get punished if there are no concrete evidences to prove that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But SC have not done this first time and if u rememember few months back - they just accepted rape victim's statement( i.e. no medical evidences,eye-witnesses) before issuing capital punishment to the accused. So what would you call that ? A fair judgement considering safety of thousand other gals residing in premises of that accused or an attack on individual liberty by some highly prejudiced SC judges who just give in to their emotions rather than focussing on tangible evidences before awarding judgement? judges are also humans so they are susceptible to errors coz to err..is human. Things will always remain grey and you have to live with it. And about Afzal Guru - well, the congress govt. won't complete the proceedings(i.e. forwarding necessary docs to president to review his mercy plea) untill election to get the votes of minorities so if ur his supporter then just chill! >>>>>>>>> @Unpretentious Diva
get it right, law is not above Individual life, whenever the law tries to subvert individual liberty, people revolt to change the law, that is why even constitution has provided space for amendments.
Indian law and supreme court is full of idiotic premises.
Afzal Guru was sentenced death penalty though he never killed anybody, he was penalized because some bogus phone bills suggest that he was talking with some people connected with parliament attack. Such is indian law and its sanctity.
<<<<<<<<I never said anywhere in my statements that people are above the laws or constitutional amendments are not at all required.
Regarding Afzal Guru case, my understanding is – SC have awarded him death penalty to re-assure general public that such acts(i.e. Attacking on indian parliment) won’t be taken lightly and whosoever
involved in such activities directly or indirectly would be punished severely. Its like teaching lesson / setting a precedent for any such future cases.
So again, legally speaking – he shudn’t get punished if there are no concrete evidences to prove that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
But SC have not done this first time and if u rememember few months back – they just accepted rape victim’s statement( i.e. no medical evidences,eye-witnesses)
before issuing capital punishment to the accused. So what would you call that ? A fair judgement considering safety of thousand other gals residing in premises of that accused or an attack
on individual liberty by some highly prejudiced SC judges who just give in to their emotions rather than focussing on tangible evidences before awarding judgement?
judges are also humans so they are susceptible to errors coz to err..is human. Things will always remain grey and you have to live with it.
And about Afzal Guru – well, the congress govt. won’t complete the proceedings(i.e. forwarding necessary docs to president to review his mercy plea)
untill election to get the votes of minorities so if ur his supporter then just chill! >>>>>>>>>

]]> By: GP http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2236 GP Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:10:08 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2236 @Unpretentious Seond thing is it is never selling of child, it is selling of parental rights. and in India selling of child is completely legal. What the government want is just its interference. Sell your child with the help of registered adoption agency and then it will be legal, otherwise it is illegal. Why cannot you read the article properly. <<<<<Thats wht my point is -The mother in your artical tried to transfer her parental rights to Rickshaw driver without involving third party (read - accredited adoption agency) and hence, as per law of country its illegal and anything which is not legal is crime..simple! >>>>>> @Unpretentious
Seond thing is it is never selling of child, it is selling of parental rights. and in India selling of child is completely legal. What the government want is just its interference. Sell your child with the help of registered adoption agency and then it will be legal, otherwise it is illegal. Why cannot you read the article properly.
<<<<<Thats wht my point is -The mother in your artical tried to transfer her parental rights to Rickshaw driver without involving third party (read – accredited adoption agency)
and hence, as per law of country its illegal and anything which is not legal is crime..simple! >>>>>>

]]> By: GP http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2235 GP Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:08:11 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2235 @Mridara Liberty comes with responsibility. Responsibility comes with accountability. Accountability comes through obligations,rules,law and order enforcement!. So if you think that if specific law or rule  is outdated or inefficient to consider all possible scenarios then you should make an active efforts to bring it to the attention of judiciary through PIL. There is another way which is called as 9th amendment in US constitution which is safeguarding the natural/fundamental  rights of ppl  people which are not included in first 8 amendments..Now something similar can be implemented in indian judiciary..how?..awareness from every individual is the answer! well, entry of intellectuals with fresh ideas in their mind in politics and unanimous support by general public to them. Perhaps, initiavies like "Lead India - by Timegroups " are really commendable in this regard coz they surely act as motivatory boost and make people think. I mean ONLY thing we can think of now is - creating more and more awareness, sharing the thoughs of course this is not overnight activity but yeah I can say - discussing on suhc subjects through internet blogs can surely help people to know whats wrong but in the end - its up to them to decide whether they just want to be part of spectators or actors to bring that change.   @Mridara
Liberty comes with responsibility.
Responsibility comes with accountability.
Accountability comes through obligations,rules,law and order enforcement!.
So if you think that if specific law or rule  is outdated or inefficient to consider all possible scenarios then you should make an active efforts to bring it to the attention of judiciary
through PIL.
There is another way which is called as 9th amendment in US constitution which is safeguarding the natural/fundamental  rights of ppl  people which are not included in first 8 amendments..Now something similar can be implemented in indian judiciary..how?..awareness from every individual is the answer!
well, entry of intellectuals with fresh ideas in their mind in politics and unanimous support by general public to them. Perhaps, initiavies like “Lead India – by Timegroups ” are really commendable in this regard coz they surely act as motivatory boost and make people think.
I mean ONLY thing we can think of now is – creating more and more awareness, sharing the thoughs of course this is not overnight activity
but yeah I can say – discussing on suhc subjects through internet blogs can surely help people to know whats wrong but in the end – its up to them to decide whether they just want to be part of spectators or actors to bring that change.
 

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2234 Unpretentious Diva Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:22:53 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2234 A person cannot sell the child. What he sells is his parental rights over the child. The child rights remain intact and so does his freedom. Parent-child relation is non-voluntary for the child. The child actually is never in a position to demand, it is parent's decision to have a child, it is sort of voluntary duty for them. Parent does not mean biological parents, but those, who hold the parental rights (they may be biological parents as in most cases, may not be too). The parents holds no right over the child once he attains adulthood (that is ability to make genuine decision for himself). Yet, a child generally prefers to serve his parents in oldage, it is natural for him/her. Although we suggest girl is not to be accepted to serve her parents, she has to serve her would be husband's parents. It is voluntary relation, unbounded. often children serve and care their parents because of the good relation which is actually the emotional wealth and very precious and reasonable. yet the child cannot be forced to serve his/her parent. In many cases, there may rise situations where the child may simply abhor his/her parents. like some fathers do rape their own girls etc. A person cannot sell the child. What he sells is his parental rights over the child.
The child rights remain intact and so does his freedom.

Parent-child relation is non-voluntary for the child. The child actually is never in a position to demand, it is parent’s decision to have a child, it is sort of voluntary duty for them.
Parent does not mean biological parents, but those, who hold the parental rights (they may be biological parents as in most cases, may not be too).
The parents holds no right over the child once he attains adulthood (that is ability to make genuine decision for himself). Yet, a child generally prefers to serve his parents in oldage, it is natural for him/her. Although we suggest girl is not to be accepted to serve her parents, she has to serve her would be husband’s parents.
It is voluntary relation, unbounded. often children serve and care their parents because of the good relation which is actually the emotional wealth and very precious and reasonable. yet the child cannot be forced to serve his/her parent. In many cases, there may rise situations where the child may simply abhor his/her parents. like some fathers do rape their own girls etc.

]]> By: Sanket http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2233 Sanket Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:21:10 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2233 I support the "sale" provided the child is notified of its sale at, say the age of 12. Once notified, it can stay with its owner, return to its mother, or leave both of them. The mother may or may not accept it. I support the “sale” provided the child is notified of its sale at, say the age of 12. Once notified, it can stay with its owner, return to its mother, or leave both of them. The mother may or may not accept it.

]]> By: Sanket http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2232 Sanket Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:52:29 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2232 Sorry. It  says 'Every person is a slave until his/her parents die. What are the obligations of the child towards its owner. If it has no obligations, there is no sale.  If it has obligations, why should it have obligations when it did not make a contract? Does the child have the right to be told about its sale? If it need not be told, than the child can also sell any portion of the owner's property without informing him/her. Or is the child an inferior human? Sorry. It  says ‘Every person is a slave until his/her parents die.

What are the obligations of the child towards its owner. If it has no obligations, there is no sale.  If it has obligations, why should it have obligations when it did not make a contract?

Does the child have the right to be told about its sale? If it need not be told, than the child can also sell any portion of the owner’s property without informing him/her. Or is the child an inferior human?

]]> By: Sanket http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2231 Sanket Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:43:10 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2231 Now, as a child is the creation of the parents and they have the right to sell it, it can be argued that the child remains the property of the parents and hence they have the full right to demand hs/her earnings and force him to do any job. That is, in short, the child is the slave of the parents.  So, is this what libertarianism says- Every person is born a slave until his/her person die. Second thing is abuse. If well being is the criteria, how do we define it? Are human beings machines, that an objective criteria of well-being can be formulated ? You said: Why will anyone sell her child to someone whom she cannot trust that, (s) he will provide a better life to her child than what she can afford? What is a better life? Who defines that? And why cannot the woman look at the child as an investment. How do you know prices in a free market will be higher and cannot be compensated by begging. And what do you mean by child rights? How can an object have rights? Who formulates child rights? If the woman did not want the child, she could have aborted it. What prevented her? Now, as a child is the creation of the parents and they have the right to sell it, it can be argued that the child remains the property of the parents and hence they have the full right to demand hs/her earnings and force him to do any job. That is, in short, the child is the slave of the parents.  So, is this what libertarianism says- Every person is born a slave until his/her person die.
Second thing is abuse. If well being is the criteria, how do we define it? Are human beings machines, that an objective criteria of well-being can be formulated ?
You said: Why will anyone sell her child to someone whom she cannot trust that, (s) he will provide a better life to her child than what she can afford?
What is a better life? Who defines that? And why cannot the woman look at the child as an investment.

How do you know prices in a free market will be higher and cannot be compensated by begging.

And what do you mean by child rights? How can an object have rights? Who formulates child rights?

If the woman did not want the child, she could have aborted it. What prevented her?

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2230 Unpretentious Diva Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:11:41 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2230 @Mridara <blockquote>i repeat again, the strata of people ur reaching for in this forum, are the realized ones, thats why i am even able to understand what u are saying, tom **** and harry wouldn’t bother stoping by at this forum- to them it would be unnecessary and complex- this is the attitude of the everyday man</blockquote> Do you really think that I should worry for those tom dick and hardy when even Mridara and GP are yet not able to understand the dangers of subjectivity and importance of objectivity? I Have No right to teach others if they do not want me to. It is their objective right to learn by themselves. Anyways, we should try to analyze our ownself first, that how reasonable, how objective our own life standards are, and if their is any subjective premise we follow that make us loot others free premise of existence, we should rectify our mistake. @Mridara

i repeat again, the strata of people ur reaching for in this forum, are the realized ones, thats why i am even able to understand what u are saying, tom **** and harry wouldn’t bother stoping by at this forum- to them it would be unnecessary and complex- this is the attitude of the everyday man

Do you really think that I should worry for those tom dick and hardy when even Mridara and GP are yet not able to understand the dangers of subjectivity and importance of objectivity?

I Have No right to teach others if they do not want me to. It is their objective right to learn by themselves.
Anyways, we should try to analyze our ownself first, that how reasonable, how objective our own life standards are, and if their is any subjective premise we follow that make us loot others free premise of existence, we should rectify our mistake.

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2229 Unpretentious Diva Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:02:33 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2229 @ GP <blockquote>My only point is - You cannot justify crime of selling your own child</blockquote> You cannot prove that there is any crime in selling your own child. Today at Raipur Railway station, a five year old boy was found, he was left alone with his parents. Now nobody is claiming him. I say it would have been better if his parents have sold him to some needy couple instead of leaving him on a railway station to suffer hunger, criminals, cold and destitution. Seond thing is it is never selling of child, it is selling of parental rights<strong>. and in India selling of child is completely legal. What the government want is just its interference. Sell your child with the help of registered adoption agency and then it will be legal, otherwise it is illegal. Why cannot you read the article properly.</strong> @ GP

My only point is – You cannot justify crime of selling your own child

You cannot prove that there is any crime in selling your own child.

Today at Raipur Railway station, a five year old boy was found, he was left alone with his parents. Now nobody is claiming him. I say it would have been better if his parents have sold him to some needy couple instead of leaving him on a railway station to suffer hunger, criminals, cold and destitution.

Seond thing is it is never selling of child, it is selling of parental rights. and in India selling of child is completely legal. What the government want is just its interference. Sell your child with the help of registered adoption agency and then it will be legal, otherwise it is illegal.

Why cannot you read the article properly.

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2228 Unpretentious Diva Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:58:35 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2228 @GP <blockquote>BUT you shud keep in mind that your action shud fit in within law and order of country.</blockquote> get it right, law is not above Individual life, whenever the law tries to subvert individual liberty, people revolt to change the law, that is why even constitution has provided space for amendments. Indian law and supreme court is full of idiotic premises. Afzal Guru was sentenced death penalty though he never killed anybody, he was penalized because some bogus phone bills suggest that he was talking with some people connected with parliament attack. Such is indian law and its sanctity. Indian law has no objectivity and that is why it is repulsive. people fear police, people fear lawyers, people fear courts. They do not consider Indian judiciary as helpful protective layer, they do consider it as a burden on their life and tries as much as possible to avoid any indulgence with court/police/lawyers. And even indian law makers understand this fact. That is why indian system has provided So Many loopholes in judiciary system. These loopholes are not its weakness, these loopholes are sort of ventilators which let the poisonous air of indian judiciary to get out and provide common man a little relief to live for. Indian law can never be applied strictly because if it happens, it will be the extreme on Indian common man. The only way to profess a corruption less and unbiased legal system is to stress maximum on Objectivity, Rationality and provable analogies. @GP

BUT you shud keep in mind that your action shud fit in within law and order of country.

get it right, law is not above Individual life, whenever the law tries to subvert individual liberty, people revolt to change the law, that is why even constitution has provided space for amendments.
Indian law and supreme court is full of idiotic premises.

Afzal Guru was sentenced death penalty though he never killed anybody, he was penalized because some bogus phone bills suggest that he was talking with some people connected with parliament attack. Such is indian law and its sanctity.
Indian law has no objectivity and that is why it is repulsive. people fear police, people fear lawyers, people fear courts. They do not consider Indian judiciary as helpful protective layer, they do consider it as a burden on their life and tries as much as possible to avoid any indulgence with court/police/lawyers.

And even indian law makers understand this fact. That is why indian system has provided So Many loopholes in judiciary system.

These loopholes are not its weakness, these loopholes are sort of ventilators which let the poisonous air of indian judiciary to get out and provide common man a little relief to live for.
Indian law can never be applied strictly because if it happens, it will be the extreme on Indian common man.
The only way to profess a corruption less and unbiased legal system is to stress maximum on Objectivity, Rationality and provable analogies.

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2227 Unpretentious Diva Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:50:03 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2227 <blockquote>how will u administrate anything if there is no collectivity…. the individual right now has become so much a part of the collectivity that he seems to strive only to maintain appearances with the collectivity, and has totally forgotten his individual self…. and those who live as individuals, normally live outside the borders of society, not really one with the stream, doesn’t ur entire system strive to merge u completely with the collectivity, from the very time your born…. But u should also except that we cannot have a efficient system without a collectivity… for example in this forum, we are still a collectivity with a certain set of views, individuality is just a set of nuances that constitute you….</blockquote> What system are you talking about? A collectivist system or an Individualist system? There is no role of any collective premise in an Individualist system, in collectivist system, people may pretend to be individualist, they can never be free of the collective society though, at the best, they can strive and try to achieve freedom. Freedom here means the objective right of a man to deny other to force him for anything. Freedom is his right to make choices with consent.

how will u administrate anything if there is no collectivity…. the individual right now has become so much a part of the collectivity that he seems to strive only to maintain appearances with the collectivity, and has totally forgotten his individual self…. and those who live as individuals, normally live outside the borders of society, not really one with the stream, doesn’t ur entire system strive to merge u completely with the collectivity, from the very time your born…. But u should also except that we cannot have a efficient system without a collectivity… for example in this forum, we are still a collectivity with a certain set of views, individuality is just a set of nuances that constitute you….

What system are you talking about?
A collectivist system or an Individualist system?

There is no role of any collective premise in an Individualist system, in collectivist system, people may pretend to be individualist, they can never be free of the collective society though, at the best, they can strive and try to achieve freedom.
Freedom here means the objective right of a man to deny other to force him for anything. Freedom is his right to make choices with consent.

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2226 Unpretentious Diva Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:41:57 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2226 <blockquote>but every human being is subjective,</blockquote> Your idea of subjectivity and objectivity is a bit nasty and confused. Human perceptions are subjective, life cannot be lead with subjective emotions and perceptions. Life goes on, on the rational basis of objective premises. It is an objective reality that in a cold night, burning some wood or grass will help a man to have some warmth. Yet, it is also an objective idea that if he burns his neighbors field where his neighbor worked hard to produce some wheat and collect some wealth for his and his family's livinghood, than it is crime. His subjective perception that he can burn anything to get warmth is not that worthy to let him provide freedom to burn his neighbors field. if he would do so, the neighbor will react and oppose in anyway possible, and his objection and opposition, will be objective. A man is free, either to waste his energies in irrational, subjective manner, he is free to engage his energies in rational objective manner too. No man is free to confiscate the freedom of other man/men on behalf of his subjective irrational perceptions or ideals. Once he engage in deploying his subjective ideals on others, others start revolting. And that is Objectivity.

but every human being is subjective,

Your idea of subjectivity and objectivity is a bit nasty and confused.
Human perceptions are subjective, life cannot be lead with subjective emotions and perceptions. Life goes on, on the rational basis of objective premises.
It is an objective reality that in a cold night, burning some wood or grass will help a man to have some warmth.
Yet, it is also an objective idea that if he burns his neighbors field where his neighbor worked hard to produce some wheat and collect some wealth for his and his family’s livinghood, than it is crime.
His subjective perception that he can burn anything to get warmth is not that worthy to let him provide freedom to burn his neighbors field.
if he would do so, the neighbor will react and oppose in anyway possible, and his objection and opposition, will be objective.

A man is free, either to waste his energies in irrational, subjective manner, he is free to engage his energies in rational objective manner too.
No man is free to confiscate the freedom of other man/men on behalf of his subjective irrational perceptions or ideals. Once he engage in deploying his subjective ideals on others, others start revolting. And that is Objectivity.

]]> By: Unpretentious Diva http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2225 Unpretentious Diva Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:36:04 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2225 <blockquote>it is nothing wrong in that.”- those who get caught in mms scadals are not those who love to exibit, ur logic is crocked, this is not a case of exihibitionism, maybe some of them are, not all… do analyse ur opinion, and see the situation for what it is, instead of mixing random perceptions into it…</blockquote> Mridara, it is you who need to reanalyze your wrong perceptions. A girl goes out with his boy friend, he cajoles her, they get mixed in sexual pleasant period. Later on girl comes to know that the boy had made a cd of their lovely time period and is now selling of. So, what is the crime in all this? If you can understand the real crime, you can remove the possibilities of that crime too. The crime in this case is, the girl was used by the boy without her knowledge to work for him. She worked without any contract, without her will or knowledge and without pay too. Pornography is not crime, crime is not giving proper credentials, nor asking for consent. So the girl can complain and demand for monetary compensation, nothing else. Now about the problem that the girl's image is hurt now in society. it is silly situation, and it is not crime of her boyfriend, it is crime of society which considers that if a girl is on TV showcasing her voluptuous body, then she is ruined. it is silly you know. Anyways, even that can be catered with the fine which can be lodged on the person who used her for his pornographic project work without her consent. The crime is of category of cheating with the employee, it is not a sex crime. Not only cheating with employee, the man who made the video/MMS actually dodged the girl to work for him without consent and that is also crime. if you want to project is as a sex crime sex-scandal etc, than it make no sense and it will get no objective strength and hence will never be rectified.

it is nothing wrong in that.”- those who get caught in mms scadals are not those who love to exibit, ur logic is crocked, this is not a case of exihibitionism, maybe some of them are, not all… do analyse ur opinion, and see the situation for what it is, instead of mixing random perceptions into it…

Mridara, it is you who need to reanalyze your wrong perceptions.
A girl goes out with his boy friend, he cajoles her, they get mixed in sexual pleasant period. Later on girl comes to know that the boy had made a cd of their lovely time period and is now selling of. So, what is the crime in all this?
If you can understand the real crime, you can remove the possibilities of that crime too.
The crime in this case is, the girl was used by the boy without her knowledge to work for him. She worked without any contract, without her will or knowledge and without pay too. Pornography is not crime, crime is not giving proper credentials, nor asking for consent.
So the girl can complain and demand for monetary compensation, nothing else.
Now about the problem that the girl’s image is hurt now in society. it is silly situation, and it is not crime of her boyfriend, it is crime of society which considers that if a girl is on TV showcasing her voluptuous body, then she is ruined. it is silly you know.
Anyways, even that can be catered with the fine which can be lodged on the person who used her for his pornographic project work without her consent.
The crime is of category of cheating with the employee, it is not a sex crime. Not only cheating with employee, the man who made the video/MMS actually dodged the girl to work for him without consent and that is also crime.
if you want to project is as a sex crime sex-scandal etc, than it make no sense and it will get no objective strength and hence will never be rectified.

]]> By: Mridara http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2224 Mridara Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:40:29 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2224 Brahmo samaj and Araya samaj, and all out thinkers, reached to a particular lot and they failed.... i repeat again, the strata of people ur reaching for in this forum, are the realized ones, thats why i am even able to understand what u are saying, tom dick and harry wouldn't bother stoping by at this forum- to them it would be unnecessary and complex- this is the attitude of the everyday man.... action shall never be..... just like out tv people, they make all the noise about right, in the end nothing happens, someone dead- and they go interview the widow without any consideration for her greif or emotional state of mind, where is their humanity there, is awareness more important, doesn't the individual fail there.... as for the social contract- realize that every system will be eventually institutionalized, when u get married- its a new field- you are all thrilled and unaware of what and how you are doing- but eventually down the line- it becomes a well thought out institution.... and the institution cannot be broken as it would lead to chaos and anomaly, and its always nice to have some direction... Brahmo samaj and Araya samaj, and all out thinkers, reached to a particular lot and they failed…. i repeat again, the strata of people ur reaching for in this forum, are the realized ones, thats why i am even able to understand what u are saying, tom dick and harry wouldn’t bother stoping by at this forum- to them it would be unnecessary and complex- this is the attitude of the everyday man…. action shall never be….. just like out tv people, they make all the noise about right, in the end nothing happens, someone dead- and they go interview the widow without any consideration for her greif or emotional state of mind, where is their humanity there, is awareness more important, doesn’t the individual fail there…. as for the social contract- realize that every system will be eventually institutionalized, when u get married- its a new field- you are all thrilled and unaware of what and how you are doing- but eventually down the line- it becomes a well thought out institution…. and the institution cannot be broken as it would lead to chaos and anomaly, and its always nice to have some direction…

]]> By: Mridara http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2223 Mridara Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:29:00 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2223 GP, ground level poverty and rules are nasty... we living in a different strata of society have so many rights and we understand our environment better.. leaving the child at the government hospital, will facilitate its adoption, but she required money for her monetary gain, that was the only place where she varied, from those who abandoned their children at door steps... lots of out baby transactions involve money- how about womb on sale- she gets nearly 2 lakhs for delivering and giving the baby, and there are so many other systems.... the west has alot of systems and people are aware of their avenues, maybe if we had alot of avenues, we wouldn't be pushing people into dead end corners and shooting them down.... agreed- crime is crime as defined by the law in the country- but who gets caught in the judicial system- it is generally the poor and hapless, the rest go scotfree, especially those with money, so isn't our system predudiced and baised, do we have trust in the system.... also agree- that press and media and everyone who comes across a crime present it in their own perspective- but every human being is subjective, i guess only science can be considered objective.... yes, the action should be within the law, but its not always possible to sit to the framework.... GP,
ground level poverty and rules are nasty…
we living in a different strata of society have so many rights and we understand our environment better..
leaving the child at the government hospital, will facilitate its adoption, but she required money for her monetary gain, that was the only place where she varied, from those who abandoned their children at door steps… lots of out baby transactions involve money- how about womb on sale- she gets nearly 2 lakhs for delivering and giving the baby, and there are so many other systems…. the west has alot of systems and people are aware of their avenues, maybe if we had alot of avenues, we wouldn’t be pushing people into dead end corners and shooting them down…. agreed- crime is crime as defined by the law in the country- but who gets caught in the judicial system- it is generally the poor and hapless, the rest go scotfree, especially those with money, so isn’t our system predudiced and baised, do we have trust in the system…. also agree- that press and media and everyone who comes across a crime present it in their own perspective- but every human being is subjective, i guess only science can be considered objective….

yes, the action should be within the law, but its not always possible to sit to the framework….

]]> By: Mridara http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2221 Mridara Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:20:16 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2221 No the women aren't aware, and most of them showcase only women and not men.... do u think a young college girl would like to be showcased on a mms, and become a reject from her society and everything around her.... It would be interesting to have a women strip a man- mms.... they are physically forcing someone- the person doesn't know that she will be displayed the next day- pornography is different from these mms scandals... why dont u consider it a violation of rights.... those mms's were taken in the privacy of their encounter, just as we have many secrets within closed walls... "MMS scandals can be said criminal only if girls were physically forced in it. Anyways, I know many girls just love exhibitionism. it is nothing wrong in that."- those who get caught in mms scadals are not those who love to exibit, ur logic is crocked, this is not a case of exihibitionism, maybe some of them are, not all...  do analyse ur opinion, and see the situation for what it is, instead of mixing random perceptions into it.... No the women aren’t aware, and most of them showcase only women and not men…. do u think a young college girl would like to be showcased on a mms, and become a reject from her society and everything around her….

It would be interesting to have a women strip a man- mms….

they are physically forcing someone- the person doesn’t know that she will be displayed the next day- pornography is different from these mms scandals… why dont u consider it a violation of rights…. those mms’s were taken in the privacy of their encounter, just as we have many secrets within closed walls…

“MMS scandals can be said criminal only if girls were physically forced in it.
Anyways, I know many girls just love exhibitionism. it is nothing wrong in that.”- those who get caught in mms scadals are not those who love to exibit, ur logic is crocked, this is not a case of exihibitionism, maybe some of them are, not all…  do analyse ur opinion, and see the situation for what it is, instead of mixing random perceptions into it….

]]> By: Mridara http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2220 Mridara Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:13:14 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2220 so what kind of a word do u prescribe with the individual…. how will u administrate anything if there is no collectivity…. the individual right now has become so much a part of the collectivity that he seems to strive only to maintain appearances with the collectivity, and has totally forgotten his individual self…. and those who live as individuals, normally live outside the borders of society, not really one with the stream, doesn’t ur entire system strive to merge u completely with the collectivity, from the very time your born…. But u should also except that we cannot have a efficient system without a collectivity… for example in this forum, we are still a collectivity with a certain set of views, individuality is just a set of nuances that constitute you…. No the women aren’t aware, and most of them showcase only women and not men…. do u think a young college girl would like to be showcased on a mms, and become a reject from her society and everything around her…. It would be interesting to have a women strip a man- mms…. they are physically forcing someone- the person doesn’t know that she will be displayed the next day- pornography is different from these mms scandals… why dont u consider it a violation of rights…. those mms’s were taken in the privacy of their encounter, just as we have many secrets within closed walls… “MMS scandals can be said criminal only if girls were physically forced in it. Anyways, I know many girls just love exhibitionism. it is nothing wrong in that.”- those who get caught in mms scadals are not those who love to exibit, ur logic is crocked, this is not a case of exihibitionism, maybe some of them are, not all… do analyse ur opinion, and see the situation for what it is, instead of mixing random perceptions into it…. GP, ground level poverty and rules are nasty… we living in a different strata of society have so many rights and we understand our environment better.. leaving the child at the government hospital, will facilitate its adoption, but she required money for her monetary gain, that was the only place where she varied, from those who abandoned their children at door steps… lots of out baby transactions involve money- how about womb on sale- she gets nearly 2 lakhs for delivering and giving the baby, and there are so many other systems…. the west has alot of systems and people are aware of their avenues, maybe if we had alot of avenues, we wouldn’t be pushing people into dead end corners and shooting them down…. agreed- crime is crime as defined by the law in the country- but who gets caught in the judicial system- it is generally the poor and hapless, the rest go scotfree, especially those with money, so isn’t our system predudiced and baised, do we have trust in the system…. also agree- that press and media and everyone who comes across a crime present it in their own perspective- but every human being is subjective, i guess only science can be considered objective…. yes, the action should be within the law, but its not always possible to sit to the framework…. Brahmo samaj and Araya samaj, and all out thinkers, reached to a particular lot and they failed…. i repeat again, the strata of people ur reaching for in this forum, are the realized ones, thats why i am even able to understand what u are saying, tom **** and harry wouldn’t bother stoping by at this forum- to them it would be uneccary and complex- this is the attitute of the everyday man…. action shall never be….. just like out tv people, they make all the noise about right, in the end nothing happens, someone dead- and they go interview the widow without any consideration for her greif or emotional state of mind, where is their humanity there, is awareness more important, doesn’t the individual fail there…. as for the social contract- realize that every system will be eventually institutionalised, when u get married- its a new field- ur all thrilled and unaware of what and how ur doing- but eventually down the line- it becomes a well thought out insitutution…. and the institution cannot be broken as it would lead to choas and anomie, and its always nice to have some direction… so what kind of a word do u prescribe with the individual…. how will u administrate anything if there is no collectivity…. the individual right now has become so much a part of the collectivity that he seems to strive only to maintain appearances with the collectivity, and has totally forgotten his individual self…. and those who live as individuals, normally live outside the borders of society, not really one with the stream, doesn’t ur entire system strive to merge u completely with the collectivity, from the very time your born…. But u should also except that we cannot have a efficient system without a collectivity… for example in this forum, we are still a collectivity with a certain set of views, individuality is just a set of nuances that constitute you….

No the women aren’t aware, and most of them showcase only women and not men…. do u think a young college girl would like to be showcased on a mms, and become a reject from her society and everything around her….

It would be interesting to have a women strip a man- mms….

they are physically forcing someone- the person doesn’t know that she will be displayed the next day- pornography is different from these mms scandals… why dont u consider it a violation of rights…. those mms’s were taken in the privacy of their encounter, just as we have many secrets within closed walls…

“MMS scandals can be said criminal only if girls were physically forced in it.
Anyways, I know many girls just love exhibitionism. it is nothing wrong in that.”- those who get caught in mms scadals are not those who love to exibit, ur logic is crocked, this is not a case of exihibitionism, maybe some of them are, not all… do analyse ur opinion, and see the situation for what it is, instead of mixing random perceptions into it….

GP,
ground level poverty and rules are nasty…
we living in a different strata of society have so many rights and we understand our environment better..
leaving the child at the government hospital, will facilitate its adoption, but she required money for her monetary gain, that was the only place where she varied, from those who abandoned their children at door steps… lots of out baby transactions involve money- how about womb on sale- she gets nearly 2 lakhs for delivering and giving the baby, and there are so many other systems…. the west has alot of systems and people are aware of their avenues, maybe if we had alot of avenues, we wouldn’t be pushing people into dead end corners and shooting them down…. agreed- crime is crime as defined by the law in the country- but who gets caught in the judicial system- it is generally the poor and hapless, the rest go scotfree, especially those with money, so isn’t our system predudiced and baised, do we have trust in the system…. also agree- that press and media and everyone who comes across a crime present it in their own perspective- but every human being is subjective, i guess only science can be considered objective….

yes, the action should be within the law, but its not always possible to sit to the framework….

Brahmo samaj and Araya samaj, and all out thinkers, reached to a particular lot and they failed…. i repeat again, the strata of people ur reaching for in this forum, are the realized ones, thats why i am even able to understand what u are saying, tom **** and harry wouldn’t bother stoping by at this forum- to them it would be uneccary and complex- this is the attitute of the everyday man…. action shall never be….. just like out tv people, they make all the noise about right, in the end nothing happens, someone dead- and they go interview the widow without any consideration for her greif or emotional state of mind, where is their humanity there, is awareness more important, doesn’t the individual fail there…. as for the social contract- realize that every system will be eventually institutionalised, when u get married- its a new field- ur all thrilled and unaware of what and how ur doing- but eventually down the line- it becomes a well thought out insitutution…. and the institution cannot be broken as it would lead to choas and anomie, and its always nice to have some direction…

]]> By: GP http://www.reasonforliberty.com/government/mothers-crime.html#comment-2222 GP Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:10:39 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3156#comment-2222 @ Mridara <<<<<<<<Nope I am not Anti-woman. My only point is - You cannot justify crime of selling your own child on moral or ethical grounds. Crime is crime as defined by law of the country! I have expresed my views just to present other side of coin. Not necessarily press/media always analyse situations from all angles and print truth so what unpretentious diva has presented in this article is her own perception which she is calling facts which I am not saying is wrong. Coz each person's perception and interpretation is different. Reagrding media/press publishing such stories ...They are just interested in their TRPs,popularity stuff,etc. I read your comments about - Whats the practical way to do it..or whats the cure ,etc. and I totally agree with you its not always possible to find solutions to all the problems.But honestly speaking, each person should no his/her tolerance level and be prepared to take action before anyone try to cross that level.... BUT you shud keep in mind that your action shud fit in within law and order of country.>>>>>>   @ Mridara
<<<<<<<<Nope I am not Anti-woman. My only point is – You cannot justify crime of selling your own child
on moral or ethical grounds. Crime is crime as defined by law of the country! I have expresed my views just to present other side of coin. Not necessarily press/media always analyse situations from all angles and print truth so what unpretentious diva has presented in this article is her own perception which she is calling facts which I am not saying is wrong. Coz each person’s perception and interpretation is different.
Reagrding media/press publishing such stories …They are just interested in their TRPs,popularity stuff,etc.
I read your comments about – Whats the practical way to do it..or whats the cure ,etc.
and I totally agree with you its not always possible to find solutions to all the problems.But honestly speaking, each person should no his/her tolerance level and be prepared to take action before anyone try to cross that level….
BUT you shud keep in mind that your action shud fit in within law and order of country.>>>>>>
 

]]>