DAVID GOLDMAN & SON: WHATAYATHINK ?

@aidan,

I had heard though that the dad had visited him frequently lately and they have developed a relationship.

The part I find difficult is that the mom pretty much kidnapped him in a sense. She took the child from the father in the first place. The dad didn't have a chance. Now if some one kidnaps a young child and raises them well and the child seems happy with the kidnapping couple - but several years later is discovered - should the child then stay with the kidnapped couple? Now remember the child is happy and only knows them as their mom and dad as he was young when kidnapped, same logic - he should stay with them.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

My understanding is he has visited (when the family will allow him to see the child), he has been fighting for his child all along.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

I read that he only visited after the mother had died. The reason, however, was not given.

0 Replies

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

I had heard though that the dad had visited him frequently lately and they have developed a relationship.

The part I find difficult is that the mom pretty much kidnapped him in a sense. She took the child from the father in the first place. The dad didn't have a chance. Now if some one kidnaps a young child and raises them well and the child seems happy with the kidnapping couple - but several years later is discovered - should the child then stay with the kidnapped couple? Now remember the child is happy and only knows them as their mom and dad as he was young when kidnapped, same logic - he should stay with them.

He shoud do whatever he decides to DO.
Reason it out as well as he can, the same as any of us does.

Everyone shoud make his own mistakes of his OWN choosing,
free from any coercion (including any judicial coercion).

David

0 Replies

According to ABC News:

" Brazil's top judge rules Sean Goldman must be returned to his father."

0 Replies

By the way,
I shoud note that I have felt quite sympathetic to the father
all along; it seems very foolish that the stepfather has any claim on him,
but the final decision shoud be that of 9 year old Sean Goldman himself.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Wow...so many invalid points to counter. Let me start with your comment about Elian Gonzalez....it is your capitalist elitist view that Elian's life is and will be spent in "lifelong communist slavery", but you know absolutely nothing about how he is living his life or how happy (or unhappy) he is. While life in Communist Cuba wouldn't be my first choice, I'm sure that there are plenty of content people in Cuba and why shouldn't Elian be one of them? And why should Elian's father have had to lose his son...should we remove all the Cuban children from Cuba to save them from "slavery"? Your point is, again, invalid and ridiculous.
Next point: there is a huge difference between a girl you were "obsessively" in love with a girl (I'm actually a bit scared by your use of that term) and use this "love" in the same context as the love of a parent for a child? This is, of course, because as a non-parent you not only have no frame of reference for this kind of love, but no right to speak about it. No, people don't possess other people, or even think about possessing them unless they're a bit deranged (starting to see a pattern here with your use of both the words obsession and possession)....a parent doesn't possess or own a child, but until a child is of legal age, that parent does have the right to determine what's best for them. The fact that you think a 9 year old possesses the maturity and ability to do that is frightening. You say that the father didn't INHERIT the child from the mother....no, both parents have equal responsibility for a child...one doesn't inherit a child like property. Again, a ridiculous analogy. You also make the case that perhaps the stepfather is wealthier than the father and therefore could give the child a better life...better life in what way? If we were talking about the choice between living in a cardboard box or a house, or being able to have food on the table or not, I'd say your argument had some validity, but unless Sean would live in abject poverty with his father this can not and should not factor into any decision. How superficial are you that you would award a child to the person with more money? Should only rich people have children? Are you for real?
It is completely arrogant of you to say that I insulted Sean's mind because I don't believe a 9 year old who's been put under tremendous pressure and influence by others has the ability to determine what's best for him...if you're going to form rebuttals, they should have some kind of truth behind them, otherwise you just sound like an idiot.
As far as his mother kidnapping him...of course she did. She had no legal right to take him out of the country permanently, and in doing so it became a kidnapping. I don't know your definition of kidnapping, but it certainly fits mine, and, it seems, everyone else's, as that's the term that's been used.
And to your last point about Sean being autonomous....again, patently ridiculous in the case of a 9 year old child. In your scenario, a 9 year old should then be able to decide to just go off and live with anyone who welcomes him, should be able to quit school if it makes him happier to do so, eat only ice cream and candy because he likes it...these are the things an autonomous being can decide to do. Thank God you don't have children.

3 Replies

@nyaz,

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x90/fredapeople/animated/Applause-2.gif

0 Replies

@nyaz,

indeed

0 Replies

David, you said: "Each of us is born with a natural right
to personal freedom n autonomy, even up to and including suicide.
Every person has the natural right to end his life at a time of his choice."

At what point are we allowed to make decisions for ourselves? Age 2? 5? 9? And what kind of decisions are we making? Life choices? Eating choices? Education choices?

Children don't have any perspective, as you KNOW. What you thought at age 5, you might no longer think at age 9, 15, 21, etc. It is absurd that you would give this child the 100% right to decide his fate when he is only 9 years old. What did you really even know at 9? Not a whole lot.

That's a crazy position for even you to take, David, and I do understand you're about individualism, but really, 9 is way too young to know what's really going on and what's at stake.

2 Replies

@Mame,

Don't forget. David was a gun totin young man at the age of 8. Wink

...and from previous posts, it appears that he was not close to his parents and was on his own much of the time. That would probably make his perspective somewhat different that the majority of the population.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Don't forget. David was a gun totin young man at the age of 8.

OK, give Sean a gun; a Taurus .44 Model 445,
if that is to his taste. Thay make them there.

Intrepid wrote:

...and from previous posts, it appears that he was not close
to his parents and was on his own much of the time.

I had no problems with my father and I had a good rapport with my mother,
but I always knew that I was autonomous.

Intrepid wrote:

That would probably make his perspective somewhat different that the majority of the population.

Maybe, but Sean 's natural right to liberty is whatever it is, regardless my perspective.

David

0 Replies

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

David, you said: "Each of us is born with a natural right
to personal freedom n autonomy, even up to and including suicide.
Every person has the natural right to end his life at a time of his choice."

I DID. I 'll stand by that.

Mame wrote:

At what point are we allowed to make decisions for ourselves?
Age 2? 5? 9? And what kind of decisions are we making?
Life choices? Eating choices? Education choices?

"Allowed" addresses who has effective control.
The answer is whoever has effective control of the situation.

Mame wrote:

Children don't have any perspective, as you KNOW.
What you thought at age 5, you might no longer think at age 9,
15, 21, etc.

That can always continue to change.
When I was 30 and 50, I thought that I shoud spell
like everyone else, and corrected my secretaries
who misspelled words. After age 60, I had a different vu
of how best to spell and changed it. People can change
their minds at any age or ages and thay do so.

Mame wrote:

It is absurd that you would give this child the 100% right
to decide his fate when he is only 9 years old.
What did you really even know at 9? Not a whole lot.

I argue that he has that natural right already, NOT that anyone
shoud "GIVE" him, the same as he has a natural right to live;
no one GAVE him that right as a present.
One 's natural rights do not and have never depended
upon what one KNOWS.

Mame wrote:

That's a crazy position for even you to take, David, and I do
understand you're about individualism, but really, 9 is way too
young to know what's really going on and what's at stake.

HE has to live with the consequences, not any judge
who substitutes his wishes for those of the victim (Sean, himself).
Its HIS life; no one else 's.

David

0 Replies

@nyaz,

nyaz wrote:

Let me start with your comment about Elian Gonzalez....
it is your capitalist elitist view that Elian's life is and will be spent
in "lifelong communist slavery", but you know absolutely nothing
about how he is living his life or how happy (or unhappy) he is.

That 's right.

nyaz wrote:

While life in Communist Cuba wouldn't be my first choice,
I'm sure that there are plenty of content people in Cuba
and why shouldn't Elian be one of them?

Yes; with luck, he might rise among the commie slavemasters,
in that capacity enjoying all the luxury that he wants
as Castro has, or the ruling slavemaster elite of commie societies.
The dictator and his friends can live well.

nyaz wrote:

And why should Elian's father have had to lose his son...

Because he successfully escaped to freedom
and he appealed for sanctuary here; he said on TV
that he wished to remain here; no big surprize,
when the alternative was living out his life in communist slavery
(unless he can successfully collaborate with the commie masters).

nyaz wrote:

should we remove all the Cuban children from Cuba to save them from "slavery"?

That 's too much work, but when thay
successfully arrive here and just ask us to let them stay,
then that is easy. We can then protect their freedom,
but neither Janet Reno nor Clinton was ever into freedom
(except for themselves, of course).

nyaz wrote:

Your point is, again, invalid and ridiculous.

Your mother wears army boots.

nyaz wrote:

Next point: there is a huge difference between a girl you were "obsessively" in love with a girl
(I'm actually a bit scared by your use of that term)
and use this "love" in the same context as the love of a parent for a child?

Yes; in both cases that emotion confers NO RIGHT to control the object of that love.

nyaz wrote:

This is, of course, because as a non-parent you not only have no
frame of reference for this kind of love, but no right to speak about it.

U appear to be both exceptionally stupid and ignorant,
never having heard of freedom of speech.
Having an emotion does NOT invest anyone with any rights.
There is NO theory of law nor of equity that alleges that it does.
Maybe u can begin one.

nyaz wrote:

No, people don't possess other people, or even think about possessing them unless they're a bit deranged

Well, I got the impression that was all that David Goldman was thinking about.
I did not see him cavorting on the Brazilian beach.

nyaz wrote:

(starting to see a pattern here with your use of both the words obsession and possession)....
a parent doesn't possess or own a child, but until a child is of legal age,
that parent does have the right to determine what's best for them.

That is all well and good unless the child himself vetos it and rejects it.
If Elian Gonzalez had rejected his father 's communism,
in favor of Individualism and personal liberty, that 'd have been admirable.

The oldest child of Andrea Yates tried to stop her,
but he lacked the necessary strength and he was unarmed.
He coud not find a weapon. The penalty for that was death.

nyaz wrote:

The fact that you think a 9 year old possesses the maturity and
ability to do that is frightening.

It sounds like u are in fear
that your own child might opt for freedom and that scares u
(if he coud GET it).
If Sean is able to articulate his desires by speaking out,
then no one shoud enslave him, forcing him to go
anywhere that he chooses not to go.
He belongs to HIMSELF, not to anyone else, including his father.
Its not as if he were an escaped dog who is simply dragged back.

He shoud live wherever he wants, as long as he is welcome.
In this case, his grandmother welcomes him.

nyaz wrote:

You say that the father didn't INHERIT the child from the mother....no,
both parents have equal responsibility for a child...
one doesn't inherit a child like property.

I have said that quite a few times already.

nyaz wrote:

Again, a ridiculous analogy.

An analogy in whose conclusion
that u have AGREED with me.

Your post gives me the impression that is not that my arguments
are too BAD, but rather that u are scared that thay are too GOOD.

nyaz wrote:

You also make the case that perhaps the stepfather is wealthier
than the father and therefore could give the child a better life...better life in what way?

Greater riches, more luxury, more servants, better tasting food, more beauty, more fun.
I was raising the point, in general, that if a kid rejects the rules
and hospitality of his father, he is within his moral, natural rights
to go down the road and to accept the invitation of a wealthier man
if he has been invited.
His father does not own him; he is free if he so declares himself.
To a slight degree, this concept reminds me of a situation I had
many decades ago: my friend, we were both about 13,
was thrown out of his house by his angry father.
I took him in to my apartment. (I had my own apartment in one of our houses.)
He lived well on my hospitality until thay reconciled.

nyaz wrote:

If we were talking about the choice between living in a cardboard box or a house,
or being able to have food on the table or not, I'd say your argument had some validity,
but unless Sean would live in abject poverty with his father
this can not and should not factor into any decision.

Sean shoud be the judge of that, if he is welcome. He will live with the consequences.

nyaz wrote:

How superficial are you that you would award a child
to the person with more money? Should only rich people have children? Are you for real?

That 's not what I said; can 't u read??
I said that the child shoud go wherever he himself decides to go.
Depending upon his values, he might opt for the hospitality of a rich man
instead of a poorer father.

nyaz wrote:

It is completely arrogant of you to say that I insulted Sean's mind

U DESERVE to be treated arrogantly
because you mock Sean 's mind
and of the minds of all 9 year old kids, (of whom I once was one).
On their behalf: I object to your contempt for them.

nyaz wrote:

because I don't believe a 9 year old who's been put under tremendous pressure and influence by others

TELL us what proof u have of this.
(I don 't think u will; I think u will IGNORE my challenge
because u don 't have this information. We shall see if u do.)

nyaz wrote:

otherwise you just sound like an idiot.

U are not my counsellor on skillful rhetoric.
I 'll express myself as I choose, not as u prefer.
My opinion of your mind (judging from your post) is not much higher
than your disdainful opinion of Sean 's mind because of his age.

nyaz wrote:

As far as his mother kidnapping him...of course she did.
She had no legal right to take him out of the country permanently,
and in doing so it became a kidnapping. I don't know your
definition of kidnapping, but it certainly fits mine,

Really? What law do u offer in proof of your allegation?
Cite it please?

nyaz wrote:

In your scenario, a 9 year old should then be able to decide
to just go off and live with anyone who welcomes him,

Yes; I respect his natural right to personal liberty.

nyaz wrote:

should be able to quit school if it makes him happier to do so,
eat only ice cream and candy because he likes it...these are the
things an autonomous being can decide to do.

Government was never granted jurisdiction to force education
on unwilling citizens; if u disagree, then please indicate
when, where and how government was granted that jurisdiction.

I add that any citizen has the natural right to engage in
self destructive behavior; he owes no duty to anyone else
to abstain therefrom. Government can only legitimately exist
BY CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

nyaz wrote:

Thank God you don't have children.

I have already done that.
It is a thrill to me that I have none of the problems attendant thereto.
I don 't have to pay for dental braces nor jail bail.
For sure, I will never fall victim to a patricide.
YOU can only GUESS at that.
Too many fathers have been slain by their children
unexpectedly when everything was peaceful.
Every time I hear of that happening, I revel in how well off I am.

(Then there was also the gross, nasty old Sicilian on my block
who murdered his son, who was in his 40s, after their dogs had a fight.)
I will never have that problem, either.

David

2 Replies

Uh, oh. David is starting to write in the manner of Ionus and Jason.
Shocked

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Uh, oh. David is starting to write in the manner of Ionus and Jason.

Specify the manner?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I think the overall point here is that nine year old children are not competent to make adult decisions. To hold them to that standard would be to allow them to be brutally taken advantage of by every adult that comes along. There may be nine year olds out there who could be trusted to make decent decisions on their own behalf, but I haven't met one and I know a lot of them. If we were nothing but hunter-gatherers in a little village, nine might be old enough to function as an adult (although I doubt it), but in order for a child to become a competent adult in human society, it takes years of training and learning. The privileges of society accrue with the maturity to use them and some of those privileges allow someone to completely ruin his life. Our society has set up a system (however flawed) to develop fully functioning adults. It first involves tasking parents with the responsibility for training children and providing state assistance for education and for food and housing if the family is in extremis. Since some parents are not capable of handling that task, there is also a state responsibility to remove children if they are being abused. Parents also have significant rights in this system to match their significant responsibilities. No, a rich family cannot come along and offer a child a pony, an XBox and a nice room to convince them to leave their family. No, a child cannot choose to quit school or work for virtually no money at some crap job or allow themselves to be sexually assaulted or join the military. They are not competent to make those type of decisions, therefore they do not have the right to make them. Parents retain that right as guardians of their children. The idea that competency is age dependent could be argued in that a 17 year old might be more competent than many 18 year olds and said 17 year old could pursue that recognition in court if necessary, but to say that a nine year old has all the rights of society (with none of the responsibilities?) is not a tenable position.

2 Replies

@engineer,

Very well put.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

After reading all ure posts, I've decided that u are a deeply troubled guy goingall the way back to ure childhood, which was quite obviously dysfunctional. I'm sorry u weren't loved better, I truly am. And as far as ure new spelling.....it's nothing that Prince and, after him, many other people in the music biz haven't been doing for years, and now in your advanced middle age u've decided to emulate Britney Spears???? Wow...how revolutionary of U. And now I'm done trying to make sense out of your completely convoluted thinking. Get therapy.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I think the overall point here is that nine year old children
are not competent to make adult decisions.

I think that people have natural rights (one of which is to live)
and that if other people insult their intelligences, those people
cannot be screwed out of those natural rights on the basis of
their having been insulted.

If anyone accuses u of being stupid or incompetent, Engineer,
u still have your natural rights intact anyway.
I also respect the natural right of any child to VOTE in political elections,
the same as anyone else and disenfranchizing them
while holding them to obay the law anyway, is a form of RAPE of the children
by older members of the polity. I believed that 60 years ago, and I assert it now.
MORALLY, children cannot be held to comply with any law, nor to pay any taxes
if thay are political pariahs, ostracized from the democratic process. That includes schoolboard elections.
If I were a State Senator, I 'd offer a bill to give the children input to control financial compensation of their teachers,
so as to compel teachers to treat their employers with proper respect. Perhaps issues of protocol can be addressed,
e.g., the teachers will address their employers in class as Mr. Smith or Miss Jones, while their (juvenile) employers
will address the teachers as Billy or Mary just to get the perspective right.
(I feel I am still the same kid inside that I always was, just bigger n uglier.)

(It was FUN writing that.)

engineer wrote:

To hold them to that standard would be to allow them to be brutally
taken advantage of by every adult that comes along.

What? How? What 's your point?

engineer wrote:

There may be nine year olds out there who could be trusted to
make decent decisions on their own behalf, but I haven't met one
and I know a lot of them.

Its not a question of TRUSTING THEM; its a question of respecting their natural rights.
I did not trust the Democrats who voted for Obama,
but I cannot deny that thay had the natural right to vote (if thay were citizens).
Those Democrats did not lose their natural right to vote because I distrusted them.

engineer wrote:

If we were nothing but hunter-gatherers in a little village, nine
might be old enough to function as an adult (although I doubt it),

Remember in the 1990s 2 twin boys' parents were murdered in Burma (??) by raiding soldiers from Thailand?
The 9 year old twins (known for cigar smoking) stole some automatic weapons and organized a local militia
that was counter-raiding the Thailand soldiers, until thay got killed at age 12?
Thay got along for 3 years.

engineer wrote:

but in order for a child to become a competent adult in human society,
it takes years of training and learning. The privileges of society

WHICH privileges are these?

engineer wrote:

accrue with the maturity to use them and some of those privileges
allow someone to completely ruin his life.

We all have that right. To me, it was presented most heartbreakingly
by seeing very young boys smoking to impress one another.
I have taken the time to sit with them, over the years,
in an effort to convince them (speaking as a collegial equal citizen)
to abandon smoking. To me, it was very, very sad.
I never succeeded. Thay were probably addicted b4 I began to argue.

engineer wrote:

Our society has set up a system (however flawed) to develop fully functioning adults.

Legitimate government is ONLY by consent; that is the root of legitimacy.
That is the difference between an elected legislature and the Hell's Angel's Motorcycle Club
as far as the authority to order people around is concerned.
Did the children consent, Engineer? Did thay vote?

engineer wrote:

It first involves tasking parents with the responsibility for training
children and providing state assistance for education and for food
and housing if the family is in extremis. Since some parents are
not capable of handling that task, there is also a state responsibility to remove children if they are being abused.

That was clever how u simply ASSUMED that it had the authority to fulfill that alleged "responsibility".
I 'd look at it simply as neighbors advising children as to their natural rights of self defense from their parents,
and inviting them to better housing. It is a matter of RESPECT for the victims.
However, I must concede that the victims might be too young to be able to speak and therefore not able
to consciously participate in the process of rescue.
Then it is the same as rescuing an adult who has been beaten unconscious.

engineer wrote:

Parents also have significant rights in this system to match their significant responsibilities.

Since parents nearly monopolize all legislatures and thay have disenfranchized children,
thay are able to vote themselves whatever legal rights thay want;
(like the Germans did over the Jews), but there is no change in their natural rights, so far as I can see.

engineer wrote:

No, a rich family cannot come along and offer a child a pony,
an XBox and a nice room to convince them to leave their family.

This idea rapes children out of their natural rights of self determination.
Thay shoud protest. How did a kid lose his natural right to use the roads and leave for a better environment?
He has no moral duty to hang around with his dad if he doesn't wanna. What if he doesn 't like him?
Thay might disagree or have a personality conflict.
Possibly, thay might have conflicting political, economic or religious opinions.
What if Elian Gonzalez says: "my dad is a filthy damned commie.
I 'd rather kill a commie or a nazi than live with him."

Do u claim that he has a moral duty to hang around with commie dad or nazi dad, or politically correct dad?
If he has such a moral duty, where did that duty come from ????

engineer wrote:

No, a child cannot choose to quit school or work for virtually no money at some crap job
or allow themselves to be sexually assaulted or join the military.

If he "cannot" do so, then how do u explain the fact that thay HAVE
DONE it 1,000s and 1,000s of times ????
Indeed, when my uncle was 12 in 1910, his English father
(my grandfather) threw him out of the house in a dispute
over proper English table manners. (That was the end of school.)
However, my uncle had been born in New York during a one year honeymoon.
Therefore, he was an American citizen by birthright.
He got on a ship and came to America where he did indeed
work at odd jobs and eventually became financially successful.
After my grandfather significantly depleted the estate by drunken gambling,
losing millions of English pounds, my uncle rehabilitated it.
About 15 years later, the rest of the family followed him
to America, as a result of which I am an American citizen.
My mother had to be naturalized from her English citizenship.

If that table fight had not occurred, I 'd only be an Englishman.
That 's a ghastly thought.

engineer wrote:

They are not competent to make those type of decisions, therefore [ ?? ]
they do not have the right to make them.

That is a non sequitur. U have not proven, but only assume,
that forfeiture of entitlements results from the alleged incompetence.

engineer wrote:

Parents retain that right as guardians of their children.

If those children VETO that right, then no moral right continues,
unless u think the kid is property, like a horse or a pig.

engineer wrote:

The idea that competency is age dependent could be argued in that a 17 year old
might be more competent than many 18 year olds and said 17 year old
could pursue that recognition in court if necessary, but to say that
a nine year old has all the rights of society (with none of the responsibilities?)
is not a tenable position.

He has the same moral rights and responsibilities as anyone else.

David

2 Replies

DAVID GOLDMAN & SON: WHATAYATHINK ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know