18-Year-Old Boy Gets Jailed for 'Seducing an Unmarried Woman'?!
January 21st, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesBrett, a reader, sent me the incredible blurb below, from the Lansing State Journal (1/18/08). Please read it and tell me if I'm missing something.
"Dontrel Marquis Birge, 18, 2000 block of Stirling, Lansing, seducing an unmarried woman, 120 days in jail, two days credit, 30 months probation, maintain legitimate employment, comply with DNA testing, no indirect or direct verbal/written/electronic/physical contact with victim, $300 supervision fee, $250 attorney fee, $60 state cost, $60 to Victims Fund."
As an aside, the "offender" here is obviously black and I suspect that the "victim" is white.
"Seducing an Unmarried Woman" is a crime? Can anybody make sense of this? Perhaps this was a plea bargain of some kind?
[Late note: Michigan 750.532 Seduction; punishment. Sec. 532.
Punishment--Any man who shall seduce and debauch any unmarried woman shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 5 years or by fine of not more than 2,500 dollars; but no prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;–CL 1948, 750.532 .
Former Law: See section 7 of Ch. 158 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, 5862; CL 1871, 7697; How., 9283; CL 1897, 11694; CL 1915, 15468; and CL 1929, 16823.]
"));
19 queries. 0.408 seconds.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Presumably, the seducing a married woman has a harsher punishment. I understand such a thing warranted the death penalty in certain medieval societies. But we're much more enlightened now.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Everyone has heard of the phrase "driving while black." I guess we should coin another: "living while male."
This poor guy gets a double whammy.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Glenn, here's an explanation from The Oakland [Michigan] Press. "Seducing an unmarried woman" was originally intended when a man failed to follow through with a promise of marriage, according to some other sources. Here it's being used in lieu of other sex crime charges to prevent an offender from having to register on the public sex offender registry.
www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/052406/opi_2006052406.shtml
The Oakland Press, editorial, 24 May 2006
19th century law should be retired
"It turns out there is a way around the relatively new state law that puts people guilty of criminal sexual conduct on a public list. Here's how it works.
"An 1846 law makes 'seducing an unmarried woman' a crime. The statute presumably had gotten pretty dusty in the past 160 years, until it was found to be a handy alternative charge in sex cases. An offender who pleads guilty to it doesn't have to register as a sex offender.
"A Michigan State Police detective in charge of a sex offender registry task force told the Lansing State Journal the old law is a loophole that ought to be closed.
"But it is likely that judges, in accepting guilty pleas to the lesser charge, often find it more appropriate than having the defendant end up publicly labeled a sex criminal.
"Sex crimes against minors do not end up as seduction pleas. The law that created the public list rules that out.
"But instead of simply closing the loophole, lawmakers should find out why it's being used.
"And if it truly serves justice, let's craft a 21st century statute to accomplish the same end."
January 21st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Ed is correct. The following is from a very old Michigan case discussing seducing an unmarried woman: "[T]he mere act of illicit intercourse on March 3d, 1862, was not of itself sufficient to constitute the crime of seduction; but the complainant must have been led astray from the path of virtue in which she then was, by inducements offered by the defendant."
Seduction was defined as follows: "An act of carnal intercourse with an unmarried woman, to which her assent was obtained by a promise of marriage made at the time. and to which without such promise she would not have yielded, constitutes the offense of seduction under the statute."
This is a "crime" one hardly ever hears about, because it is so ridiculous in this day and age.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Dang, I am probably guilty of several counts of seducing an unmarried woman, especially the woman who became my wife!
Note the listing just above shows the judge ordering DNA testing on a man convicted of not paying child support. I just wonder what will be done if the guy turns out to not be the father.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Nice, Victorian values in a modern age.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Er, now I read the other posts...I guess I get off on the charge associated with my wife....
January 21st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
If a couple of the posters here are correct, he commited some sort of sex offence. Maybe he got off lightly (unlikely given that he suffers the double whammy of being male and black) or the sex offence statutes were draconian given the nature of what he did, and this was a convenient way to achieve justice. If the latter, I agree with the editorial; don't press a 19th century law into use for a purpose for which it was never intended. Instead, draft an appropriate 21st century law.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:25 pm
These laws all are basically chivalrous in origin -- protecting women at men's expense. Although women will find the change quite unpleasant, the playing field between men and women won't be level until chivalry is truly dead. Chivalry has kept men's hands tied behind their backs while absorbing feminism's savage beating. Without chivalry, the puzzle will go to the smartest, the race to the swiftest, and the battle to the strongest -- and women will for the most part be left in the dust. Women should fear true gender equality more than anything else.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
"Chivalry has kept men's hands tied behind their backs while absorbing feminism's savage beating. Without chivalry, the puzzle will go to the smartest, the race to the swiftest, and the battle to the strongest -- and women will for the most part be left in the dust. Women should fear true gender equality more than anything else."
I know this sounds insane, but I think volunteer fire departments need to be dismantled. Think about it.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Tony S: Huh? You lost me. Volunteer fire departments? That reference could mean so many things. What specifically do you mean?
January 21st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
This is so damn funny, I can't stop laughing. Seriously .... in what is likely THE most oversexed society this country has ever seen ... "Jailed for seducing an unmarried woman?????"
Is this some sort of a joke? It's absurd!
January 21st, 2008 at 6:45 pm
That should teach him a lesson. In the future, no doubt, he will seduce only married women.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
There is obviously more to the story, but irregardless I'm rather tired of hearing how young teenagers or adults are getting jail time when older women are involved. I think it's a disturbing trend.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Was this a jury trial?
January 21st, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Sounds almost like a no contest charge of DV, glenn. They didn't have the goods to for sure get a conviction in court so they offer him a guilty to a lesser crime so they don't have to prove that he did anything wrong. Nice use of justice system for men (especially young black men?). Sounds like a new threat women can use on us after the fact and the justice system can just say well if he was guilty he got off easy and if he was innocent well the punishment wasn't too bad. Of course, no contest on DV ruins you for certain types of jobs wonder what 'Seducing an Unmarried Woman" does for primary care or working with children?
January 21st, 2008 at 9:38 pm
So much is unknown about this case that is is meaningless to speculate anything about it.
No doubt it was part of a plea bargain. The original charge most like was along the lines of rape, attempted rape, or something along those lines. The reason those charges were not pursued can be many and varied ranging from everything from insufficient evidence for a conviction on up to the victim did not want to testify or pursue the case.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:28 pm
This is another example of patriarchy-inspired gender-feminism posing as avante garde progress, when in actuality it is traditional damsel-in-distress femininity at its finest. It isn't even feminism as far as I am concerned. It is feminine entitlement-princess syndrome.
Is sex even worth it anymore? Sex is treated as worse than murder, so wny bother? It is as if the Victorian era has been cloned. I should get one of those inflatable women lol..........but sadly they spew just as much hot air as a gender-feminist!!
Masculist XY
January 21st, 2008 at 11:38 pm
No - it is a comment based upon pure, simple, basic logic. It totally avoids the "male victim mentality" that you seem to espouse.
In basic terms - yes, America is a very puritan country today. That isn't going to change much in the foreseeable future. Of course, what brought America to that point is the religious right and the republicans / conservatives.
The feminists that you revile actually played a big role in the sexual revolution that treated sex as a healthy thing.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:46 pm
I actually don't have a problem with feminism in general........just gender-feminism (patriarchy-theory). I respect feminism insofar that Warren Farrell respects feminism. I tend to follow his lead in most things.
Sometimes gender-feminism exploits chivalry and plays the victim to meet its ends.........which is ironically traditional.
I also think chivalry plays a part in this as well........not just princess syndrome.
Masculist XY
January 21st, 2008 at 11:55 pm
A quote from Dr. Farrell that is worth remembering then:
"I'm a 100% supporter of the portions of feminism that are empowering to women and a 100% opponent of the portions that hone victimhood as a fine art. "
Paraphrase that to apply to the mens rights movement and you might be on the right track.
Doc
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 am
Doc said:
"A quote from Dr. Farrell that is worth remembering then:
"I'm a 100% supporter of the portions of feminism that are empowering to women and a 100% opponent of the portions that hone victimhood as a fine art. "
Paraphrase that to apply to the mens rights movement and you might be on the right track."
This is a quote from Jack Kammer (If men have all the power, how come women make the rules?):
"You might hear that this book is an example of the victimhood mentality.Certainly, denying personal responsibility is unhealthy. But so is the opposite: pretending everything is just fine when it isn't. That's the unhealthy behavior we men tend to exhibit. Sometimes the most responsible thing a person can do is recognize and acknowledge he cannot handle a problem by himself, and help motivate and organize all parties involved to fix it."
Honing victimhood as a "fine art" is different than honing victimhood. Warren Farrell was alluding to gender-feminist manipulation and exploitation of chivalry.
Masculist XY
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 am
Okay, moving away from the case in general and look at the title of the legal infraction only, I am disgusted. "Seducing and unmarried woman"?! How can that be a crime? How can they charge a man with that crime and not charge the 'Sexually liberated" women who sleep with anyone they want (I am not against this just pointing out the legal double standard) with "Seducing and unmarried man?'
I know that the feminist will say. "That law is old and antiquated and hardly used anymore." Well tell that to the guy in the story above. I just love how a man's sexual impulses are criminal, while a women's are "liberating."
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 am
Nathan said:
"I just love how a man's sexual impulses are criminal, while a women's are "liberating.""
It is like how pornography is considered vile while romance novels are considered charming......or how rape is considered worse than murder. The Vagina Monologues are another example worth mentioning.
Masculist XY
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 am
Interesting, it is a crime to obtain sexual favors by making a false promise of marriage. It is not a crime to obtain child support by making a false promise of paternity.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 am
Kelly - your post makes no sense. Only a man can make a promise of paternity.
One can only make a false claim of paternity. However, in cases of multiple partners, it may be difficult to to know who the father is. Hence, they have DNA tests.
LIke everything in life, CYA should be the ruling factor in your life.
Doc
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 am
Doc -
DNA tests that the Mother doesn't have to submit to, and that the various child support agencies will ignore if it suits them or if you've missed an arbitrary deadline. That's often because the mother has deliberately taken steps not to inform you of her claim that you're the father of her child (or in the case of Military personnel because you're off serving your country abroad).
CYA indeed.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:28 am
Doc said...
No - it is a comment based upon pure, simple, basic logic. It totally avoids the "male victim mentality" that you seem to espouse.
In basic terms - yes, America is a very puritan country today. That isn't going to change much in the foreseeable future. Of course, what brought America to that point is the religious right and the republicans / conservatives.
The feminists that you revile actually played a big role in the sexual revolution that treated sex as a healthy thing.
Sorry Doc you are only partly correct. With regard to womens' sexuality feminists have always insisted that womens desires and actions are healthy. They have never granted men that same concession.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:41 am
James Howard: I have never seen a documented case where a mother has been allowed to avoid a DNA test. Please provide evidence of this such as court records, etc. and not anecdotal evidence.
I have never seen documented cases where the CSE Office has ignored the results if a deadline was not missed. Please tell me where I can find documentation - court records, etc. and not anecdotal evidence.
The law has provisions for military service overseas concerning DNA testing. It is done on a regular basis.
The instances are very rare where child support can be assessed without the putative father having been advised. Please do not confuse this statement with the anecdotal information that you have heard.
Doc
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 am
"Interesting, it is a crime to obtain sexual favors by making a false promise of marriage. It is not a crime to obtain child support by making a false promise of paternity.
Don't get this? How about--
Promising a man he will get to raise his own children and skipping town? Not following a visitation order? Saying a man is the father when he may not be?
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:28 am
Are you asking rhetorical questions?
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:35 am
I don't know if this guy committed some more serious crime and is pleading down to something lesser. I have known people caught in the criminal justice system plea down event though they were not guilty. Especially blacks and poor people of any race. I want to know why isn't there a crime of seducing an unmarried man? Heck when I was younger women use to make do all sorts of silly things and jump through the hoops for promise of affection only to have my hopes dashed after seeing them with another man. isn't that the spirit of this law? except off course to protect women. We need 100% equality now. Women should have to register for the draft be drafted and serve in the same way as men. Let me tell you registering for the draft is no easy task, if there is a mix up you can get lost in the red tap along with many of your federal benefits such as student loans. At least it never happens to women because they don't even have to register for the draft.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 am
Sounds like people are right, this probably is a plea bargain. I agree, however, there is no equal law against women...
This is why we have legislators... to get rid of meaningless laws like this. Instead, they are enacting nanny-state laws to "protect" us from ourselves. I sure wish they did their jobs so that we have LESS laws that are MORE meaningful instead of the opposite. With the current laws, unless you are some sort of legal expert, it is unlikely that most people even make it through the day without breaking a law. We are not free. It's just that there aren't enough people to enforce all the crazy laws out there.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:36 am
It is true - Americans are not free. They haven't been for a long time.
People in China have more freedoms than Americans do.
Doc
Patriotism has a way of making people swallow anything.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:53 am
I understand that the head of the Supreme Court of Michigan has stated that marriage is no longer an institution in that state.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 am
Michael: "I understand that the head of the Supreme Court of Michigan has stated that marriage is no longer an institution in that state."
Let's hope they stick by that and get out of everyone's business....marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the state and it shouldn't be up to them to define it. Unfortunately, we know that isn't the case, and they will try to stick their noses where they don't belong.
Doc: "People in China have more freedoms than Americans do."
I really hope you are just trying to be funny and you don't really believe that. Is it bad in the US? Sure. But China is orders of magnitude worse.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:26 am
No. I believe it. No joke is intended or attempted.
I have lived there. Many more freedoms than in the US - or any other Western country.
Doc
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:18 am
Doc,
Except perhaps the fact that their democracy is a joke with state-dictated single party rule...no real national elections of anything but party-cronies, no free press to speak of, no real freedom of speech, state censors of anything from the internet to movies to TV (the great firewall of China). Now Hong Kong? Maybe - but not until 2017 was it IF the party bosses finally allow free elections there again. If the people of China believe they are free it is only because they have allowed themselves to be deluded by their government's propaganda.
Do we have our problems? Sure. Our dual-party system is terrible, and we need to drop the state-sponsored barriers to third parties. Our news is more driven by entertainment...and so on. We aren't perfect, however these problems have less to do with constitutional dictates and more to do with lack of vision on the part of the citizenry.
But the idea China is more free then the US is pure bunk. They need to start allowing their people to view movies/TV/internet as they please without fear of being thrown in jail for some BS crime against the state. Do you realize if you start pushing for democracy in China you will probably go to jail? (ie: there is no real freedom of speech if it goes against the "public order") There are socialist and communist PARTIES in the US. And just look at religious freedom. In China you may only join a religion SANCTIONED by the government (otherwise you may be using religion to supersede the state and disrupt the public order). It all goes back to our Bill of Rights and the fact that we don't have constitutional curbs on them. So while China has many of these rights in their constitution as well, they provide the government with backdoors under the auspices of "protecting the public order". Now I would be the first one to admit that our rights are trampled upon, but given time, we USUALLY get them back once people start to fight for them and our supreme court (unlike theirs) is not beholden to upkeep of the party line as seen in recent verdicts AGAINST our various branches of government. In the case of China, they do not have such rights ingrained in their constitution that are not superseded by the party's view of what's best for the state.
And then there is their death penalty. Not only will you get death for murder and the like, but for TAX EVASION.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Doc Says: "Are you asking rhetorical questions?"
I was. I am suggesting that there is a distinction between a "false claim of paternity" and a "false promise of paternity." While the orginal commenter may have meant "false claim" I could see that a "false promise" could also exist.
I don't have much of an argument to support it and your "Only a man can make a promise of paternity." is likely correct. But I don't think a man willingly father's a child without the implicit promise from her that he will be raising it and she won't be alienating him from the child.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Lance,
I'm still laughing over this one: "Except perhaps the fact that their democracy is a joke with state-dictated single party rule...no real national elections of anything but party-cronies, no free press to speak of, no real freedom of speech"
. . . considering the upcoming election, the candidates, our nominating process, the electoral college (especially in winner-take-all California) and how the main stream media filters the "news". OUR democracy is a joke.
Still laughing.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Serenity: the subject was freedom in China vs. freedom in the US. As I said, while we have our problems, Doc's assertion that China is more free then the US does not withstand even a cursory analysis. You have done nothing to dissuade my view. Thanks for chiming in though!
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Incidentally, just to reiterate a point I made earlier that I think addressed your concerns Serenity: "Do we have our problems? Sure. Our dual-party system is terrible, and we need to drop the state-sponsored barriers to third parties. Our news is more driven by entertainment...and so on. We aren't perfect, however these problems have less to do with constitutional dictates and more to do with lack of vision on the part of the citizenry."
So with the exception of the electoral college (which I debate whether that hurts or helps democracy depending upon whether you are from a small state or a large state), the rest of your issues are cultural not governmental. Much to the chagrin of our elected officials, the control they have over our freedom or speech is minimal, and most of the controls they do have would probably not withstand supreme court analysis.
Our much larger problems are based in high taxes, poorly designed entitlements, and a bulging jail system that is far too interested in jailing druggies then they should be. Incidentally, this last point would be the "easy" rebuttal to my assertion that we are still a free country. We have one of the largest (if not the largest) jail populations per capita. These are state-oriented problems.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Re: China - Free or Not?
Interesting responses and views. Reminds me of a couple of observations from other people.
During the McCarthy era in the 50's and the Vietnam era of the 60's the assumption was that America was wonderful and communism was terrible.
Patriotism has a way of making people swallow anything.
OK - Freedom of Religion in China: With the majority of the Chinese this is a non-issue. They have no religion and basically have no desire to enter into the discussion. Yes, the Government controls religion to varying degrees. The same happens in America to varying degrees. Look at how hard Scientology had to fight to be declared a religion. In America, it is the overwhelming Christian population that exerts controls on religion.
Freedom of Speech: Restricted to degrees in China, yes. However, is that really a bad thing? Freedom of speech in America brings out racist and inappropriate behavior from people like the Neo-Nazi's, Skin Heads, KKK, etc. etc. That encourages clashes between those with opposing views. How is this beneficial to society? The argument can be made that it can create alternative lifestyles for disenfranchised youth who will migrate to these anti-social groups. Is allowing something that can cause and create anger and hatred really a good thing?
Freedom of Press: Yes, restricted more blatantly in China than in the US. Those in power, in both countries, will always try to control what the people see and hear. Look at the abuses that happened in the Plume case in reference to Iraq. Look how the conservatives and government has assailed the press for not reporting its versions of what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Freedom to view movies, etc.: Any Hollywood movie that is released in American can be obtained in China as a DVD, translated into Chinese, on the open market for the equivalent of $4.00 or less. See the next point about television viewing.
Television freedom: Satellite dishes abound in China, at very reasonable prices. Virtually anything that is broadcast around the world can be legally viewed in China. Foreign news is not blocked or censored - even that news which is not favorable to China.
Internet access: China has more Internet users than any place else in the world. The only real difference between the US and China is that China will block some sites that are critical to China, all references to Fulangong (outlawed religion) and pornography. The sites that are critical to China that are blocked are primarily those established in China by Chinese dissidents.
Inability to push for democracy in China: You view this as a bad thing. However, look at history. Major pushes for democracy have all backfired. If there is to be democracy - and it is coming slowly to China - it has to come slow. The greater the population, the slower it must come. China has 1.3 billion people. If they suddenly had all of the democratic principals enjoyed elsewhere, there would be total chaos. Democracy has to be a "state of mind." It can not just suddenly be available. Look at what has happened in Russia. Look at the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"Protecting the public order": How is that any different than the social policies of America. America has more intrusions into private lives under the color of law than what China has. America has those laws for the "good of society."
Capital punishment: In the diatribe against capital punishment, you forgot to include capital punishment that is imposed against government officials that are found guilty of things like influence peddling, accepting bribes, etc. etc. In America, those people get lighter sentences than anyone else that is charged with a similar crime. Business owners that take advantage of the public or things like insider trading, non payment of significant tax liabilities etc. can be executed for betraying societies trust. In America, they get 24 months in a country club prison. Maybe China is on to something, you think? Of course, in America, it wasn't until only recently that mentally retarded people and children could be executed for crimes committed. Capital punishment is supposed to be a deterrent. In China it is quite a deterrent as opposed to in America. In America it is not a deterrent because it targets only the poor and minorities. In China, it targets anyone and everyone.
In China there is no need for CPS (Child Protective Services) because families are much more cohesive in China. Sure, there is child labor - but that is because of the need to survive. America, when it demands that child labor standards be adhered to thinks that they are doing something good for the children. The fact that a family will fall deeper into poverty when the child is no longer working is of no concern. I am not defending it - but I can see the necessity of it.
China has moved more people out of poverty than any other country in the world in recent decades. America seems to be moving more people into poverty than any other country in the world in recent decades. China is not in a recession - America is.
Having a lot of freedoms is not necessarily a good thing. Freedoms have to be weighed against what is best for the society that will enjoy those freedoms. Freedoms also have to be weighed against the culture and the wants and desires of the people that will be affected by them. The majority of the Chinese that want to go to America want to do so for only one thing: Money.
Democracy and American style freedoms are not good for everyone in the world. Democracy has a way of trying to destroy cultures and values that have allowed countries that have survived for centuries longer than America has been in existence.
Doc
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Doc: "OK - Freedom of Religion in China: With the majority of the Chinese this is a non-issue. ....es, the Government controls religion to varying degrees. The same happens in America to varying degrees. Look at how hard Scientology had to fight to be declared a religion. In America, it is the overwhelming Christian population that exerts controls on religion."
Just because it is a non-issue to a majority doesn't mean it is a non-issue to all (and that percentage that are affected probably aren't quite as flippit as yourself). That's a pretty one-sided view. The US government does not control religion nor does it state what you can and can not believe. The problems scientology is having have NOTHING to do with the government...they are cultural.
Doc: "Freedom of Speech: Restricted to degrees in China, yes. However, is that really a bad thing?"
Yes. You can't convince me otherwise. Can hate speech occur. Sure. Should it be illegal? No. Why should it remain legal? Because governments have a way of defining anything they don't agree with as hate speech. Your argument on this matter shows a complete lack of understanding of history. Many of the world's greatest thinkers were looked upon as heretics and many were executed because of it. No government should EVER be able to outlaw speech (score a BIG one for the US).
Doc: "China has more Internet users than any place else in the world. The only real difference between the US and China is that China will block some sites that are critical to China, all references to Fulangong (outlawed religion) and pornography. The sites that are critical to China that are blocked are primarily those established in China by Chinese dissidents"
Sounds like lack of freedom to me (score another one for the US). You make this censorship sound like a good thing. You have been deluded and you buy the propaganda spewing out of Beijing. In terms of movies, try watching "Lust, Caution" in a movie theatre (and not some illegal, bootleg DVD on the street) and come back to me. (score another one for the US). Why should the government care if it's adult citizens are viewing/discussing pornography? Or better yet, when does something sexually explicit shift from being pornography to therapeutic?
Doc: "Freedom of Press: Yes, restricted more blatantly in China than in the US. Those in power, in both countries, will always try to control what the people see and hear. Look at the abuses that happened in the Plume case in reference to Iraq. Look how the conservatives and government has assailed the press for not reporting its versions of what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq."
The US government can do whatever it wants in terms of protesting the press...but the point is, it can't censor what they say. The Plume case is a very special case and illustrates my point brilliantly (thank you). While I would agree that journalists should be provided with extra protections they currently are not provided with, the US government couldn't stop the presses. The Chinese government could have done so in a heartbeat. Score another for the US.
Doc: ""Protecting the public order": How is that any different than the social policies of America. America has more intrusions into private lives under the color of law than what China has. America has those laws for the "good of society.""
Total BS was evidenced by your own words. It sounds like you pick and choose your definition of freedom.
Doc: "Inability to push for democracy in China: You view this as a bad thing."
False. I don't view it as good or bad. I just state that it is evidence that China is less free then the US. Again, you have proven my point. Thank you. (score another for US). On a personal note, I do see it as a bad thing. The old excuse that it will take time in China because there are so many people...blah...blah..blah...is getting tired. It's time for China to join the rest of the world.
Doc: "China is not in a recession - America is." Give it time Doc...give it time. Take some economics courses and learn how markets move. They ALL go up AND down. China will do the same (just look what has been happening in Chinese markets in recent days). "Recession" is an economic term - nothing more.
Doc: "Having a lot of freedoms is not necessarily a good thing. Freedoms have to be weighed against what is best for the society that will enjoy those freedoms"
Again, your point was "China is more free then the US"...you are backpedaling as now you see your statement is incorrect.
In terms of your statement above, you just illustrated (brilliantly again) the fundamental difference between the US and China: we believe that freedom forms the foundation of society...you believe that society forms the foundation of freedom. To you society will always be more important then freedom. To us, we would rather die then be without our freedom. Sometimes it isn't pretty, but we don't believe that we are bees in a hive. You on the other hand are quite content to be the bee. Think about that for a little while. To me, your acceptance of state rule of your private life (from what you are allowed to say to what you are allowed to believe) is scary and sad. A part of my pity's you because you do not see how you have been brainwashed.
Doc: "Democracy and American style freedoms are not good for everyone in the world. Democracy has a way of trying to destroy cultures and values that have allowed countries that have survived for centuries longer than America has been in existence."
Doc, you really need to check your history books. China is a young country relative to the US. Actually, most countries are young compared to the US (the US has one of the oldest constitutions still in use). Now CULTURALLY, China is older - but we are talking GOVERNMENT not CULTURE here, Incidentally, American democracy is no more or less destructive then anything else. Imperialism is the problem, and until the US stops trying to be nation builders, imperialism will continue to be a problem. But this isn't a symptom of democracy...it is a symptom of being the biggest kid on the block.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:40 am
Let me straighten things out. The gist of my comment is this. It is a juxtaposition of two situations, a man lying about marriage, and a woman lying about paternity. A man goes to jail and a woman goes to the bank.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:05 am
Ah Lance. Well done. Spoken like a true patriotic American. An American that has little if any idea about other cultures in the world, and most likely is unwilling to embrace those cultures as perhaps being superior to American culture.
Either I did not explain myself well enough, or your missed the point, or alternatively, anything that is contrary to your views of America is going to be wrong.
I begin with the premise that a society can have too many freedoms. Remember that old saying about giving someone an inch and they will take a mile? Freedoms are the same thing. Americans have the freedoms to form special interest groups which in turn push for legislation to restrain freedoms of others. The result is that the government turns into a nanny state dictating to everyone various aspects of their lives. America has more laws governing the conduct of its people that if those laws were enforced, they would seriously restrict many of your individual and daily freedoms. With your "freedoms" society is controlled by restrictive laws which, when enforced can often ruin someone's life.
In America - try to argue with a police man. You invariably will go to jail charged with a number of different criminal violations. In China, argue with a police man and nothing will happen - especially if you are in the right. That is a true exhibition of "freedom of speech." In America you don't have that freedom - unless you want to spend a lot of money to exercise that freedom in a court of law. Most people don't have the money - so they don't have the freedom.
In China you can talk about sex in front of someone else, and not face criminal or civil sexual harassment charges. That is true "freedom of speech."
China does not have laws against "seducing an unmarried woman." That means that there is more sexual freedom, unlike in America which has a very repressive attitude towards sex. We can call this "freedom of association."
In China, a grade school boy can touch a girl, or even playfully swat her on the bottom, and not get arrested like in America. More "freedom of association."
In China, you can do a perfectly normal thing like step around a corner, believing that you are out of sight, and take a whizz when nature calls. If someone sees you, they are not going to call the police and have you arrested for indecent exposure, and then force you to register as a "sex offender."
In China, you can smoke wherever you want to. That is freedom. Recently a restaurant chain became the first non-smoking restaurants in Beijing. Their customer base dropped 80%. The government encourages people not to smoke - but they know that it isn't going to work. That is a freedom you don't have in America.
In China you can walk out of a bar, and not risk being arrested for public intoxication. That is a freedom you don't have in America.
In China if you don't want to wear a seat belt, that is your choice. That is a freedom you don't have in America.
In America you have the freedom to be free from unwarranted intrusion into your life. Of course, you have a major Big Brother Network - all in the name of "public safety and security." In China, people are pretty much free from that.
China is pretty much free from people exercising their freedoms to the excess, unlike in America. China does not have the drug problems America has. China does not have the juvenile problems like America does. China does not have the gang problems like America has. Most police in China do not wear guns and all the equipment to subdue people and force them into compliance. So, the Chinese have freedom from repressive authority figures.
The forefathers of America never envisioned that people would take the freedoms granted to them to excess. They have - and in the process, America has lost the majority of the principles that once defined America. Family? Almost obsolete because of the freedoms people have insisted on. Respect? Almost obsolete for the same reason. The list can go on and on.
In any society, the majority will rule. If the majority of people in China are not worried about religion, then there is no need to have an official freedom of religion policy.
All of the freedoms that you personally hold dear are based upon what you think is right. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are right. According to one report that I saw the other week, 200,000 Americans a year are leaving America to other countries that presumably have more "meaningful freedoms" to them than what you consider meaningful. Otherwise, why would they be leaving in such staggering numbers?
Every time that I have traveled abroad and had to return to the states, I hated the experience. I hated going back into a repressive society controlled by special interest groups which came to be only because the concept of freedom has been taken to the extreme, and without limit. Without regard for the overall benefit of society. A lack of some freedoms can certainly be beneficial to all of the people living in a society.
Doc
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:08 am
Actually Kelly, it all comes down to the failure of the man to think with his big head instead of his small head. After that, it comes down to the man not doing the CYA routine.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 am
I disagree Doc. Many married men have been led down the garden path by their lying wives. How do you cover your ass then? In the past have wondered about my boys, but I have decided that it is irrelevant to me. Some men may never know
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 am
I do not mean to trivialize your plight or feelings Kelly. Not at all.
Conversely, many married women have been led down the garden path by their lying husbands.
More numbers will no doubt be found of unmarried women who have been led down the path by their lying boy friends.
In other words - it happens to everyone. Men do it to other men. Women do it to other women. Bosses do it to their employees. Their employees do it to their bosses. It happens in every social interaction. There are usually warning flags that we can see after the fact, which we ignored. We allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security.
I had a girl that ended up taking me for close to a half million. Is it her fault? No. It is my fault because I allowed myself to be lulled into a false sense of security. Was she wrong? Hell yes. I can spend the rest of my life blaming her or I can admit that it wasn't all her fault, and get on with life.
The important thing is that I learned some very important lessons from it all. It forced me to be more introspective and see where I had failed not only myself, but also the relationship.
The main thing is to learn more about yourself - which is where you learn to CYA.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:13 am
There is not much info on the case but that law should be removed/repealed.
b
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:56 am
Doc: "Ah Lance. Well done. Spoken like a true patriotic American. An American that has little if any idea about other cultures in the world, and most likely is unwilling to embrace those cultures as perhaps being superior to American culture."
That is a strawman argument. You know nothing about my respect for other cultures nor have I really discussed that matter. I actually believe that there are a lot of neat things about the Chinese culture - it is their government that I can do without! You are making a leap by trying to change the subject. Try again...back on topic. Your statement was: China is more free then the US - I disagreed on the premise that our freedoms of speech, religion, and association are greater in the US. By your own admission by saying "I begin with the premise that a society can have too many freedoms", you agree with my assessment. However, in your mind, somehow more freedoms mean you are less free and conversely, fewer freedoms mean you are more free. Yeah, that's logical (that's sarcasm by the way). It sounds like you are circling the drain....
Now, in terms of your CULTURAL differences, I would be the first to admit that the US is far too puritanical...however, GOVERNMENTALLY we do not have nearly the level of censorship of which you seem to be proud. You cite specific, petty instances (seatbelts?) that have no real barring on how one defines freedom.
Doc: "In China you can talk about sex in front of someone else, and not face criminal or civil sexual harassment charges. That is true "freedom of speech.""
Try posting such discussions on the internet. Your statements will be considered pornographic and the censors may GreatFirewall you. You WILL NOT have anywhere close to freedom of speech until your government drops the GreatFirewall. Next, try making a movie depicting such activities and try to show it in a theatre. The government will censor you and make you cut out scenes they deem offensive. Again, you do NOT have freedom of speech. Now, in terms of sexual harassment in the work place, I agree that the US is far too puritanical, but to say this is an indicator of rampant government intrusion is just foolish. My guess is as China enters the modern world, similar practices will occur there. It is an unfortunate result of prosperity: people become increasingly litigious.
Doc: "China does not have laws against "seducing an unmarried woman." "
Uh, neither does my state. You should try to put your head around the conversation here. This law is being misused and should be dropped from the books. I would agree that the sex offender laws are getting out of hand, however our discussion here is a prime indicator of why the US is fundamentally more free then China: we can disagree with the government openly and not be put in jail for it.
Doc: "In China, you can do a perfectly normal thing like step around a corner, believing that you are out of sight, and take a whizz when nature calls."
Go to NY city....you see it all the time there (and how is taking a piss an excise of freedom??) Again, this seems pretty petty.
Doc: "China does not have the drug problems America has."
That is debatable. But let's say for a moment you are correct: in China they execute drug dealers (ie: it sounds like China is less free then the US to me). Here, we should be free to take whatever drug we want. The drug laws should be abolished. That both countries have anti-drug laws shows in this instance, they are even.
Doc: [China has] More "freedom of association."
If you really believe that, try to create a dissident party and demand democratic freedoms from the government. Oh but that's right, the freedoms the US has are bad...Americans have too much freedom. Please man, you're circling the drain...but it gets better:
Doc: "In America you have the freedom to be free from unwarranted intrusion into your life. Of course, you have a major Big Brother Network - all in the name of "public safety and security." In China, people are pretty much free from that."
See my aforementioned notes on censorship. The Big Brother in China is FAR larger then it is in the US. Try having more then one kid. Try disagreeing openly with government. Try starting your own religion. The list goes on.
Doc: "In America - try to argue with a police man. You invariably will go to jail charged with a number of different criminal violations. In China, argue with a police man and nothing will happen - especially if you are in the right. "
Uh, I've argued with cops just fine. It sounds like you are running in fear from the law or something. In terms of Chinese police, try being a dissident and see how quickly the billyclubs come out. Again, you're circling.
Doc: "In any society, the majority will rule. If the majority of people in China are not worried about religion, then there is no need to have an official freedom of religion policy."
THANK YOU. You just illustrated why this debate will continue to go no where. In the US, we try to BALANCE majority rule with minority opinion. Are we perfect? Hell no. But we are sure as hell better then China in this regard where, if you don't believe what the government tells you to believe or say what the government tells you to say, you are labeled an enemy of the state. Here, you can say what you want and very rarely will you be prosecuted for it. Are we perfect? No (see http://www.thefire.org/ for an area where we need a lot of improvement). We aren't perfect by a long shot, but to suggest that China is "more free" of government intrusion then the US is just BS. Your statements have supported my side far more then they supported your original assertion: China is more free then the US. Instead you outline very specific petty instances where, I grant, the US could improve. I never said we were perfect however, so I am good with that.
Doc: "All of the freedoms that you personally hold dear are based upon what you think is right. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are right."
No, it doesn't. But I am confident (thanks in part to your own statements) that the US is far more free then China. China needs to drop state sponsored censorship and the GreatFirewall for starters. Now you can certainly debate whether freedom is good or bad, but don't for an instance say that China is more free as it just isn't - by your own admission.
Doc: "According to one report that I saw the other week, 200,000 Americans a year are leaving America to other countries that presumably have more "meaningful freedoms" to them than what you consider meaningful. Otherwise, why would they be leaving in such staggering numbers?""
In terms of the 200K, it is possible (source?). But there are a lot of reasons for this. Jobs..family..and so on. Job opportunities are probably the biggie. But how many people come here from other countries? Far more then 200K. But again, how many are coming because of freedom? Some. Jobs are the biggest reasons for immigration.
Doc: "Every time that I have traveled abroad and had to return to the states, I hated the experience."
Then why come back? Seriously, I'm not one of those "take it or leave the country" people, but it sounds like you really don't like it here. While I agree that we have our problems, I believe these problems will work themselves out (which is part of the reason why we all meet in this blog), but China's problems are far more fundamental and as China joins the rest of the world, by your own admission, over time they will gain many of the fundamental freedoms Americans have. Unfortunately, it appears that you do not want the Chinese to gain these freedoms as too much freedom is bad according to you. Personally, I believe that as ADULTS it should not be up to the government to create a DaddyState (like China) or a NannyState (like France or here to a certain extent).
This was a fun conversation Doc, but I think we have reached an impasse. I suggest you read a bit more on what US democracy really is and what it means as it sounds like you are buying the propaganda from Beijing. You are a Chinese patriot which is fine, and I respect you for it. But try to learn a bit about the culture you hate so much.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:28 am
Doc: "After that, it comes down to the man not doing the CYA routine."
Are you suggesting that men should not have children?
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 am
Initially - to be honest - I think that there are a lot of people that shouldn't have children - both men and women. Just because it is a right does not necessarily mean that it should be exercised. No - I am not saying that the government should get involved in the initial decision.
The CYA routine - or principle comes into play when having sex with someone that you are not married to.
The CYA routine comes into play even when you are married. Pay attention to the other person at all times, no matter what they saw. Observe their body language. In other words - be an observant and involved partner. When things are not going good you [b]will[/b] see it in the other person. If you deal with the problems then, there shouldn't be any major surprises later on.
Doc