Bingo!

And it's precisely because various states have these seeming "bright line" age distinctions, as if magically, one day a girl is too young to consent and the next day, she's not. It really serves to illustrate how the state is in the business of "practicing law" and "prosecuting" behavior that violates it without regard to much else, except when someone — a judge — happens, on occasion, to catch the bug of common sense and allows for "extenuating circumstances" or "mitigating factors." But even that's rarer and rare in the days now of "mandatory minimum sentences."

The reason this is a hot button for me is because we are dealing, essentially, with people who are learning to be rational human beings, and until they have reached some important measure of that in fundamental terms (which can never be a "bright line" assessment. Moreover, it is the inescapable responsibility of parents or guardian to assist in that formation. When, instead, that responsibility is turned to the sexual or dominating advantage of these same parents or other adults under the approval of the parents, it's just outrageous in an enlightened civil society.

I understand this sort of thing has gone on in cultures forever and ever. So did slavery. But we don't do that, anymore, and it's because we're humans, we can become enlightened, and we can rise above pure biology and animal instinct.

From an evolutionary perspective, it's interesting that children, especially girls, reach biological maturity before they reach mental maturity. Of course, from a purely natural selection perspective, biology doesn't care about rape and consent. It cares about getting females pregnant as soon as possible. Evolution set women up to be mated and bread prior to being able to have a clear understanding of what is at stake.

Enlightenment is about overcoming evolution and biology and operating from a basis of ideas and principles derived from our natures as beings of free will.

My approach to the goings on down there is really an Occam's Razor approach. I realize the State must — and should, since that's the "deal" — go through and develop meticulous evidence. On the other hand, when people seem to wish to turn a blind eye until "all the evidence is in" it just strikes me as c'mon!. Do you mean to tell me that they've gone to all this trouble to isolate themselves, and this sort of thing is not going on?

You now how easy it would be for me to defend them? If they were operating out in the clear, i.e., integrated with greater society, such that all the 13-yr-olds would have to know that getting married and having a baby at that age isn't required, isn't even desirable, generally, for a whole host of reasons. Once they clearly no that, I could care less that they would choose to get married off at that age. no problem whatsoever and I would staunchly defend their right.

Of course, putting it in a context where it would actually be workable would be smashed by the State in an instant. So, the state kinda looks the other way, so long as they all keep to themselves, but by keeping to themselves, most of the girls are never going to have a chance.

Just goes to show how that State is completely unconcerned with the welfare and rights of the girls. The State cares about practicing law and prosecuting.

Without addressing the problem of *how* the intervention would have been accomplished, I'll first stipulate that I speak only for myself. It's common knowledge that the FLDS split with mainstream LDS groups over the very thing they're accused of doing.(1) This isn't the first such case that's come up, Warren Jeffs being the man at the center of the other one. It's probable, but not necessary, that it's the case. The probability is strong, given who we're talking about. So there it is; if it looks like rape or some other assault(2) and I can stop it, I will.

(1) – There's irony that every charge leveled at Koresh turned out to be bullshit but he and his followers got murdered for it; while the charges here stand some chance of being true, and nobody's gotten murdered.

(2) – To further complicate matters; I wouldn't have broken up or in any way stopped Edgar Allan Poe marrying his cousin, even though she was 13 at the time. Age isn't the issue for me; it's consent.

I'm on record as being opposed to the state in general, and this action specifically, because the state is doing it. If they were to properly ensure no more teen girls get raped (by my extensive qualification of the term), while not harming or interfering with those who haven't been, all with accountability for what they do, I'd be fine. Of course, that's no going to happen.

My focus in this whole thing has not been about the state action, per se, though I understand how some of what I've said unavoidably implies it, unless I was to qualify virtually every statement.

My point has been that I am tired of religious organizations getting a pass for raping kids. This spectacle sheds light on the issue.

That said, I have some sympathy and concern for your admonishment and take it straight up, with thanks.

I'm advancing a point of view, and in my view, we are dealing with fundamentalist religious perverts who have created a nice little deal for themselves, a deal that has existed in many cultures going back centuries (harems, etc.). The fundamentals are always the same; it essentially boils down to a variety of young pussy. Doesn't it?

Now, everyone is free to wave hands and call for evidence, and so on. I don't need anything more.

Do you think anything more ought to be needed to take 400 children from their families?

This isn't just an intellectual exercise in a classroom: The state is trying to arrange a witch burning and you're throwing gas on the fire with no evidence to speak of against these individuals.

I know your blog is just a drop in the bucket, but is this the drop you really want to put in the bucket under these circumstances? Is this the proper time and context to hand down your speculative judgement?

Oh, there's certainly evidence to warrant strong suspicion, the general circumstances surrounding the whole compound, its similarity to many other such groups, etc. I would have to honestly believe that someone is either foolish to think otherwise, simply biased, or delusional.

And I'm not persuaded to a factual certainty. I'm stating in Op-Ed fashion what my honest take on the situation is, and it's both born of things already know to everyone, and things and experiences growing up around both fundamentalists and mainstream Mormons. That's stuff nobody in the world has integrated in precisely the way, over the space of time, or in the context that I have individually.

I'm just being honest about my take on it. It may pan out, may not, and if it doesn't, then I'd likely evaluate a similar situation differently in the future.

This is the reason this is HonestyLog and not TruthLog. I would never state my presumptions as truth.

That's what everyone else does. Sabotta has it all wrong with the "intellectual honesty" bit. I suppose he, like most others, are used to assertions claiming truth. Well, when I'm claiming truth, I will say so, explicitly. Otherwise, this is in the context of a blog, an opinion, an educated guess, an inside suspicion, and so on.

I'm advancing a point of view, and in my view, we are dealing with fundamentalist religious perverts who have created a nice little deal for themselves, a deal that has existed in many cultures going back centuries (harems, etc.). The fundamentals are always the same; it essentially boils down to a variety of young pussy. Doesn't it?

Now, everyone is free to wave hands and call for evidence, and so on. I don't need anything more. I think of them as I do, and I advance my point of view. Everyone is perfectly free to judge me and deal with me accordingly.

"That there are grounds to strongly suspect (to the point of being willing, personally, to commit to intervention of some kind)…"

What grounds would have justified intervention in this case?

Oh my goodness, John. Please don't tell me that you think I'm stupid enough to fall for that.

This is a blog. I'm honest, and I don't make pretense for "evidence" like everyone else does. I admit that I'm speculating, asserting, suspicious, etc. Y'all are free to pretend to your "certainties" based on "evidence" that none of you have real first hand knowledge of.

I stand by my own sense, impression, suspicion, occam's razor logic of the thing…firmly so, and I've gone to great lengths to clarify my position.

Dismiss it at your leisure. For my mileage, some noises are unmistakably the quack of a duck. That's how I see it.

All that said, of course, any case the state brings ought to be subject to the logical and technical rules of evidence.

I'm knee deep, but should get to things here and in whatever other threads later this morning.

In this singular, isolated instance, knowing what I do about the FLDS my objection to what the state has done is per the state's doing it. Something like this may very well have been necessary. If it is the case, it's a more subtle variation on seeing someone getting mugged/raped and blasting the mugger/rapist. The moral considerations (and the responsibilities inherent in acting) remain the same, I hasten to add.