Bikers Against Child Abuse

[zek]

A heart-warming story...

 

"These tough bikers have a soft spot: aiding child-abuse victims. Anytime, anywhere, for as long as it takes the child to feel safe, these leather-clad guardians will stand tall and strong against the dark, and the fear, and those who seek to harm."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/azliving/articles/2012/07/13/20120713bikers-against-child-abuse-make-abuse-victims-feel-safe.html#ixzz4Bm9pRefM

 

In depth article, good stuff. What do you think? 

 

Andy

[dsayers]

The problem is in the definitions. Take abortion for example. EVERYBODY is pro-choice AND pro-life. The issue they squabble about is abortion, not choice or life. Same thing here. EVERYBODY is against child abuse. But what do they define as child abuse? Do they talk to the parents of abuse victims to talk about peaceful parenting so that their children are not groomed or abandoned to would-be abusers? Are they promoting peaceful parenting materials in their local communities? Are they holding parents accountable?

 

Imagine their name was Bikers Against Botched Surgeries. If they don't know what a successful surgery is, or the myriad of complications that can arise during a surgery, how effective would they be beyond their name's sake?

[regevdl]

A heart-warming story...

 

"These tough bikers have a soft spot: aiding child-abuse victims. Anytime, anywhere, for as long as it takes the child to feel safe, these leather-clad guardians will stand tall and strong against the dark, and the fear, and those who seek to harm."

 

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/azliving/articles/2012/07/13/20120713bikers-against-child-abuse-make-abuse-victims-feel-safe.html#ixzz4Bm9pRefM

 

In depth article, good stuff. What do you think? 

 

Andy

I love this.  

 

These are children already in a 'legal' battle because of the abuse against them.  So the bikers serve as a visual comfort for the child.  The child might fear his/her attacker/abuser can still get in the house and the bikers stand guard outside.  They show up to court when the abused child has to testify, which can be quite traumatic and frightening for the child but she has a row of grizzly bikers on her side...so it's mental/psychological comfort for the child which is absolutely fantastic.  

 

I heard about this a long time ago and just can't get enough of it.  It's such an awesome idea and very child-focused.  

The problem is in the definitions. Take abortion for example. EVERYBODY is pro-choice AND pro-life. The issue they squabble about is abortion, not choice or life. Same thing here. EVERYBODY is against child abuse. But what do they define as child abuse? Do they talk to the parents of abuse victims to talk about peaceful parenting so that their children are not groomed or abandoned to would-be abusers? Are they promoting peaceful parenting materials in their local communities? Are they holding parents accountable?

 

Imagine their name was Bikers Against Botched Surgeries. If they don't know what a successful surgery is, or the myriad of complications that can arise during a surgery, how effective would they be beyond their name's sake?

did you read the article?  It has nothing to do with abortion and such.... they live up to their name....read what they do...

[ThomasTheIdealist]

did you read the article?  It has nothing to do with abortion and such.... they live up to their name....read what they do...

Wasn't the point. The point is that they aren't properly addressing the problem because they allegedly aren't familiar with it, and the designation of "against child abuse" is worthless when there exists nobody who is "for child abuse". Depending on your definition of child abuse (e.g. you support parental right of spanking) you could very well call them "Bikers against parental rights".

 

While I admire their intents, I think it's mostly worthless for children. The biggest benefit from their actions seems to be improving "biker gang" PR, so that upsets me a little. It's like "Mafia against domestic abuse" or "Government against rape"... yeah, am I supposed to praise you for finally doing a decent thing and not merely being a delinquent drain on society?

[regevdl]

Wasn't the point. The point is that they aren't properly addressing the problem because they allegedly aren't familiar with it, and the designation of "against child abuse" is worthless when there exists nobody who is "for child abuse". Depending on your definition of child abuse (e.g. you support parental right of spanking) you could very well call them "Bikers against parental rights".

 

While I admire their intents, I think it's mostly worthless for children. The biggest benefit from their actions seems to be improving "biker gang" PR, so that upsets me a little. It's like "Mafia against domestic abuse" or "Government against rape"... yeah, am I supposed to praise you for finally doing a decent thing and not merely being a delinquent drain on society?

 

I don't think it's necessarily an issue to criticze their efforts.  You have people working on the prevention of child abuse and those who deal with the aftermath.  They are focusing on the after math.  Aren't we all guilty of being pre-occupied with one side of an issue?

 

If I deal with prevention of a disease.... should I also be chastised for not simultaneously not working on curing the disease.  Even in a UPB world, abuse will exist...hopefully at far lesser rates but I don't underestimate that even as these children are victims to see there are people outside of their parents/familiar individuals in their lives (of whom might be abusers) that strangers will step in and defend and help them through troubled times.  

 

I am not what evidence that these bikers are a gang of violence or could be compared with the government.  I know several people in biker communities and many have stable and productive jobs and are actually the most decent people I have ever met and have travelled around the world.  I am sure there are those who fit the 'violent gang' stereotype and probably...just like with any group, would be a bunch of trauma, badly raised children as grown adults finding comrodory with other unresolved trauma.  

 

Possibly this is the same but opposite.  This 'gang' in particular might be well raised cliquing with other well raised bikers or a bunch of abused bikers who properly handled their trauma and are cliquing with others who did the same.  

 

"parental rights for spanking'.  Well....let's just say, if it reaches court then it's beyond spanking because to date, the social consensus (not always based on moral principle) is very much in favor of legalizing spanking.  So you are jumping from the least extreme and matching it with the most extreme.

 

The article and I made arguments as to why it is beneficial for the children.  You either ignored it or disagree but have not made any arguments as to why it provides zero benefit to the children. you have only made baseless assumptions that neither I or you can prove about the background of these bikers.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

If I deal with prevention of a disease.... should I also be chastised for not simultaneously not working on curing the disease.

Depends, but probably not. But if you deal with the prevention of a disease with debatably ineffective methods, it's worth chastisement. For what it's worth, I'm not necessarily suggesting they're doing something wrong or should stop what they're doing. It's probably the only way they know how to help. Though I do have a problem with them helping people before the conclusion of a trial; it's blatant bias.

 

I am not what evidence that these bikers are a gang of violence or could be compared with the government.  I know several people in biker communities and many have stable and productive jobs and are actually the most decent people I have ever met and have travelled around the world.  I am sure there are those who fit the 'violent gang' stereotype and probably...just like with any group, would be a bunch of trauma, badly raised children as grown adults finding comrodory with other unresolved trauma.

I can agree that I'm over-generalizing. I know nothing about this specific biker group.

[dsayers]

If I deal with prevention of a disease.... should I also be chastised for not simultaneously not working on curing the disease.

With all due respect, I don't think this is a fair comparison in two different ways. First of all, a predator that hasn't the capacity for reason is not the same as human predation. Secondly, I think you'd have to frame it as somebody "preventing disease" while ignoring or even nurturing the disease for it to be comparable.

 

Suppose child X is abused in a way so horrific that nobody in the world would NOT see it as child abuse. If ANY group swoops it to protect/support child X while making no acknowledgement of child X's parents' role in child X's victimization, they are not only turning a blind eye to the root cause, but actually contributing to the concealment of it. In a society that doesn't understand such things and therefore is largely doomed to perpetuate it until we ALL help in breaking the cycle, this is key. Add to that their stature and now media attention and this irresponsibility gets amplified.

 

I did not read the full article and I do regret that I wasn't able to communicate my position as efficiently in my first attempt. I hope this has helped to clarify my position at least and reveal the potential harm in feel-good, do-something actions. Having not read the full article, I cannot say that's necessarily what we're dealing with here. However, the parts I did read were chocked full of flavor--red flag for me--and most certainly appeared to be heading in that direction.

[regevdl]

With all due respect, I don't think this is a fair comparison in two different ways. First of all, a predator that hasn't the capacity for reason is not the same as human predation. Secondly, I think you'd have to frame it as somebody "preventing disease" while ignoring or even nurturing the disease for it to be comparable.

 

Suppose child X is abused in a way so horrific that nobody in the world would NOT see it as child abuse. If ANY group swoops it to protect/support child X while making no acknowledgement of child X's parents' role in child X's victimization, they are not only turning a blind eye to the root cause, but actually contributing to the concealment of it. In a society that doesn't understand such things and therefore is largely doomed to perpetuate it until we ALL help in breaking the cycle, this is key. Add to that their stature and now media attention and this irresponsibility gets amplified.

 

I did not read the full article and I do regret that I wasn't able to communicate my position as efficiently in my first attempt. I hope this has helped to clarify my position at least and reveal the potential harm in feel-good, do-something actions. Having not read the full article, I cannot say that's necessarily what we're dealing with here. However, the parts I did read were chocked full of flavor--red flag for me--and most certainly appeared to be heading in that direction.

  Read the article if you wish to continue because it will eliminate a lot of uncessicary metaphores that don't even apply to this particular article.

 

the 'swooping in' IS the CPS and those groups.  This isn't a debate on the effeciency of gvt-programs regarding child care but these bikers deal with the children AFTER groups (gvt, legal, non-gvt) have already identified and stepped in to stop the abuse and get the child out of immediate danger.  

 

From that point, the bikers are part of the 'recovery' process for the child because of course the legal process is necessary but that process alone (a child sitting alone on the witness stand in a room of only adults and adults with POWER having to look their abuser/rapist in the eye and accuse them is incredibly high pressure and difficult to say the least for the child's experience) so the bikers give the 'sense of security' which may look subtle and novel to the average adult but to the child is incredibly empowering.... if it wasn't, they wouldn't be continuing doing it I woudl assume.

[dsayers]

The fact that I haven't read the article doesn't mean my opinion is invalid. I didn't read the article because the parts that I did read were laced with "this isn't worth reading" tactics.

 

the bikers are part of the 'recovery' process for the child

My point was that if this "process" doesn't include holding the parents accountable for priming that child for victimhood and then exposing them to more overt victimizers, then it's not recovery at all and will in fact CONCEAL the true victimization. The opposite of their stated goal. The "if" makes this a contingent statement. Do you disagree with it? If so, can you convince me how letting the parents off the hook when parental abuse is the root of human aggression is something to celebrate?

[Troubador]

I don't want to be 'that' guy, but what oversight is there on the bikers themselves? Don't forget abusers will often gravitate towards positions of trust where they can better access potential victims - think clergy or teachers. I've been reading about aid workers who go to crisis hotspots and pay to rape child prostitutes.

 

I want to read that article and feel the warm fuzzies that someone is doing something, but actually we all need to do a lot more collectively. We need to be educated to the common signs of abuse and be prepared to step up and take action to protect children.

 

I doubt there are enough bikers in all the world to protect all the children that need protecting. If your take home message is that these bikers are leading the way to that realisation that's a positive but that we all need to step up I'd say that's a positive.

[regevdl]

oh Jesus Christ.....   I will spend 15 paragraphs writing a response and arguing the validity of my response about an article that OTHERS have read and made specific arguments within the context of the article  but will REFUSE to read the article because of 'literary tactics'.  

 

I'm not arguing bikers or the individuals written in the article.  But in the context of the article, the concept is a worthy one.  It could be done with club bouncers or body builders or the average Joe or whomever.

 

but seriously..... if people are going through great depths to respond and explain why they won't read the context that some of us have...then I'm done with this conversation.  Maybe you don't experience it from my end but that is such an exhausting experience.  I don't care if they made the damn thing up....we can at least entertain it for face value and go from there.  But unwilling to read the like 4 paragraphs but stand firm on arguments from an out of context perspective is being manipulative.  

 

If you want to bring up the subject of child abuse totally disconnected from bikers and the story...then be clear and present the argument...but trying to base it on the article, then step back on why you didn't read it but still pushing anti-abuse arguments is a complete cluter frack of a conversation and incredibly counter productive.  

 

But good luck to you all.

The fact that I haven't read the article doesn't mean my opinion is invalid. I didn't read the article because the parts that I did read were laced with "this isn't worth reading" tactics.

 

My point was that if this "process" doesn't include holding the parents accountable for priming that child for victimhood and then exposing them to more overt victimizers, then it's not recovery at all and will in fact CONCEAL the true victimization. The opposite of their stated goal. The "if" makes this a contingent statement. Do you disagree with it? If so, can you convince me how letting the parents off the hook when parental abuse is the root of human aggression is something to celebrate?

 

So you expect individuals to be the preventer & Healer of problems?  I mean...can't people focus on where they can use their expertise or influence the best.  If big and scary seems to work in helping the child have a sense of security and overcome stereotypes....then so be it.  

 

If they are not equipped with seeing signs of a child whom they don't even know and probably have never met and ONLY met after the child was entered into the court systems...then how in the world coudl they help the child...why does that responsibility fall on the bikers and not say...the neighbors and teachers who interact with the child on a daily basis.  

 

When in the hell did I ever suggest that I support letting the parents off the hook?  Typically in these cases the child is REMOVED from the irresponsible parents but still are in court....sort of alone...ok maybe escorted by CPS people, but not always the parents because the parents were responsible for the abuse or neglectful which allowed for the abuse.  

 

you are creating false dichotomies in my argument which my argument is BASED ON THE ARTICLE.  so you are dabbling in the few bits of info and then stepping out of the context then back in then out..... completely unfair to debate which such manipulating tactics.  But good luck with that.  I'm out.