Paedophilia (On Consent Generally)

[Francois Tremblay]

Yes, i do understand the problem and yes the major point is prevention not punishment.
But in an imaginary anarchy (say this is...2011 or something) start has to be made and how do we deal with this sort of things?

We need to figure out why it happens, what motivates them, and how we can eliminate it from our own society (i.e. those who agree that child abuse is wrong), and if that's not possible, then how we can dissuade people from doing it.
(collective child-raising would be a good start)

Don't have any children yet. I know a family that has gone through the hell of child abuse.

Good. Stay that way.

Francois how would you react in a case of your child's being molested?

Please do not insult me. I would NEVER have children. I will never try to control another human being, no matter what the supposed purpose.

Try to understand the pedophile? Reason with him?

Yes. What, you think keeping him as a slave in a little cell is gonna help society or anything else?

What's machoism has to do with this? I'm not aware that protecting people one cares for is machoism or wagging one's penis in someone's face.

I was talking about punishment, which is a macho defense mechanism. Punishing people you disagree with does not protect anyone. The person who commits an action we disagree with, and have agreed not to perform, must be dealt with, but without a desire to help society become better than it was before the incident, any notion of "justice" is absolutely useless and destructive.

All you wanna do is perpetuate the same fucking hierarchy between "the criminals" who are always wrong and evil, and "the protectors" who are always good and in the right. When any hierarchy of that nature exists, all the undesirables end up being "criminals."

[hai]

Just to set your indignant, reactionary tendencies you have displayed at rest, I'm actually 18 years of age, and I believe all my girlfriends have been older than me in fact.
Personally i find most men horrifically unattractive, but not all in fairness.
In response to your apology, I forgive you, although I'm not sure how you can forgive yourself.

I don't understand you man. Please clarify your position on the issue. What are you saying?
What age of consent are you in favour with? How is this issue related to anarchism?[/quote]

Read the original post for clarification. I'm not sure about this issue of consent, thats why I posted for discussion of course.
How is the isse not related to anarchism?

[Garnier]

We need to figure out why it happens, what motivates them, and how we can eliminate it from our own society (i.e. those who agree that child abuse is wrong), and if that's not possible, then how we can dissuade people from doing it.
(collective child-raising would be a good start)

Psychology explains pedophilia and in a given anarchy one could argue that given a sexual freedom and absence od opression will reduce this perversions. (As usual i refer to A.S.Neill and W.Reich for more info).

Please do not insult me. I would NEVER have children. I will never try to control another human being, no matter what the supposed purpose.

Sorry, i didn't realize that having a child can be understood as an insult. It's anarchist prerogative to choose what to do and whether have child or not.
Biology, not control is behind having an off-spring.

I was talking about punishment, which is a macho defense mechanism. Punishing people you disagree with does not protect anyone. The person who commits an action we disagree with, and have agreed not to perform, must be dealt with, but without a desire to help society become better than it was before the incident, any notion of "justice" is absolutely useless and destructive.

It's not a matter of disagreement.Protection perhaps...
I'm not sure you'll be happy to know how such a things were dealth with in anarchist parts of Spain 1936-39, Makhnovstina 1918-22, Paris Commune, Mexican revolution or any given anarchical movement...

All you wanna do is perpetuate the same fucking hierarchy between "the criminals" who are always wrong and evil, and "the protectors" who are always good and in the right. When any hierarchy of that nature exists, all the undesirables end up being "criminals."

Some criminals are wrong and evil. I agree we have to question state's definition of a 'criminal', but some of those branded that way are sick and incurable individuals. In my town there was this man that killed at least 6 people with a hammer, dismembered them and drove the remains out of town in his car. Motive? Their money... killed 6 people for pocket change.
We can try to understand why he did this,his psychological and emotional background but that doesn't mean that in anarchy he should be left unpunished.

Threre will be fucked up people no matter how advanced anarchy is.

How is the isse not related to anarchism?

You bring this up, so you explain, i don't know.
For example what was Proudhon or Bakunin or Carson's view on the matter...What did Durruti thought of pedophilia...

[Francois Tremblay]

Psychology explains pedophilia and in a given anarchy one could argue that given a sexual freedom and absence od opression will reduce this perversions. (As usual i refer to A.S.Neill and W.Reich for more info).

"Reduce," but not eliminate. Obviously there will still be cases (otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this). So we need to understand those.

Sorry, i didn't realize that having a child can be understood as an insult. It's anarchist prerogative to choose what to do and whether have child or not.

No, it's not your prerogative to choose whether you are going to control another human being in a coercive hierarchy or not. Anarchist theory is pretty clear on that.

Biology, not control is behind having an off-spring.

Do not deflect your moral responsibility on laws of nature.
(not to mention that the criminal you want to punish could invoke the same stupid argument)

I'm not sure you'll be happy to know how such a things were dealth with in anarchist parts of Spain 1936-39, Makhnovstina 1918-22, Paris Commune, Mexican revolution or any given anarchical movement...

I never said people who call themselves Anarchists are completely sane. Of course they were just as aberrated as we are today. This is why Anarchy cannot work out as well as it could unless the people evolve as well.

Threre will be fucked up people no matter how advanced anarchy is.

Fair enough, but that doesn't change the facts. What would be the point of punishing such an individual? What do you think it accomplishes? Will it bring the victims back to life?

What disjoints in your brain that makes you see red?

For example what was Proudhon or Bakunin or Carson's view on the matter...What did Durruti thought of pedophilia...

I know you did not address this to me, but since when is Anarchism a regurgitation of what other people have said? You have a pretty dogmatic attitude (just like your attitude towards crime, I suppose).

[Bodhisattva]

Some criminals are wrong and evil. I agree we have to question state's definition of a 'criminal', but some of those branded that way are sick and incurable individuals. In my town there was this man that killed at least 6 people with a hammer, dismembered them and drove the remains out of town in his car. Motive? Their money... killed 6 people for pocket change.
We can try to understand why he did this,his psychological and emotional background but that doesn't mean that in anarchy he should be left unpunished.

It's interesting to see the words "sick" and "punish" in the same statement. How is punishing a sick individual exactly moral? Maybe we should start punishing leukemia victims for having weak genetics, using that rationale.

[Francois Tremblay]

Oh Bodhisattva, that's an excellent point... in fact he seems to believe that ONLY "sick" people justify punishment. And yet "sick" implies the lack of free will.

[Garnier]

No, it's not your prerogative to choose whether you are going to control another human being in a coercive hierarchy or not. Anarchist theory is pretty clear on that.

How do you equate having an off-spring with coercion? Anarchists shouldn't have kids? Can't they choose to have or not to have? What's the alternative? Not having an off-spring? Or 'The Brave New World' with their machines producing children?

Do not deflect your moral responsibility on laws of nature.
(not to mention that the criminal you want to punish could invoke the same stupid argument)

It's not my moral responsibility. It's a choice. Which laws of nature are against having an off-spring? The fact that you're alive means that your parents one day had sex and... i mean come on.

I never said people who call themselves Anarchists are completely sane. Of course they were just as aberrated as we are today. This is why Anarchy cannot work out as well as it could unless the people evolve as well.

Reliance on evolution of human consciousness in regards to anarchy is comparable to the religious dogma of awaiting of the second coming. I thought mutualists take people for what thay are, not what they tend to be in 5009 AD. I thought ancoms did that.
If i was a necromancer i would have risen Ravachol,Durruti,Zapata, the Ascaso brothers and thousands of makhnovian black army anarchists from the dead and compared them with ... anarchists of today.
What happened to the revolution? Coercion?

HENCE, WHY THE FIGHT against the state, religion & capitalism. Why not just try to understand and improve them. It's not their fault that they kill millions.We shouldn't overthrow the state (coercion) but try to reason with it... And await the kindgom of brotherly love...

Fair enough, but that doesn't change the facts. What would be the point of punishing such an individual? What do you think it accomplishes? Will it bring the victims back to life?

It will prevent the individual of using coercion and kill more people. There's no guarantee that the said individual will willfuly stop doing that or see the 'error of his ways'...understanding and prevention is the way. Not every time though.

What disjoints in your brain that makes you see red?

I see red & black, sometimes black... red? NEVER.

I know you did not address this to me, but since when is Anarchism a regurgitation of what other people have said? You have a pretty dogmatic attitude (just like your attitude towards crime, I suppose).

As i said, prevention,learning and taking the tools of opression out of circulation is the thing.However if the worse should came to the worse punishment must be used.

It's interesting to see the words "sick" and "punish" in the same statement. How is punishing a sick individual exactly moral? Maybe we should start punishing leukemia victims for having weak genetics, using that rationale.

Ah, semantics... terminally ill patients and murderers in one basket...
What do we do with a person who comits murder under an anarchy?

Oh Bodhisattva, that's an excellent point... in fact he seems to believe that ONLY "sick" people justify punishment. And yet "sick" implies the lack of free will.

I'm lost at this one...

[Francois Tremblay]

How do you equate having an off-spring with coercion?

Is that really a serious question? You don't think having near-absolute control over another human being and having the ability to dictate how he lives (see the thread on General with the capitalist father for a great example of this) as being a coercive system?

Anarchists shouldn't have kids?

No, of course not. Not as long as the parenting system is in place.

What's the alternative? Not having an off-spring? Or 'The Brave New World' with their machines producing children?

No, the alternative is to use our creativity to figure out new ways to relate to each other.

You know, ANARCHY! Helloooooo....

[Garnier]

Is that really a serious question? You don't think having near-absolute control over another human being and having the ability to dictate how he lives (see the thread on General with the capitalist father for a great example of this) as being a coercive system?

Who would provide for thise kids? Are they gonna start providing for themselves from the age of 1? Ancaps are naive bunch of people, i've seen the thread.
Still if you are a mutualist and not ancom how would be the question of having kids be solved?
And what if the mother doesn't want to give the child away? Snatch it from her in the name of common good? Isn't that coercion?

No, of course not. Not as long as the parenting system is in place.

Parenting should be much better in anarchy so many negative sides of child rearing could be avoided.

No, the alternative is to use our creativity to figure out new ways to relate to each other.

Do you have something in mind? What new ways? Set incubators for children and put them under HAL9000 care?

You know, ANARCHY! Helloooooo....

That's not anarchy, that's science-fiction.
Just imagine yourself explaining your vision of anarchy outside of anarchist circles...'Well, you people shouldn't have kids because that's the ultimate form of coercion. You should wait untill I find better way of rearing children. No i don't have an idea but still you should wait...'

[Francois Tremblay]

Who would provide for thise kids? Are they gonna start providing for themselves from the age of 1?

That would be answered once we find a solution, now wouldn't it?

Still if you are a mutualist and not ancom how would be the question of having kids be solved?

What, you mean ancoms already solved that problem? Good then. Tell us the answer, so we can start adopting it.

Do you have something in mind?

Nope, but apparently you have a solution. Let's hear it.

Just imagine yourself explaining your vision of anarchy outside of anarchist circles...'Well, you people shouldn't have kids because that's the ultimate form of coercion. You should wait untill I find better way of rearing children. No i don't have an idea but still you should wait...'

Stupid scenario. I can't even tell Anarchists that before they freak out, why would I try to explain it to non-Anarchists?

Seriously, is that your only argument? That people disagree with me? That's not even an argument, it's merely nay-saying. What do I care if people disagree with me?

[Garnier]

That would be answered once we find a solution, now wouldn't it?

What solution? Fusion? Turning lead into gold?

What, you mean ancoms already solved that problem? Good then. Tell us the answer, so we can start adopting it.

I've heard ancoms talking about raising children in communal centers or something.

Nope, but apparently you have a solution. Let's hear it.

There's no final solution. Improving parenthood and education is a good start. No state. A.S.Neill's expiriences are a good start. Homer Lane also.

Stupid scenario. I can't even tell Anarchists that before they freak out, why would I try to explain it to non-Anarchists?

Well, you're imposing your beliefs that nobody should have an off-spring untill you find a solution to the problems of coercion.
Why explain? Talking to non-anarchists to explain a thing or two on anarchy... Don't know actualy, forums are much better places...

Seriously, is that your only argument? That people disagree with me? That's not even an argument, it's merely nay-saying. What do I care if people disagree with me?

You shouldn't care. Why would people not have kids if you think that's wrong. Let the humanity die out because parenting is coercion. Or wait for anarchy and the unknown way of avoiding coercion. Wait for the centuries to come...

You're too intelectual for your own good, comrade Francois.

[Francois Tremblay]

Well, you're imposing your beliefs

What the fuck are you talking about, you twat? Who am I imposing my beliefs on?

I'm not the one who wants to have children so I can impose my beliefs on them.

Why would people not have kids if you think that's wrong.

That's not even a grammatical sentence.

Let the humanity die out because parenting is coercion.

What's wrong with that?

Or wait for anarchy and the unknown way of avoiding coercion. Wait for the centuries to come...

You really think this is such an intractable problem that it would take CENTURIES to solve?

You're pretty damn pessimistic.

You're too intelectual for your own good, comrade Francois.

"too intellectual"???

Go fuck yourself, you fucking passive-aggressive twat. You are a zero.

(this is as nice as I can make my response to this abysmal sentence: you should have seen what I just deleted)

[Garnier]

I'm not the one who wants to have children so I can impose my beliefs on them?

That's your choice. It's a good decision for you. I mean it.

Quote:
Let the humanity die out because parenting is coercion.


What's wrong with that?

You're asking what's wrong with humanity dying out?
This is too fucking much...there's no point in this any more, going on an anarchist thread and finding people who think that death of all the humanity is not wrong.

"too intellectual"???

Go fuck yourself, you fucking passive-aggressive twat. You are a zero.

(this is as nice as I can make my response to this abysmal sentence: you should have seen what I just deleted)

I'm sorry you must have had a terrible childhood and who knows what else to be so bitern.
All you need is a straight jacket.

[Bodhisattva]

Quote:
Ah, semantics... terminally ill patients and murderers in one basket...
What do we do with a person who comits murder under an anarchy?

The schizophrenic who kills people to appease the voice in his head is just as deserving of compassion as a child born missing her cerebellum. Both are misfortunes of nature. The same goes for a good number of child molesters, cult leaders, and pretty much every other flavor in the spectrum of human deviant behavior. Imagine the sort of man Adolf Hitler would have been if his parents had been loving and tolerant individuals. If a child rapist was raped as a child, then he deserves compassion for his suffering.

In a sense, I do agree with Francois. If a person is flawed, his or her parenting will be flawed. All people are flawed, thus all parenting is flawed. If you recognize you're flawed and don't want to inflict suffering on another person, it's logical to conclude you might wish to refrain from having a child.

The only reason I disagree with Francois is purely on levels other than logic, which doesn't have a place here.

As for what do we do with a murderer in an anarchist society? I think that greatly depends on the situation and the people involved. Personal and group philosophies and all that. I for one wouldn't want to decide to punish a sick individual with a compulsion created from physical defects or years of abuse for something they might realistically not have control over.

[Francois Tremblay]

The only reason I disagree with Francois is purely on levels other than logic, which doesn't have a place here.

I'd like to hear about that. PM me if you want.