OI Pedophilia Thread [Archive]

Robert

6th October 2009, 04:27

Beware of the Romeo and Juliet syndrome, the 19 year old guy having consensual relations, or consensual touching of the breast or genitals of his 15 year old girlfriend, is considered a "pedophile" by some and is subject to serious criminal penalties.

If by pedophole you mean creepy 43-year-old uncles coaxing oral sex out of, or forcing anal or vaginal or oral sex onto their 4-year-old nieces, I'd say physical castration. For starters. Assuming it can be proved. If the child says it happened, and uncle denies it, and if there is no DNA, no video, and no confession, then what? Jury trial.

Also interesting is the nubile blonde female high school teacher statutorily "raping" the 16-year-old quarterback after the homecoming game in the back seat of a convertible. She goes to prison for rape while the quarterback is getting high-fives in the locker room from his green-with-envy buddies? Is that a pedophile? You make the call.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

6th October 2009, 04:51

Well, by far that harshest piunishment is often times releasing pedophiles into the Prison system.

Beware of the Romeo and Juliet syndrome, the 19 year old guy having consensual relations, or consensual touching of the breast or genitals of his 15 year old girlfriend, is considered a "pedophile" by some and is subject to serious criminal penalties.

Unfortunately so.

Is it right, per se? Probably not, but it's even more wrong to lay a decade down on a kid for something like that.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

6th October 2009, 05:01

Parents have to keep an eye on their children. Period. There is no reason to believe punishment actually helps prevent acts of pedophilia, given the nature of the offenders. Furthermore, most "borderline" cases of pedophilia aren't actually pedophilia. They are simply consensual sex between people with different physical ages and similar mental ages or, in some cases, simple lust.

If a child has sex with an adult without consent or is manipulated into giving consent (which we can assume 90% of children would be), then send the adult to a psychiatric facility or something. You might even consider letting "manipulated consent." After all, if my friends pressure me to go outside when I'm feeling lazy, I might be better off for it. Clearly, the only crime is when a child is hurt. If the child was hurt, either consent as not getting or it was, then revoked, and the adult no longer stopped.

I can't see a child being convinced to have sex with an adult, enjoying, then later telling the adult they harmed them horribly. Or am I missing a piece of the puzzle? The ages mean nothing to me. All that matters is whether a person is harmed when they don't have sufficient information to make choices with respect to sex. If they aren't harmed, I'm not worried about it (which is far from the common opinion, which cares about the act not the harm done).

narcomprom

6th October 2009, 15:28

Bud Struggle

6th October 2009, 16:53

All that being said is it really that important that you can ham slam some 15 yo girl? Can't people just leave other people alone until they have a real ability to make proper decisions for themselves?

Children are children--let them be such until they can actually fend for themselves in the real world. If someone can't make a living and feed yourself what makes anyone think they can make other rational adult decisions? And I do understand the Romeo and Juliet situation.

But there's no reason a 43 yo should be dating a 13 yo.

Red Icepick

6th October 2009, 21:27

it's sad to see how for so many self-proclaimed western communists being one means that you send criminals to siberian labour camps instead of prisons. many there, apparently, get their idea about communism from hollywood cinema.
paedophilia is rampant in rural regions all over the world. you can marry a 14 year old in Texas.
it is rampant everywhere where income inequality is high. there are a plenty of child prostitutes in Atlanta.
for populists the issue is to punish the decadents. their masses like feeling the moral high ground. search for "pedophile" on foxnews or skynews and you'll see what i mean.

So are you some kind of pedophila liberator? These people can only be cured by a shot in the back of the neck. The only reason that giving them the death penalty might be a bad thing is that they might go from being a child rapist to a child rapist-murderer because they don't want their victim to identify them. Either way, I think they should be dispatched or at least chemically castrated. I'd say send them to a labor camp, but they'd only taint the word 'labor,' so let them rot.

Holden Caulfield

6th October 2009, 21:41

Hard labour for out and out child molesters, death penalty for repeat offenders, professional help and house arrest for those who are mentally ill. Anyone who thinks we should let these people roam the streets is nuts.

I agree with this. Maybe my views on paedos will go down better in OI than in the regular forums.

I think the age of conset is actually pretty good as it is, as long as it is enforced with some common sense. If a 18 year old is in a relationship with a relative peer who is say 15 but mature enought to conset to sex then the law should not be applied. If the relationship is exploitative with an older partner effecively praying on younger people and using them or is seen to be pressuring them then the law should be applied.

When the IRA kneecap known and proven child molesters I don't shed a tear, I don't think any decent working class person would. Most people on revleft disagree with my views and say I sound like a Daily Mail reader but fuck them. In real life outside this forum where who is more radical is often the agenda of debates my view is normal.

If any paedos were on this forum I would ban them. It happened once and Luis Henrique did it, I supported him when he got shit but he did the right thing

#FF0000

6th October 2009, 21:48

It's a mental illness. Doesn't mean it can be cured. Put them in places where they can get help. If they can't be helped, just put em in a prison where they can be held and not mistreated.

I've talked about the death penalty and why it's dumb already.

Red Icepick

6th October 2009, 21:52

I agree with this. Maybe my views on paedos will go down better in OI than in the regular forums.

I think the age of conset is actually pretty good as it is, as long as it is enforced with some common sense. If a 18 year old is in a relationship with a relative peer who is say 15 but mature enought to conset to sex then the law should not be applied. If the relationship is exploitative with an older partner effecively praying on younger people and using them or is seen to be pressuring them then the law should be applied.

When the IRA kneecap known and proven child molesters I don't shed a tear, I don't think any decent working class person would. Most people on revleft disagree with my views and say I sound like a Daily Mail reader but fuck them. In real life outside this forum where who is more radical is often the agenda of debates my view is normal.

If any paedos were on this forum I would ban them. It happened once and Luis Henrique did it, I supported him when he got shit but he did the right thing

Yeah, I think the age of consent should have a buffer zone as in the 15/18 year old relationship. I think that is fine. A lot of times two minors are in an existing relationship when one of them turns 18, so it's obviously wrong to prohibit that. I don't think a 25 year old should be preying on high school freshmen girls, but that still doesn't consist of child molestation or pedophilia. That is statutory rape, but I think a clear distinction should be made especially since actually child molestation is about the worst crime one can commit. I place pedophiles below murderers, in fact.

Havet

6th October 2009, 22:13

Restriction of liberty basically

Holden Caulfield

6th October 2009, 22:18

I place pedophiles below murderers, in fact.
Same. Rape, which is what paedophillia is, is the worst most dehumanising crime that can exist. It cannot be justified, it isn't a crime of passion or one moment of lost control.

KommunistKornish

7th October 2009, 01:30

Same. Rape, which is what paedophillia is, is the worst most dehumanising crime that can exist. It cannot be justified, it isn't a crime of passion or one moment of lost control.

I heartly agree with you there. It should receive the same sentence as murder or a worse one. But nowadays alot of people get away with Rape (in all its forms) or at least a light sentence.
The idea of Rape (in all its forms) makes me feel physicly sick.

danyboy27

7th October 2009, 01:34

Richard Nixon

7th October 2009, 01:44

Restriction of liberty basically

What the fuck? Are you saying a pedophile not being allowed to rape a child is restriction of liberty?

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

7th October 2009, 02:25

What the fuck? Are you saying a pedophile not being allowed to rape a child is restriction of liberty?

"Technically," preventing anyone from doing "anything" can be construed as a restriction of liberty. That being said, I believe he was advocating that is what should be done with pedophiles.

Robert

7th October 2009, 02:56

Are the posters calling for castration, jail, a shit in the back of the head all anarchists?
Oops. Make that a "shot" in the back of the head.:lol:

But seriously, you are going to have a penal system and a justice system without a state?

narcomprom

7th October 2009, 03:14

Are the posters calling for castration, jail, a shit in the back of the head all anarchists?
that would be an oxymoron.

kropotkin propagated a set of commandments, if my memory serves me right, instead of laws. a vague law such as "don't harm or insult" would then be applied with common sense by the community to a criminal. for his community to function it would have to be small, with everyone knowing each other.

would they have lynched polanski and humbert humbert? idk. ask an anarchist.

#FF0000

7th October 2009, 03:23

But seriously, you are going to have a penal system and a justice system without a state?

Depends on whether the anarchist you ask is inconsistent, or ineffective.

Havet

7th October 2009, 09:47

What the fuck? Are you saying a pedophile not being allowed to rape a child is restriction of liberty?

No i'm saying his liberty should be restricted, in a jail.

Holden Caulfield

7th October 2009, 10:21

But seriously, you are going to have a penal system and a justice system without a state?

Anarchism, as I take it, and as alot of sensible anarchists who have gotten over teenage rebellion take it means simply a non hierarchical society, so collective authority could impose a prision system on those who need it, and can impose laws on society. All democratically and collectively.

One would hope under a close knit community that these types of crimes would decrease anyways.

Myself being a Trotskyist think much the same thing only without the anarchist phobia of the word state

Robert

7th October 2009, 14:23

Depends on whether the anarchist you ask is inconsistent, or ineffective.

I think you are discrediting anarchy there, but I really can't tell.

As for the hope that pedophilia would decrease in a "close knit community" (by which you mean what? Communism?), we need to realize that much
pedophilia occurs within an extended family: uncles against nieces, stepfathers against stepdaughters, and TONS of live-in boyfriends are charged regularly with molesting the girlfriend's child from a prior relationship.

I don't see how communism or anarchy would have the slightest effect on
pedophilia.

Orange Juche

8th October 2009, 01:01

death penalty for repeat offenders

It is unfortunately inevitable that innocent people will always be convicted for crimes they didn't commit, even if infrequent. Sexual crimes can come down to, and sometimes do, circumstantial alibis and an accusation without physical evidence.

Is risking the murder of an innocent person ever worth it, as opposed to allowing them to live out their life and hope that evidence may one day set them free?

Richard Nixon

8th October 2009, 02:17

No i'm saying his liberty should be restricted, in a jail.

Sorry for mistaking your view.

It is unfortunately inevitable that innocent people will always be convicted for crimes they didn't commit, even if infrequent. Sexual crimes can come down to, and sometimes do, circumstantial alibis and an accusation without physical evidence.

Is risking the murder of an innocent person ever worth it, as opposed to allowing them to live out their life and hope that evidence may one day set them free?

What about in a trial where there is certain evidence like say a videotape?

#FF0000

8th October 2009, 02:35

What about in a trial where there is certain evidence like say a videotape?

The death penalty is still way, way, way more expensive than the alternative, due to the fact that it's a process and legal fees are greater than the cost of food and water.

Spawn of Stalin

8th October 2009, 03:22

no.
Perhaps you have a more reasonable solution? I'd be glad to hear it.

It is unfortunately inevitable that innocent people will always be convicted for crimes they didn't commit, even if infrequent. Sexual crimes can come down to, and sometimes do, circumstantial alibis and an accusation without physical evidence.

Is risking the murder of an innocent person ever worth it, as opposed to allowing them to live out their life and hope that evidence may one day set them free?
A paedophile, like any criminal, should be judged as an individual. Of course, I don't have an answer for every problem, but miscarriage of justice is something which can be minimalised with a well thought out justice system, it is unfortunately true that a perfect system will likely never exist, but I will still support harsh punishments in principle. I also believe that when used properly, the death penalty can be used as a deterrent. Under the blatantly corrupt systems of the present day? No, in fact I wholly oppose the death penalty in the United States and other capitalist countries, there are people who I don't believe deserve to live, but I don't have enough faith in the current system to execute justice. However, if you are caught in the act, or you admit your own guilt, you neither require or deserve a trial. As for carrying out the death penalty, in the case of serial child molesters the evidence is either there or it isn't, true, an innocent person can be accused, and convicted of a crime they did not commit, this happens all the time, but it is extremely unlikely that there would be any evidence, direct or circumstantial, implicating an innocent person in the rape of five pre-teens, unless of course, they are actually guilty.

Asharchist

8th October 2009, 14:48

I can't believe some people on here are calling for paedophiles to be executed or sent to labour camps.

There are obviously better ways to deal with the problem.

Remove the offender from society and allow them to live in separate communes without children and at the same time be provided with rehabilitation.

Chemical and Physical castration. Voluntary the offender could elect for this treatment and be reintroduced into society as a result.

Failing that the above 2 options do not work then they would have to be forcefully removed from society, however I don't think many people would choose this and instead comply with the rough framework listed above.

The law how it stands today however means that a lot of law abiding people could be classed as paedophiles. There needs to be clear distinctions of those that prey upon children and the consensual activities between consenting adults.

Can we the left stop the stupid death penalty argument please? What if you had sentenced a man to death for a crime that he didn't commit, that the victim lied about. Would you also sentence that same girl to her death?

You need to move on from this irreversible punishment.

danyboy27

10th October 2009, 02:25

Perhaps you have a more reasonable solution? I'd be glad to hear it.

what about working on reabilitation and psychological treatement, and for multiple offender, incarceration in a penal communuty far far away on a island somewhere?

Dr Mindbender

10th October 2009, 22:52

Gah. Heres what i think.

Children need to be protected, but equally, paedophiles can't 'help' finding children sexually attractive, and i find it reactionary as fuck to execute people for things that they only have diminished reponsibility over. We dont execute those who commit manslaughter.

The problem with a paedophile 'commune' is that it will become a target for the lynch mobs and the cost of funding such a programme would be unpopular with the rest of society.

All things considered, i think the only progressive solution that both protects children and doesnt resort to the scythe of execution is castration.

#FF0000

10th October 2009, 23:00

The problem with a paedophile 'commune' is that it will become a target for the lynch mobs and the cost of funding such a programme would be unpopular with the rest of society.

What about instead of a "commune" we call it a prison or a rehabilitation center.

All things considered, i think the only progressive solution that both protects children and doesnt resort to the scythe of execution is castration.

I don't think that would really stop people. People who are aggressive about the whole pedophilia thing would target a pedophile regardless of whether or not they were punished already or not.

Also, can castration be reversed? With chemical castration, don't you just need to stop taking the chemicals for it to stop?

Red Icepick

10th October 2009, 23:10

The death penalty is still way, way, way more expensive than the alternative, due to the fact that it's a process and legal fees are greater than the cost of food and water.

You realise that most bullets cost less than a dollar?

#FF0000

10th October 2009, 23:14

You realise that most bullets cost less than a dollar?

That joke wasn't funny or clever the first time I heard it outside a booth selling The Turner Diaries at a local gun show, and it's isn't clever or funny now.

We have a legal system where we generally try to figure out whether or not the right person is being punished, and putting people through it costs money. It saves people from being wrongly convicted, and sometimes it saves people from being wrongly executed. Bullets can't really do that so I guess it makes sense that a bullet would cost less than a legal system.

Red Icepick

10th October 2009, 23:21

That joke wasn't funny or clever the first time I heard it outside a booth selling The Turner Diaries at a local gun show, and it's isn't clever or funny now.

We have a legal system where we generally try to figure out whether or not the right person is being punished, and putting people through it costs money. It saves people from being wrongly convicted, and sometimes it saves people from being wrongly executed. Bullets can't really do that so I guess it makes sense that a bullet would cost less than a legal system.

Haha. What were you doing at a booth selling The Turner Diaries? Going through a white separatist stage or something?

The legal system is atrocious. It's capitalism at its worst. If you have enough money, you buy a great lawyer and he gets you off the hook. How does this work so well? How do celebrities and politicians always get away with everything? It's because the dollar sign is tagged on to our justice system, and that needs to be removed. So yes, my joke was silly, but it's ridiculous that it costs so much to have a trial. It shouldn't cost anything. Even if someone is wrongly accused, they lose all sorts of money paying for their defense. That's absurd. I just saw fatass Michael Moore's superb "Capitalism," and there were kids sentenced to juvie hall because it made money. That's the kind of legal system we have. As much as I don't like you, I take it in faith that you can't seriously endorse such a corrupt system?

#FF0000

10th October 2009, 23:27

Haha. What were you doing at a booth selling The Turner Diaries? Going through a white separatist stage or something?

No I just sort of happened to be around one. It was a gunshow. Turn off the lights and throw a rock and you'll probably hit a copy of The Turner Diaries.

words

Of course I don't. That doesn't mean I don't or can't support a system of appeals and all that so that punishments can be handed out fairly and with as much accuracy as possible. That sort of thing takes time and resources.

I sort of thought that part went without saying.

Dr Mindbender

11th October 2009, 08:50

What about instead of a "commune" we call it a prison or a rehabilitation center.

Putting them in 'prison' implies that they've committed a crime which they're fully responsible for, which ive already said is not the case.

Besides which, if you're going to put people in custody, they have a right to serve their time without fear of violence regardless of emotive knee jerks that society might have about the nature of their deeds and its very likely that theyd encounter very violent nonce-bashers while in a prison of the normal sort.

Spawn of Stalin

11th October 2009, 08:59

Not all child rapists are schizophrenic or otherwise mentally ill, you realise that, right? Now castration is not going to stop people from abusing little kids, sad but true. As long as a paedophile possesses the ability to even think about doing something disgusting, they can not be allowed to be free, call it inhumane, call it authoritarian, call it what you want, to me, the well-being of children is of far, far greater importance than the liberty of these "people".

Dr Mindbender

11th October 2009, 11:12

Not all child rapists are schizophrenic or otherwise mentally ill, you realise that, right? Now castration is not going to stop people from abusing little kids, sad but true.
I suppose it depends how you define abuse, but i think you'll find the vast majority of sexual abuse stems from paedos having their nuts intact.

As long as a paedophile possesses the ability to even think about doing something disgusting,
Castration will largely remove the cause of them thinking that way.

they can not be allowed to be free, call it inhumane, call it authoritarian, call it what you want, to me, the well-being of children is of far, far greater importance than the liberty of these "people".
Its not just their liberty, but their well being. No one, regardless of how disgusting we find their sexual neurology deserves to be left to the mercy of hard case gang types that will rip them a new arsehole just as quickly as the news of the world mob on the outside.
http://media.pegasusnews.com/img/categories/HelenLovejoy_t630.jpg

Sorry couldnt resist. :D

Havet

11th October 2009, 12:05

As long as a paedophile possesses the ability to even think about doing something disgusting, they can not be allowed to be free

So what's the catch? Thought-control? Big Brother?

Rosa Provokateur

12th October 2009, 07:46

Hard labour for out and out child molesters, death penalty for repeat offenders, professional help and house arrest for those who are mentally ill. Anyone who thinks we should let these people roam the streets is nuts.

As strongly as I oppose violence and the use of the death-penalty in any situation, I might have to agree with this.

I have my limits but when someone goes messing with kids like that: the gloves are off.

Rosa Provokateur

12th October 2009, 07:49

I agree with this. Maybe my views on paedos will go down better in OI than in the regular forums.

When the IRA kneecap known and proven child molesters I don't shed a tear, I don't think any decent working class person would. Most people on revleft disagree with my views and say I sound like a Daily Mail reader but fuck them. In real life outside this forum where who is more radical is often the agenda of debates my view is normal.

If any paedos were on this forum I would ban them. It happened once and Luis Henrique did it, I supported him when he got shit but he did the right thing

Kudos to Holden Caulfield.

Kudos to the IRA.

Kudos to Luis Henrique.

Someday if I ever meet one of these guys, it's a free drink on me;)

#FF0000

12th October 2009, 08:31

As strongly as I oppose violence and the use of the death-penalty in any situation, I might have to agree with this.

I have my limits but when someone goes messing with kids like that: the gloves are off.

hurf durf im a anerkist tho

Rosa Provokateur

12th October 2009, 09:44

hurf durf im a anerkist tho

Even anarchists have ethics, and my ethics tell me that people fuckin with kids like that is worthy of violent retribution.

#FF0000

12th October 2009, 17:01

Even anarchists have ethics, and my ethics tell me that people fuckin with kids like that is worthy of violent retribution.

Oh cool. Even after the fact when it isn't a matter of self-defense anymore? Even if you might kill the wrong person? Even if it takes more resources that could be better used elsewhere?

Dr Mindbender

12th October 2009, 20:03

heres the thing that worries me about draconian measures against paedophilia:

You will always have someone in authority wanting to stitch up some poor bugger for the most tenuous of reasons. Who gets to decide what constitutes paedophilia? Is it full blown assault, someone misidentifying the true age of an adolescent who lied to them or viewing child porno?

What if i accidentally click a dodgy link and end up with child porn on my Hard drive. Now imagine transferring such a scenerio to a jurisdiction where they have the death penalty against all forms of paedophilia.

Muzk

12th October 2009, 20:08

Lodestar

12th October 2009, 20:37

Based on the one in the Discrimination subforum. What should be done with pedophiles?

They should be treated the same as anyone with a mental condition which makes them a liability and a danger to themselves and those around them. They should be rehabilitated to the best of our ability, or, failing that, be kept comfortably in some kind of sanitarium where they can live out their lives in dignity, and cannot harm children.

#FF0000

13th October 2009, 01:30

They should be treated the same as anyone with a mental condition which makes them a liability and a danger to themselves and those around them. They should be rehabilitated to the best of our ability, or, failing that, be kept comfortably in some kind of sanitarium where they can live out their lives in dignity, and cannot harm children.

Best response

Lodestar

13th October 2009, 01:35

Best response

Thank you comrade :-)

Dr Mindbender

13th October 2009, 02:17

The paedophiles should be given a life-time supply of child pornography(I'm pretty fucking sure there is enough around already, what's been done can't be changed) so they never have to... experience their sexuality for themselves, and that they actually have a chance to "live" their... I'd rather call it a dangerous perversion

Shitty idea or actually nice? Maybe combine it with a prison of some sort?

You can't trust a man when his weenie thinks for him :(
im weird

I dont know about a 'lifetime supply' of child porn, imo it should be all destroyed.

That said, i think our friends in the far east might have a similar solution along these lines.

http://ya-ya-ya.com/gallery/index.htm

Perhaps a sealed off colony, with a few hundred of these?

Rosa Provokateur

13th October 2009, 02:30

Best response

http://www.whokilledbambi.co.uk/public/2007/07/kill-em-all.jpg

Dr Mindbender

13th October 2009, 02:38

http://www.whokilledbambi.co.uk/public/2007/07/kill-em-all.jpg

Stormfront would also agree with that. :rolleyes:

As progressives we should rise above anti-materialist blood lusting knee jerk reactions like this.

Rosa Provokateur

13th October 2009, 02:49

Stormfront would also agree with that. :rolleyes:

As progressives we should rise above anti-materialist blood lusting knee jerk reactions like this.

If anything, my turn to violence regarding pedophilia is strictly material-based. Rehab them all you want but if one had any relations with one of my siblings... nothing good.

#FF0000

13th October 2009, 03:09

If anything, my turn to violence regarding pedophilia is strictly material-based. Rehab them all you want but if one had any relations with one of my siblings... nothing good.

Well yeah I think in a situation like that any of us would be out for blood. But bloodlust and vengeance is not a basis for a system of justice.

Rosa Provokateur

15th October 2009, 03:47

Well yeah I think in a situation like that any of us would be out for blood. But bloodlust and vengeance is not a basis for a system of justice.

Point taken. In my heart of hearts I really can't justify saying they should all be put to death or anything like that but in my opinion, if there is such a thing as unforgivable crime, pedophilia is it.

I dont know what the solution should be, only that I want nothing to do with them and I feel no sympathy toward them. It's horrible to say and even worse to think about as I write it but that's the truth.

#FF0000

15th October 2009, 06:19

Point taken. In my heart of hearts I really can't justify saying they should all be put to death or anything like that but in my opinion, if there is such a thing as unforgivable crime, pedophilia is it.

I dont know what the solution should be, only that I want nothing to do with them and I feel no sympathy toward them. It's horrible to say and even worse to think about as I write it but that's the truth.

Well I think it's sort of reasonable to feel that way. I'm just saying that the death penalty is really really dumb.

Bud Struggle

15th October 2009, 12:09

I agree with this. Maybe my views on paedos will go down better in OI than in the regular forums. They most certainly do. Anytime you want to take off that big Commie hat and get rid of that chest full of Commie medals you are welcome here.

I think the age of conset is actually pretty good as it is, as long as it is enforced with some common sense. If a 18 year old is in a relationship with a relative peer who is say 15 but mature enought to conset to sex then the law should not be applied. If the relationship is exploitative with an older partner effecively praying on younger people and using them or is seen to be pressuring them then the law should be applied.

When the IRA kneecap known and proven child molesters I don't shed a tear, I don't think any decent working class person would. Most people on revleft disagree with my views and say I sound like a Daily Mail reader but fuck them. In real life outside this forum where who is more radical is often the agenda of debates my view is normal.

If any paedos were on this forum I would ban them. It happened once and Luis Henrique did it, I supported him when he got shit but he did the right thing Good post. The point of any society--is to protect those that can't protect themselves. The whole Communist system is designed to help the workers who are exploited by Capitalists, in a Communist system economic exploiters wont be allowed to exist. So why not make rules against one person exploitating another person for any reason universal? If a child or a person with mental disabilities or any other person who because of circumstances can't make rational cognative decisions for themselves is exploited--then the person doing the exploitation should be removed and punished.

In a just society the rules of conduct should be universal and if the aim of Communism is to provide a truly egalitarian and fair existance for all Comrades then you can't just exclude economic exploiters but welcome other forms of exploitation saying that the exploiters just can't help themselves and society has no business getting into their personal lives.

Rosa Provokateur

16th October 2009, 03:00

Well I think it's sort of reasonable to feel that way. I'm just saying that the death penalty is really really dumb.

Agreed. To paraphrase what Shane Claiborne said, "It doesn't make sense for the government to say 'we're going to kill you for killing others to show that killing is wrong'".

Not that pedophilia is murder but it might as well be:glare:

Rosa Provokateur

16th October 2009, 03:08

Good post. The point of any society--is to protect those that can't protect themselves. The whole Communist system is designed to help the workers who are exploited by Capitalists, in a Communist system economic exploiters wont be allowed to exist. So why not make rules against one person exploitating another person for any reason universal? If a child or a person with mental disabilities or any other person who because of circumstances can't make rational cognative decisions for themselves is exploited--then the person doing the exploitation should be removed and punished.

In a just society the rules of conduct should be universal and if the aim of Communism is to provide a truly egalitarian and fair existance for all Comrades then you can't just exclude economic exploiters but welcome other forms of exploitation saying that the exploiters just can't help themselves and society has no business getting into their personal lives.

The trouble with that is this: who decides that someone is being exploited? Suppose I'm a really shitty chess player (which I am) and I decide to gamble against a pro, let's say $100 bucks. At that time, I'm not in a position to better my skills any and he easily wins and takes my money. Couldn't I just say, "this guy exploited me because he took advantage of my lack of skill."

By assigning people to decide what is exploitation and who's doing it, we create an agency of law-enforcement and in doing so we create a State. I'm against ripping others off as much as anybody but if that's our entire and main concern, a dictatorship would be the only real way of making sure and enforcing that everyone is equal all the time.

Bud Struggle

16th October 2009, 13:23

The trouble with that is this: who decides that someone is being exploited? Suppose I'm a really shitty chess player (which I am) and I decide to gamble against a pro, let's say $100 bucks. At that time, I'm not in a position to better my skills any and he easily wins and takes my money. Couldn't I just say, "this guy exploited me because he took advantage of my lack of skill."

By assigning people to decide what is exploitation and who's doing it, we create an agency of law-enforcement and in doing so we create a State. I'm against ripping others off as much as anybody but if that's our entire and main concern, a dictatorship would be the only real way of making sure and enforcing that everyone is equal all the time.

I'm not one of those people that blieve there is a quintessential goodness in each and every human being and that if only the Revolution comes we'll all be free of every sort of crime or injury. People are always going to do bad things to other people and there is always going to be a need to stop these people from doing whatever it is they are doing. You are going to need some sort of police force to apprehend criminals and some sort of a jury system to judge is the claims of the injured party are just or not. I don't see any escaping that.

Now it does matter where the authority of the police and the jury comes from. If it comes from the people--then I think it might be consistant with Communist ideals. If it comes from some sort of authority figure--well then you have the beginning siomething that will eventually undermine Communism.