Legal system [Archive]

redstar2000

9th September 2003, 03:02

Thus speaketh the p.r. guy for Socialism, Inc....

1st we set every murderer, rapist, paedophile, and other menace loose upon the people who have just spontaneously revolted and overthrown their oppressor.

The overwhelming majority of people in prison now are there for possession of illegal drugs and crimes against property. A general amnesty in real revolutions is customary because it is assumed that nearly all who are in prison under the old regime are there unjustly.

That's probably pretty close to the truth of the matter.

2nd we let kangaroo courts hang anyone who upsets us at all; in the name of a free, and fair society which holds all human life and dignity including that of criminals sacred.

They will be "kangaroo" only in the sense of being new while procedures are still in the process of formation and societal conditions generally are pretty disorganized.

And some life is not "sacred", not now and not then either.

3rd Everybody stops working and devotes themselves full time to judging others.

Don't be any sillier than you already are.(!) The only trials liable to bring out a "full house" are the same kinds that attract enormous media attention now. And, in the long run, I'd rather have a jury of 500...if I were innocent, of course.

4th WE make the legal code simpler (how? you don't say of course).

I thought it would be obvious--though not to you, of course. My guess is that 90% of the legal code exists for the purpose of maintaining the privileges of property or attempting to impose religious morality on the population. It will all be gone with the wind.

What will concern people in the early years after the revolution will likely be personal safety from violent criminals, the ethical behavior of those chosen to carry out public functions, and revenge on the officials and security personnel of the old regime.

The first "criminal codes" of the new society will probably fit on two or three pieces of paper. And I don't anticipate that they will ever evolve into the baroque monstrosity that we have now. There's be no need for such idiocy.

What are you trying to do? win a personal following of the young and uninformed at any cost? It seems you will promise them every one of their heart's desires and assure them that there is no cost or difficulty in any of it. All they have to do is believe in Redstar and even contradictory wishes will be granted.

Whatever you say, squire.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

redstar2000

9th September 2003, 03:12

I definitely think there would still be a need for lawyers, anyone that says that there isn't is a fool or hasn't really thought about it with any depth.

That's probably because you're still thinking in terms of class society.

Start by asking yourself: what would lawyers DO in a communist society?

In particular, what could they do that ordinary people couldn't do just as well or perhaps even better?

Think different.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

sc4r

9th September 2003, 03:13

In all fairness the problem with civil cases does not really arise. Because there is no individual ownership of the means of production a great many of the sort of disputes that get settled in civil courts simply wont arise in the first place; and those that do will be much simpler and more straightforward. I imagine that most socialists would see people disputing custody of kids, seeking noise abatements, claiming personal debts, and that sort of thing would be expected to represent themselves in front of a judge or jury more in line with the sort of procedure that is followed in a small claims court now.

Dont forget that the other sort of case which increasingly enters the courts (claims for damages against firms for bad employment practises etc) should not exist since it is surely ludicrous for a Socialist to expect society to grant him penal damages.

Which leaves people accused of criminal offences. Now in point of fact quite a few countries do not have adversarial systems. In these countries the police / law enforcement agencies are expected to present evidence fairly not to secure convictions at all costs. It is not unreasonable in such circumstances again to expect people to represent themselves.

Anyone who has actually seen lawyers defending routine cases will know that a very large part of their work consists of nothing much more than looking for procedural errors by police or prosecution and routinely accusing the police of fit-ups etc. Quite why we have allowed such a ludicrous situation to come into existence where all too often whether someone is found guilty or not depends not upon whether it seems likely they actually are guilty (which is often almost beyond question), but upon whether the absolute letter of the law has been followed I do not really understand. I suspect that this is more the work of lawyers (for whom it creates business) than anything else.

You cannot, of course, ever ensure that there is absolutely no chance of someone being victimised by an ambitous or misguided prosecutor. But then again in the other system you cant seem to prevent lawyers effectively victimising the intenmtion of the law. Its all about achieving a balance.

I imagine RS will insist that only a system which can be guaranteed never to convict wrongly is acceptable. Fact is that no such system has ever been devised which did not by virtue of that ensure that many guilty go free.

Personally I would say that any socialist society which cannot rely upon its legal system and officers to do their duty without fitting up accused people or distorting the facts is going to be unworkable anyway. So I would not see any need for private lawyers at all. It might be that a modified version of the adversarial system could be usefully employed in more complex cases to genuinely ensure that no accidental bias crept in and no pre-judging took place, but I'm quite sure that in such cases it could be left to society to ensure tht an appropriately skilled person was assigned to each 'side'.

best wishes.

Conghaileach

9th September 2003, 03:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 02:43 AM
4th WE make the legal code simpler (how? you dont say of course).
Well, they say that possession in nine-tenths of the law, so when property is not such a big deal the law will have 90% cut from it. ;)

BuyOurEverything

9th September 2003, 03:32

I agree with some of what you said about lawyer manipulating procedural error to get aquittals but I don't think it's possible for one person to present a case absolutely fairly without bias. I agree most of the civil law would be irrelevant but I was thinking kind of in terms of defemation and child custody as you mentioned. A jury is 500 is unnessary and also unfair because it's alot harder to find 500 unbiased people than 12. People shouldn't be allowed to serve on a jury just because they want to! Imagine a case against an accused chil molestor! Community activist groups would get together and all sit on the jury and the case would be over before it began, they wouldn't even look at the evidence.

I thought it would be obvious--though not to you, of course. My guess is that 90% of the legal code exists for the purpose of maintaining the privileges of property or attempting to impose religious morality on the population. It will all be gone with the wind.

True, alot of it is but it's not 90% and even if it was, 10% of our current laws is still a fuck load more than would fit onto three sheets of paper. Everyone is horribly naieve if they think that we can just simplify the legal system to the point that we don't need lawyers. The second we did that, there would be debates about things not covered and different interperetations about things that are covered. Laws need to cover EVERY SINGLE SITUATION that could possibly arrise otherwise you're leaving the justice system at the mercy of the whims of a judge or sherriff or angry mob.

Conghaileach

9th September 2003, 03:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 04:12 AM
Start by asking yourself: what would lawyers DO in a communist society?

In particular, what could they do that ordinary people couldn't do just as well or perhaps even better?
I think lawyers would still exist as professionals in their field, just as we'd still have brain surgeons and other specialist professions. I imagine that the difference would be that these lawyers would be motivated by genuinely wanting to serve the community, rather than the money.

I'm currently trying to get information on the Brehon Laws. It was a set of laws practiced in Ireland until a few hundred years ago. If a Brehon, or judge, were to make a bad decision it could be challenged by those who feel wronged and if another judge found the first's decision to be wrong then he would be punished. The Brehons were well respected by all of the clans.

The laws were considered very democratic. A king carrying building material to his castle had the same and only the same claim for right of way as the miller carrying material to build his mill; the poorest man in the land could compel payment of a debt from a noble or could levy a distress upon the king himself; the man who stole the needle of a poor embroidery woman was compelled to pay a far higher fine than the man who stole the queen's needle. (Source (http://www.irish-society.org/Hedgemaster%20Archives/brehon_laws.htm))

To be honest I don't know much about the Laws, so maybe I should wait until I'm more knowledgable before commenting further.

sc4r

9th September 2003, 03:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 03:32 AM
I agree with some of what you said about lawyer manipulating procedural error to get aquittals but I don't think it's possible for one person to present a case absolutely fairly without bias. I agree most of the civil law would be irrelevant but I was thinking kind of in terms of defemation and child custody as you mentioned. A jury is 500 is unnessary and also unfair because it's alot harder to find 500 unbiased people than 12. People shouldn't be allowed to serve on a jury just because they want to! Imagine a case against an accused chil molestor! Community activist groups would get together and all sit on the jury and the case would be over before it began, they wouldn't even look at the evidence.

I thought it would be obvious--though not to you, of course. My guess is that 90% of the legal code exists for the purpose of maintaining the privileges of property or attempting to impose religious morality on the population. It will all be gone with the wind.

True, alot of it is but it's not 90% and even if it was, 10% of our current laws is still a fuck load more than would fit onto three sheets of paper. Everyone is horribly naieve if they think that we can just simplify the legal system to the point that we don't need lawyers. The second we did that, there would be debates about things not covered and different interperetations about things that are covered. Laws need to cover EVERY SINGLE SITUATION that could possibly arrise otherwise you're leaving the justice system at the mercy of the whims of a judge or sherriff or angry mob.
you could be right.

I'd think that where profesional expertise is needed to get at the facts for some reason then you are probably right that it would be more reliable to employ a 'for' and 'against' lawyer / team to work independently from the two sides.

I would have envisioned that such teams would be assigned by the court to whom the case was brought. I'd feel it reasonable to expect the court to appoint balanced teams. If you cant trust the court to do this fairly then you cannot expect a fair verdict when it comes to judgement anyway.

BuyOurEverything

9th September 2003, 04:22

OK, so the judge would appoint the lawyers, good idea. I still don't think that it would be a good idea to have a one lawyer system in any cases, as then who would decide which cases get two lawyers and which get one? It would be a slam dunk appeal for anyone who lost and so what's the point of having the first trial at all? Also, a lot of what people consider to be "procedural" arguments for aquittals are actually important in my opinion. I mean, what's the point of having procedures if you don't follow them? Police tend to violate people's rights on a daily basis by not making sure they understand their Miranda rights or by performing illegal search and seizure etc.

sc4r

9th September 2003, 06:41

Again I understand why you say this, and of course its not without some merit, ther are for and against arguments But in this case, on balance, I honestly dont agree.

The only reason is allow an appeal is important fresh evidence, or genuine evidence that the procedure during the initial trial was so butchered as to render it biased. In the second case I'd be saying that sever disciplinary actiion, probably dismissal, possibly criminal proceedings, should be brought against the judge.

Unlike some people I dont have such a lack of faith in people that I think that the only way to guarantee they do their job fairly is if they do it to the letter of the book. I know for a certain fact that far too many guilty people are retrialed, sometimes aquitted, based on what is a trivial almost spurious technical error. I also know that such accusations are very common.

It is all about balance again. No judgement system can be expected to be perfect and I see no reason why society should spend fortunes attempting to be perfect from the point of view of a defendant. Miistakes will occur either way, its unavoidable, and while we should certainly train both police and judges not to make such mistakes I dont think that when they do make trivial ones it ought to mean that society bears such a high cost (both in terms of retrials and in terms of allowing criminals to walk free).

I have a belief that a socialist system (by its nature intended to deliver justice to all) would be rather less inclined to discriminate against certain groups too.

But like I say this really is a judgement call. An extreme view either way is probably wrong.

BuyOurEverything

9th September 2003, 07:02

I see your point but I think you're being a little too idealistic. In a town or city that might work but in a country or the world I think law needs to be defined a specifically as possible otherwise you're just leaving it open to interperetation and that creates injustice. Also, everyone is biased one way or another. Instead of trying to hide by having one person try to be balanced, why not just admit it and have two people that openly admit their bias? I see no real advantage to the one lawyer system except that it is moderately less costly but I think justice is one of the most important things in a society and we can afford it. Why have social justice if you're not going to have criminal justice?

sc4r

9th September 2003, 07:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 07:02 AM
I see your point but I think you're being a little too idealistic. In a town or city that might work but in a country or the world I think law needs to be defined a specifically as possible otherwise you're just leaving it open to interperetation and that creates injustice. Also, everyone is biased one way or another. Instead of trying to hide by having one person try to be balanced, why not just admit it and have two people that openly admit their bias? I see no real advantage to the one lawyer system except that it is moderately less costly but I think justice is one of the most important things in a society and we can afford it. Why have social justice if you're not going to have criminal justice?
Well if you can afford it, ie there is nothing else you see as more important, then of course you should have it. If this were put to a vote in a socialist society and your view prevailed I'd have no grouch.

I stress I'm not going either for a single lawyer system or an adversarial system. I'm advocating a halfway house where a judge (or a jury) decides which is appropriate. I can think of ways to build fairly cheap controls into such a situation to make it less error prone and random. For example limiting sentence on single lawyer cases to (say) 2 years maximum.

I'm afraid we just have to agree to disagree on written procedure. I think it must be obvious that written procedure no matter how detailed is always capable of being challenged anyway, in fact all that happens beyond a certain point is that the written procedures themselves start to become confusing and contradictory and they are always open to interpretation anyway.

This last point frequently gets forgotten. The asumption people make is that when they say something it communicates both what is intended to everyone, and that everyone understands it the same. regrettably this is almost never true. I will go so far as to guarantee that there are things you think you are communicating to me that I'm not getting, and vice versa. Its not because either of us is deliberately misunderstanding. Its just that neither of us (like everyone else) communicate perfectly.

redstar2000

9th September 2003, 12:16

A jury is 500 is unnecessary and also unfair because it's a lot harder to find 500 unbiased people than 12.

I'm afraid you have been fooled by the myth of the "unbiased juror". There's no such thing.

The functional purpose of a "small" jury is so that they can argue the merits of the evidence with each other. The functional purpose of a "large" jury is to simply vote on the evidence, guilty or innocent.

But do not think for a second that any potential juror is "innocent of bias"...no living adult meets that qualification or ever will.

Laws need to cover EVERY SINGLE SITUATION that could possibly arise...

You sound like someone who aspires to a career in the law.

No, I think in communist society there will be broad principles of acceptable and unacceptable behavior and communities will work out the details in practice (or what is called "case law" now).

When a problem arises, the first thing people will do is go to the internet and look up all the relevant cases that have already been decided...which will probably give them a pretty good idea what to do. If it is something that really is completely new, then they will innovate...possibly provoking a regional, "national", or international debate.

OK, so the judge would appoint the lawyers, good idea.

What judge? You mean that pompous, narrow-minded asshole that sits up on a kind of throne in the front of the room and browbeats the crap out of people?

We won't have those.

There will, no doubt, be someone in the front of the room to chair the meeting--that's what "trials" will really be, meetings--but s/he won't be a "judge" in any current sense of the word.

...see people disputing custody of kids...

In communist society, children are not property. They choose who they want to live with and if the person they choose is agreeable, that's an end to it.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim

9th September 2003, 13:23

Redstar in no situation is the death sentance necesary, that makes the state as bad as the criminal. Also what happens if there is a miscarrage of justice? You will have just sent and innocent person to the gallows. They should be imprisoned fir violant crimes, in a caring enviroment, so as to rehabilitate rather than punish.

As for petty crimes community service is a much more productive and efficent system of rehabilitation, allowing the individuals to become productive members of socioty again.

With the legalisation of drugs many of the problems caused by these drugs will vanish. If drugs are given free (in moderation) to addicts to get them off the drugs so they no longer need to commit crimes to feed their addictions. Much crime will be removed almost instantly.

Redstar you claim to hate lawyers yet in other threads you support them and listen to their every conservative word with rapture as if it is the gosple, or did you forget that "junkscience.com" is run by an attorney? Now suddenly you wish to dismantle the proffesion of a person you stolidly support. A little hypocritical, or are you doing an elijahcraig on us?

:redstar2000:

redstar2000

9th September 2003, 14:32

Redstar in no situation is the death sentence necessary, that makes the state as bad as the criminal. Also what happens if there is a miscarriage of justice? You will have just sent an innocent person to the gallows. They should be imprisoned for violent crimes, in a caring environment, so as to rehabilitate rather than punish.

Well, there won't be a "state" in the contemporary sense of that word.

As to your general recommendation, things might work out that way, but I'm pretty skeptical.

For example, if you have prisons, then it follows that you must have guards. What kind of mind-set does someone have or develop over time in order to be able to cage humans and still live with himself?

Nothing even close to communist, that's for sure!

Then, there is also the public safety to consider...why should we tolerate the violently anti-social element in our midst? True, we could all carry weapons and turn our homes into fortresses, etc....but that seems like a pretty shitty way to live. Just ask the folks in Baghdad or Kabul these days.

I don't think that sort of "atmosphere" makes much of a contribution to communism either.

I reluctantly conclude therefore that when people violently attack others, commit forcible rape, or murder...that the rest of us are better off if those individuals are executed.

As I noted earlier, I think that in the long run forensic evidence (rather than human testimony) will come to be used to ultimately determine guilt or innocence...and thus sharply reduce the chances of sending an innocent person to death. There's a marked trend in that direction even now.

Finally, and this is difficult to measure, humans do seem to have a basic sense of justice that they want to see happen. Those who injure, rape or kill others "should" be made to suffer or die. Since I am opposed to making people suffer, I prefer the death penalty. I think it's actually more humane than what we do now...imprisonment for decades.

And it costs a lot less.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

BuyOurEverything

9th September 2003, 22:00

I'm afraid you have been fooled by the myth of the "unbiased juror". There's no such thing.

I'm not pretending that juries are completely unbiased but they're alot more unbiased then 500 people who woke up one morning and said, "ya know what? I'm in a bad mood, I'm gonna go hang someone today." Also, you failed to address the possibility of special interest groups loading the jury.

Laws need to cover EVERY SINGLE SITUATION that could possibly arise...

You sound like someone who aspires to a career in the law.

No, I think in communist society there will be broad principles of acceptable and unacceptable behavior and communities will work out the details in practice (or what is called "case law" now).

When a problem arises, the first thing people will do is go to the internet and look up all the relevant cases that have already been decided...which will probably give them a pretty good idea what to do. If it is something that really is completely new, then they will innovate...possibly provoking a regional, "national", or international debate.

You either make a decision in law, or let someone else decide at the trial, simple as that. Wouldn't it be better to make the law the same wherever you live? Not to mention, using old cases on the internet to make a decision is just another form of law. The more cases and conflicting judgments you get, the more complicated it would be to figure out what is applicable. You haven't solved anything.

What judge? You mean that pompous, narrow-minded asshole that sits up on a kind of throne in the front of the room and browbeats the crap out of people?

We won't have those.

There will, no doubt, be someone in the front of the room to chair the meeting--that's what "trials" will really be, meetings--but s/he won't be a "judge" in any current sense of the word.
Call him what you want

In communist society, children are not property. They choose who they want to live with and if the person they choose is agreeable, that's an end to it.
You're going to let a three year old decide if he wants to stay with his mom or dad?

sc4r

9th September 2003, 23:33

I love it. RSs will top people who commit 'forcible rape'. As opposed to what type of rape RS ? Are you by any chance engaging in your favourite hooby of obsuring what you are saying so as to leave yourself open to agree with anyone who happens not to think you are a complete wanker? Or has the politenes not to say so?

redstar2000

10th September 2003, 03:56

You're going to let a three year old decide if he wants to stay with his mom or dad?

Or even his grandmother, if both are agreeable.

Children are not property!

Even a lawyer-wannabe should be able to understand that.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

BuyOurEverything

10th September 2003, 04:27

redstar2000

10th September 2003, 18:55

Of course children aren't property but that doesn't mean small children are capable of deciding who to live with! What if it's a baby? What if the kid wants to stay with the mom but she's an alcoholic/drug addict? You have to [be] realistic, a communist society isn't going to make every family perfect. Do you honestly think you could have made an important life decision when you were four years old?

I hate to break it to you but a four-year-old child is more competent to decide who s/he wants to live with than you are.

Assuming that we are not dealing with actual abuse here, then kids should certainly decide who they want to live with.

Who knows those people better? Who knows what they are like to live with better?

Your picture of "mom" as a drunk or a junkie is partial at best...she may also be very devoted to the kid, whereas "dad" looks like "a nice, clean-cut guy" but, at home, is a bloody tyrant.

Be reminded that there's no reason why the kid can't change his/her mind, if things don't work out.

But when you have parents or third parties making those kinds of decisions...who knows what idiocies they will come up with based on who knows what kind of asinine reasoning.

I've seen some of that stuff "in real life"...and it's simply unbelievable!

You might want to look at this for more on communism and kids...

http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/monthlythe...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1052699491&archive=1054467213&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim

10th September 2003, 21:11

Lets look at the logic of RS's suggestion. Young billy (aged 5) loves daddy and wants to stay with him, rather than mummy. However daddy is a heroin adict who lives on the streets when he cant afford to pay the rent.

Great suggestion, RS. Really insparational.

redstar2000

11th September 2003, 05:21

In communist society, Colonel Blimp, there will be no homeless...even "heroin addicts" will have a place to live, food to eat, etc.

So "little Billy" won't have to live on the streets.

This inspirational message brought to you by Proletarian Revolution--the reformists' nightmare.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Blackberry

11th September 2003, 05:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 04:55 AM
I hate to break it to you but a four-year-old child is more competent to decide who s/he wants to live with than you are.

I remember distinctly where I wanted to live at age 4... at 17, I still hold the same opinion.

BuyOurEverything

11th September 2003, 06:11

OK, our existing system for dealing with children from failed marraiges is obviously flawed but your method is ridiculous. First of all, what if the child is a baby. Second, it's not fair to make children of that age decide between their mother and father. Third, small children can be easily manipulated by the parents. Maybe the dad wants to use the kid in child porn so he secretly tells the kid lies about his mother and bribes him with candy. When you're three years old, you can't see through that, generally speaking.

sc4r

11th September 2003, 07:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 06:11 AM
OK, our existing system for dealing with children from failed marraiges is obviously flawed but your method is ridiculous. First of all, what if the child is a baby. Second, it's not fair to make children of that age decide between their mother and father. Third, small children can be easily manipulated by the parents. Maybe the dad wants to use the kid in child porn so he secretly tells the kid lies about his mother and bribes him with candy. When you're three years old, you can't see through that, generally speaking.
Why should this be a problem for RS? Surely you know that in RS world there will be no junkies, no thiefs, no spongers; no mother or father would misrepresent facts to their child, and the child would possess perfect judgement anyway. I'm not even clear as to why the issue should arise , since surely in RS world no marriage would ever fail (why should it, it would imply imperfect judgement in the first place).

In RS world all problems are solved by saying 'there are no problems'.

RS world looks fantastically attractive. I'm not surprised that so many agree with him that 'this is what it should be like'. Unfortunately RS dangles the carrot of RS world to attract supporters for RS strategy. None of them seem to contemplate the fact that he never addresses the hard question of why the strategy could really be expected to lead to RS world. He solves this problem in the same way he solves others 'I see no problem'.

Invader Zim

11th September 2003, 13:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 06:21 AM
In communist society, Colonel Blimp, there will be no homeless...even "heroin addicts" will have a place to live, food to eat, etc.

So "little Billy" won't have to live on the streets.

This inspirational message brought to you by Proletarian Revolution--the reformists' nightmare.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
So how much experiance do you have being a single parant or having a single parant? (both Redstar and Neutral Nation) Im sure you think its a whole "can" of laugh's, choosing to go and live with mum or dad. At the age of five do you really think that you can make an informed desision? You see, my farther left when I was 5, so I judge my self as being in a far more informed on this than you will ever be, unless that is, you are in the same situation... which I doubt. So do not patronise us about things which you are never going to understand.

The first thing I remember about my farther was him buying me a toy train set, the first thing I remember about my mother is her making me visit the dentist. At that age who do you think I would prefer to live with, now that I look back on it, I realise my farther was an ass-hole, and I hope never to see him again unless I am holding a hocky stick.

So please do not try your bullshit with me, as Ive been there and I very much doubt you have.

RedFW

11th September 2003, 14:10

Why should this be a problem for RS? Surely you know that in RS world there will be no junkies, no thiefs, no spongers; no mother or father would misrepresent facts to their child, and the child would possess perfect judgement anyway. I'm not even clear as to why the issue should arise , since surely in RS world no marriage would ever fail (why should it, it would imply imperfect judgement in the first place).

In RS world all problems are solved by saying 'there are no problems'.

RS world looks fantastically attractive. I'm not surprised that so many agree with him that 'this is what it should be like'. Unfortunately RS dangles the carrot of RS world to attract supporters for RS strategy. None of them seem to contemplate the fact that he never addresses the hard question of why the strategy could really be expected to lead to RS world. He solves this problem in the same way he solves others 'I see no problem'.

Are you taking lessons from Moskitto? Redstar did NOT say and has never said ‘there will be no junkies, no thiefs, no spongers’, he didn’t even imply there wouldn’t be any. He did say ‘there will be no homeless...even "heroin addicts" will have a place to live, food to eat, etc.' which in itself is an admission that he believes there will still be junkies. His belief in usage of the death penalty in a communist society reveals he does believe there will be problems, there will even be serious problems. In the recent thread about ‘Who Will Clean the Sewers’, whether you agree with Redstar’s view or not, he DID say that he believed some people still would not volunteer their time outside of their normal work to complete jobs crucial to and benevolent to the community as a whole. So, from what I have read of Redstar, he has never envisaged a communist society and said ‘there are no problems’. What he HAS said is that class systems exacerbate problems that would still exist in a communist society and that a classless society would solve some of the problems engendered by a society based on a class system.

You can try and dismiss Redstar as a hippie whose ideas lack circumspect, but what he HAS said and what you claim he has said are really two different things, an approach one resorts to when one can’t argue with what is really being said; an approach not too different from Moskitto’s. *yawn*

…no mother or father would misrepresent facts to their child, and the child would possess perfect judgement anyway.

Of course this would happen. It happens now, and not only do they misrepresent the facts to children but to the courts. Did Redstar say he believed it wouldn’t happen? He did say that he trusted the ability of a child to choose with whom he or she lives (maybe the age or ability of the child to articulate its proclivity to either parent needs to be clarified but I hazard a guess, based on my experience with children, it could be from 3-5 years old) and has subsequently clarified his view by saying that it needn’t be a permanent choice.

In fact, a child could choose to live alternately with both parents, already an arrangement some children benefit from now. So, if a parent did misrepresent facts to a child, the child would be able to change its mind about which parent to live with if the parent they originally chose to live with could not meet their needs. Moreover, I don’t see why it need be a parent if another relation, familial or otherwise, could meet these needs.

Of course children do not posses perfect judgement, who does? At present, it seems that when decisions about custody are made, they are very difficult to change once a court decision has been made, unless both parents can come to an agreement about changes outside of court and there are no court orders preventing one parent from having custody or orders restricting the amount and type of visitation are not in place. Money to finance changes to custody arrangements can delay the process. And there are hearings and papers to be served before any action is taken. I think a child’s judgement is most important when considering this; they are the ones who have actually experienced living with their parents. And if they happen to make a wrong choice, as do the judges who award/deny custody, why shouldn’t they be allowed to make another choice?

It could be argued that just one wrong choice could also be a dangerous choice, but that is also true at present; however, if we are talking about violence/child abuse, at present children have to have been badly injured for anyone to take any notice and by this time it has probably been going on for some time, but there is no choice for the child to leave the home and live with someone else until someone else notices or decides to speak up about it. And not all forms of child abuse leave bruises. If the child runs away and is found it gets sent straight back to its parents and for older children they are almost criminalised for leaving. Children, at present, can be completely abandoned by their parents and their parents can still control where and with whom they live, with no possibility for change until someone takes notice or has the money to change the situation and even then the parent still has the right to delay the process, sometimes for years.

Like all changes, and these would be absolutely huge changes to the way children are viewed and treated, there are lots of questions that will arise, like the one about children being able to articulate their desire to be parented by a certain person and what happens when the child cannot yet articulate this or in the case of some disabled children, will never be able to articulate it. They are serious questions, but I don’t think they are so complex as to never be resolved, especially if the desire to meet the needs of the child are the motivation for finding the answers, something I am not convinced is completely the motivation at present.

Invader Zim

11th September 2003, 15:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 03:10 PM

Why should this be a problem for RS? Surely you know that in RS world there will be no junkies, no thiefs, no spongers; no mother or father would misrepresent facts to their child, and the child would possess perfect judgement anyway. I'm not even clear as to why the issue should arise , since surely in RS world no marriage would ever fail (why should it, it would imply imperfect judgement in the first place).

In RS world all problems are solved by saying 'there are no problems'.

RS world looks fantastically attractive. I'm not surprised that so many agree with him that 'this is what it should be like'. Unfortunately RS dangles the carrot of RS world to attract supporters for RS strategy. None of them seem to contemplate the fact that he never addresses the hard question of why the strategy could really be expected to lead to RS world. He solves this problem in the same way he solves others 'I see no problem'.

Are you taking lessons from Moskitto? Redstar did NOT say and has never said ‘there will be no junkies, no thiefs, no spongers’, he didn’t even imply there wouldn’t be any. He did say ‘there will be no homeless...even "heroin addicts" will have a place to live, food to eat, etc.' which in itself is an admission that he believes there will still be junkies. His belief in usage of the death penalty in a communist society reveals he does believe there will be problems, there will even be serious problems. In the recent thread about ‘Who Will Clean the Sewers’, whether you agree with Redstar’s view or not, he DID say that he believed some people still would not volunteer their time outside of their normal work to complete jobs crucial to and benevolent to the community as a whole. So, from what I have read of Redstar, he has never envisaged a communist society and said ‘there are no problems’. What he HAS said is that class systems exacerbate problems that would still exist in a communist society and that a classless society would solve some of the problems engendered by a society based on a class system.

You can try and dismiss Redstar as a hippie whose ideas lack circumspect, but what he HAS said and what you claim he has said are really two different things, an approach one resorts to when one can’t argue with what is really being said; an approach not too different from Moskitto’s. *yawn*

…no mother or father would misrepresent facts to their child, and the child would possess perfect judgement anyway.

Of course this would happen. It happens now, and not only do they misrepresent the facts to children but to the courts. Did Redstar say he believed it wouldn’t happen? He did say that he trusted the ability of a child to choose with whom he or she lives (maybe the age or ability of the child to articulate its proclivity to either parent needs to be clarified but I hazard a guess, based on my experience with children, it could be from 3-5 years old) and has subsequently clarified his view by saying that it needn’t be a permanent choice.

In fact, a child could choose to live alternately with both parents, already an arrangement some children benefit from now. So, if a parent did misrepresent facts to a child, the child would be able to change its mind about which parent to live with if the parent they originally chose to live with could not meet their needs. Moreover, I don’t see why it need be a parent if another relation, familial or otherwise, could meet these needs.

Of course children do not posses perfect judgement, who does? At present, it seems that when decisions about custody are made, they are very difficult to change once a court decision has been made, unless both parents can come to an agreement about changes outside of court and there are no court orders preventing one parent from having custody or orders restricting the amount and type of visitation are not in place. Money to finance changes to custody arrangements can delay the process. And there are hearings and papers to be served before any action is taken. I think a child’s judgement is most important when considering this; they are the ones who have actually experienced living with their parents. And if they happen to make a wrong choice, as do the judges who award/deny custody, why shouldn’t they be allowed to make another choice?

It could be argued that just one wrong choice could also be a dangerous choice, but that is also true at present; however, if we are talking about violence/child abuse, at present children have to have been badly injured for anyone to take any notice and by this time it has probably been going on for some time, but there is no choice for the child to leave the home and live with someone else until someone else notices or decides to speak up about it. And not all forms of child abuse leave bruises. If the child runs away and is found it gets sent straight back to its parents and for older children they are almost criminalised for leaving. Children, at present, can be completely abandoned by their parents and their parents can still control where and with whom they live, with no possibility for change until someone takes notice or has the money to change the situation and even then the parent still has the right to delay the process, sometimes for years.

Like all changes, and these would be absolutely huge changes to the way children are viewed and treated, there are lots of questions that will arise, like the one about children being able to articulate their desire to be parented by a certain person and what happens when the child cannot yet articulate this or in the case of some disabled children, will never be able to articulate it. They are serious questions, but I don’t think they are so complex as to never be resolved, especially if the desire to meet the needs of the child are the motivation for finding the answers, something I am not convinced is completely the motivation at present.
You can try and dismiss Redstar as a hippie whose ideas lack circumspect, but what he HAS said and what you claim he has said are really two different things,

Well what he has said is ludercrus to the extream, what little embelishment sc4r adds isnt going to change the underlying truth of that.

, an approach one resorts to when one can’t argue with what is really being said; an approach not too different from Moskitto’s. *yawn*

1. Moskitto, made an error, we all do, its part of being Human, or do you claim to be infalible?

2. When Moskitto did argue with you he absolutly destroyed your arguments. Especially when you tried to claim that abortion had no adverse affects on the womans health. Which any even remotly informed person can tell you.

So get over it.

(maybe the age or ability of the child to articulate its proclivity to either parent needs to be clarified but I hazard a guess, based on my experience with children, it could be from 3-5 years old)

You cannot ask a child of any age to decide which parent they like most. As it has very obvious problems (if you cant see these I dont even see why you are participating in this descussion, but I will spell them out for you), one parent will always tend to be more leniant with a child than another parent, for example a child may not want to eat their food, the good parent will make them eat it, where as the leniant parent will just let them move on to pudding. The Child is obviously going to want to live with the leniant parent, who gives the child what it wants rather than what it needs. This is why a child is not in any position to to make the ultimate desision. The childs views should be taken into account, but most certainly not be the only or even deciding consideration.

RedFW

11th September 2003, 16:24

Well what he has said is ludercrus to the extream, what little embelishment sc4r adds isnt going to change the underlying truth of that.

If Redstar's views are so ludicrous why does sc4r need to add a 'little embelishment' to dismiss them? Why not argue with what Redstar really was saying instead of trying to pretend his views are something else, something easier to dismiss?

1. Moskitto, made an error, we all do, its part of being Human, or do you claim to be infalible?

2. When Moskitto did argue with you he absolutly destroyed your arguments. Especially when you tried to claim that abortion had no adverse affects on the womans health. Which any even remotly informed person can tell you.

We have discussed both of these points via pm. I replied to yours, you know, the one you never replied to.*chortle*

1. I don't think it was a mistake, and I gave you the reasons in my pm.

2. Care to provide a link, AK? I asked you to do so when you said this last time. He never replied to my request for sources, never gave the studies he was referring to, never revealed which medical journal/dictionary/textbook he was getting his 'facts' from. He didn't even reply when I noted that what he purported to be 'facts' appeared on several anti-choice sites which still listed a risk between breast cancer and abortion, a myth that was 'absolutly destroyed' by Planned Parenthood (studies listed on their site) ages ago. All he offered was Women's Health According to Moskitto.

You cannot ask a child of any age to decide which parent they like most. As it has very obvious problems (if you cant see these I dont even see why you are participating in this descussion, but I will spell them out for you), one parent will always tend to be more leniant with a child than another parent, for example a child may not want to eat their food, the good parent will make them eat it, where as the leniant parent will just let them move on to pudding. The Child is obviously going to want to live with the leniant parent, who gives the child what it wants rather than what it needs. This is why a child is not in any position to to make the ultimate desision. The childs views should be taken into account, but most certainly not be the only or even deciding consideration.

I don't agree that it is always true that one parent will be more lenient or even that leniency automatically means the child's needs are not being met. And I don't think, if given the choice, which children often are not, that most children, assuming there is no child abuse, would choose to live exclusively with one parent. Just because one parent is lenient and a child picks up on that doesn't mean he or she will not also want the company of the other parent as well or will want to completely abandon the other parent. And the child may choose to live with the lenient parent exclusively, but does not mean the child will not want to see the other parent or stay with them. Who should be in a position to make the ulitimate decision, AK? I doubt the tendency of one parent to give a child its pudding before it has entirely finished its dinner will ever be a deciding factor.

mEds

11th September 2003, 17:21

what about speeding tickets? we should SURELY abolish all speed controls. Just look at germany....sure there uber capitalists but that no speed limit works fine there.

mEds

11th September 2003, 17:22

And ak47 what kind of idiot Quotes a WHOLE POST thatsa few pages long if only referring to parts of it..

Invader Zim

11th September 2003, 18:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 05:24 PM

Well what he has said is ludercrus to the extream, what little embelishment sc4r adds isnt going to change the underlying truth of that.

If Redstar's views are so ludicrous why does sc4r need to add a 'little embelishment' to dismiss them? Why not argue with what Redstar really was saying instead of trying to pretend his views are something else, something easier to dismiss?

1. Moskitto, made an error, we all do, its part of being Human, or do you claim to be infalible?

2. When Moskitto did argue with you he absolutly destroyed your arguments. Especially when you tried to claim that abortion had no adverse affects on the womans health. Which any even remotly informed person can tell you.

We have discussed both of these points via pm. I replied to yours, you know, the one you never replied to.*chortle*

1. I don't think it was a mistake, and I gave you the reasons in my pm.

2. Care to provide a link, AK? I asked you to do so when you said this last time. He never replied to my request for sources, never gave the studies he was referring to, never revealed which medical journal/dictionary/textbook he was getting his 'facts' from. He didn't even reply when I noted that what he purported to be 'facts' appeared on several anti-choice sites which still listed a risk between breast cancer and abortion, a myth that was 'absolutly destroyed' by Planned Parenthood (studies listed on their site) ages ago. All he offered was Women's Health According to Moskitto.

You cannot ask a child of any age to decide which parent they like most. As it has very obvious problems (if you cant see these I dont even see why you are participating in this descussion, but I will spell them out for you), one parent will always tend to be more leniant with a child than another parent, for example a child may not want to eat their food, the good parent will make them eat it, where as the leniant parent will just let them move on to pudding. The Child is obviously going to want to live with the leniant parent, who gives the child what it wants rather than what it needs. This is why a child is not in any position to to make the ultimate desision. The childs views should be taken into account, but most certainly not be the only or even deciding consideration.

I don't agree that it is always true that one parent will be more lenient or even that leniency automatically means the child's needs are not being met. And I don't think, if given the choice, which children often are not, that most children, assuming there is no child abuse, would choose to live exclusively with one parent. Just because one parent is lenient and a child picks up on that doesn't mean he or she will not also want the company of the other parent as well or will want to completely abandon the other parent. And the child may choose to live with the lenient parent exclusively, but does not mean the child will not want to see the other parent or stay with them. Who should be in a position to make the ulitimate decision, AK? I doubt the tendency of one parent to give a child its pudding before it has entirely finished its dinner will ever be a deciding factor.
If Redstar's views are so ludicrous why does sc4r need to add a 'little embelishment' to dismiss them? Why not argue with what Redstar really was saying instead of trying to pretend his views are something else, something easier to dismiss?

As it was not me who embelished the posts, do you not think that your question would be better directed to somebody else?

We have discussed both of these points via pm. I replied to yours, you know, the one you never replied to.*chortle*

I never replied because, what you said was mearly a repeat of what you had said in the thread. There was no need to reply, as no new argument was put forward.

1. I don't think it was a mistake, and I gave you the reasons in my pm.

Well I know him personnaly and was in the room when he posted the "offending" material. So I think I know a hell of a lot more about what he "meant" to far better than you do. Or do your evident powers of telepathy work with more efficency than my powers of sight and hearing?

2. Care to provide a link, AK?

Actually yes, several.

http://www.w-cpc.org/abortion/physical.html

http://www.w-cpc.org/abortion/physical.html

http://www.iol.ie/~hlii/abortion_risks.html

http://www.wprc.org/abortion/emotion.html

I don't agree that it is always true that one parent will be more lenient or even that leniency automatically means the child's needs are not being met.

You can believe what you like, but in practically any pair of parents one will be more leniant in comaprison to the other,due to the fact that one may have a more forceful character or whatever.

even that leniency automatically means the child's needs are not being met.

I never said that being leniant was necessarily going to mean that the parant is not meeting the childs needs. I just said that they are unlikley to be as good a parant as the less leniant parant. Have you been "aking lessons from Moskitto"as well, as you put it?

Just because one parent is lenient and a child picks up on that doesn't mean he or she will not also want the company of the other parent as well or will want to completely abandon the other parent. And the child may choose to live with the lenient parent exclusively, but does not mean the child will not want to see the other parent or stay with them. Who should be in a position to make the ulitimate decision, AK?

That is not the issue, child custody gives legal guardianship to a specific parent, it does not usually mean that the other parent will never get to see the child. Your point is completely irrelavant.

I doubt the tendency of one parent to give a child its pudding before it has entirely finished its dinner will ever be a deciding factor.

That was obviously just an example.

Invader Zim

11th September 2003, 21:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 06:22 PM
And ak47 what kind of idiot Quotes a WHOLE POST thatsa few pages long if only referring to parts of it..
What kind of idiot, has a dancing banana as their avatar? I have neither the time nor the inclanation to explain my self to you. That is unless you suddenly prove to me that you are not just another ignorant fool who will join only for two weeks and then bugger off with your grand total of 50 something posts.

The member formaly known as AK47.

redstar2000

12th September 2003, 00:38

Well, it looks like we may have the beginnings of another "people are not property" thread.

I'm sure you think it's a whole "can" of laughs, choosing to go and live with mum or dad.

I'm sure it's a pretty serious matter, especially for a very young child who will be tempted to think "it's my fault" that this family couldn't function.

Is it the situation you are trying to trivialize...or just my views of it?

At the age of five, do you really think that you can make an informed decision?

Informed? Informed of what? All the kid needs to do is "pick one". They will pick who they want to live with.

Do you really believe that you or some third party should have the right to force someone to live with another person...on the grounds that you are bigger than them, and therefore they can't punch your arrogant face in like you deserve?!

The first thing I remember about my father was him buying me a toy train set; the first thing I remember about my mother is her making me visit the dentist. At that age who do you think I would prefer to live with? Now that I look back on it, I realise my farther was an ass-hole, and I hope never to see him again unless I am holding a hockey stick.

Fair enough; but perhaps if you had had the chance to live with your father, he would have turned out to be a different kind of person (kids change the adults they live with...a lot).

Who knows? More train sets and fewer trips to the dentist and you might not be a supporter of U.S. imperialism...

The child is obviously going to want to live with the lenient parent, who gives the child what it wants rather than what it needs.

So? Is it not better to live with people who are nice to you than people who are mean to you "for your own good"?

Or is there an aspiring Leninist beneath your facade of "nice guy" reformist? Do you really believe that people, like sheep, need to be "herded" in the "right direction" whether they like it or not?

Maybe you believe that "suffering is good for the soul" or some such crap.

Or is it just kids, in your view, who should be shit upon?

Well what he has said is ludicrous to the extreme...

I suppose to suggest that children are not property is "ludicrous" to someone who lives in class society and fundamentally accepts its norms, its "rightness".

Whatever "changes" in the social order you might at one time or another propose, you fundamentally accept a social pyramid of inequality...where, among other things, big people decide the fate of little people without regard to their own wishes in the matter.

Hierarchy and dominance/submission are rooted so deeply in your whole outlook that you would embarrass a baboon.

Call yourself "AK47" or "Enigma" or whatever you like: at heart you are Colonel Blimp and everything you say about everything just confirms that.

What a "great mum" you must have had! :o

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

BuyOurEverything

12th September 2003, 01:41

This has nothing to do with property. Why do you persist in assuming that because I don't think a baby is capable of making an important life decision, I view them as property and believe I should decide their destiny? I already said, I don't think the existing system works. I just don't see how you can advocate forcing children to decide between their parents when their not even old enough to read. Kids that age will believe anything you tell them, I know I was one.

So? Is it not better to live with people who are nice to you than people who are mean to you "for your own good"?
No it isn't when you're that age. Small children can't understand the consequences of doing whatever they want when their that age.
Anyways, it seems that we're just talking past each other. Suffice to say, you're horribly naive.

redstar2000

12th September 2003, 03:06

This has nothing to do with property. Why do you persist in assuming that because I don't think a baby is capable of making an important life decision, I view them as property and believe I should decide their destiny?

If you don't want to decide, fine.

What we are speaking of here is who decides.

Inserting infants into the matter is a distraction. If you're not old enough to communicate a decision, then you obviously don't get to decide.

(But note that there's been a good deal of research on infants in recent decades...someday it might well be possible for an infant to convey a preference without being able to speak.)

I just don't see how you can advocate forcing children to decide between their parents when their not even old enough to read. Kids that age will believe anything you tell them, I know I was one.

Who said anything about force?

Is it so hard to just ask the kid her/his preferences? If the kid is undecided, well, that's a different situation. Maybe both parents are really great or really awful. Maybe there should be other choices available.

Where is your common sense?

What I am proposing is that this kind of choice is too important to be left to people who are unaffected by the consequences.

Should I be allowed to order you to live with someone you detest? On the grounds that I'm bigger than you?

Small children can't understand the consequences of doing whatever they want when they're that age.

News flash! None of us ever "understands the consequences" of what we do before we do it and not even after we do it. Only "gods" are omniscient.

We do whatever we can to protect children from the inevitable dangers of living in a world that was not designed for either their safety or their convenience.

But that is not what you're really getting at, is it?

Like it or not, you want it to be acceptable for someone to be able to force a child to live with someone whom they do not want to live with...on the specious grounds that that someone "knows what's best for the child".

Suffice to say, you're horribly naive.

Suffice it to say, from the kid's point of view, you're just horrible, period.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

BuyOurEverything

12th September 2003, 03:26

Inserting infants into the matter is a distraction. If you're not old enough to communicate a decision, then you obviously don't get to decide.

Well who does then?

Who said anything about force?

Is it so hard to just ask the kid her/his preferences?

Are you kidding? That's a horrible decision for a child that small to make. There's no way you can convince me that it's a good thing for a child that small to be made to chose between his parents. Saying that "I" don't have a right to tell the kid where to live is sidestepping the issue.

Should I be allowed to order you to live with someone you detest? On the grounds that I'm bigger than you?
Would you allow a three year old to decide he want's to leave home because his parents made him eat his brocolli? Why is it any different when the parents are seperated?

News flash! None of us ever "understands the consequences" of what we do before we do it and not even after we do it. Only "gods" are omniscient.

I was talking about the consequences of things like eating nothing but candy and other things that kids want to do. We DO know the consequences of these things.

Like it or not, you want it to be acceptable for someone to be able to force a child to live with someone whom they do not want to live with...on the specious grounds that that someone "knows what's best for the child".

There's a difference between FORCING a child to live with a parent they HATE and asking them to chose who they want to live with. Not to mention, with the parents just broken up, the child is likely in no condition to be deciding their own living conditions (not that they ever are.)

Invader Zim

12th September 2003, 06:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 01:38 AM
Well, it looks like we may have the beginnings of another "people are not property" thread.

I'm sure you think it's a whole "can" of laughs, choosing to go and live with mum or dad.

I'm sure it's a pretty serious matter, especially for a very young child who will be tempted to think "it's my fault" that this family couldn't function.

Is it the situation you are trying to trivialize...or just my views of it?

At the age of five, do you really think that you can make an informed decision?

Informed? Informed of what? All the kid needs to do is "pick one". They will pick who they want to live with.

Do you really believe that you or some third party should have the right to force someone to live with another person...on the grounds that you are bigger than them, and therefore they can't punch your arrogant face in like you deserve?!

The first thing I remember about my father was him buying me a toy train set; the first thing I remember about my mother is her making me visit the dentist. At that age who do you think I would prefer to live with? Now that I look back on it, I realise my farther was an ass-hole, and I hope never to see him again unless I am holding a hockey stick.

Fair enough; but perhaps if you had had the chance to live with your father, he would have turned out to be a different kind of person (kids change the adults they live with...a lot).

Who knows? More train sets and fewer trips to the dentist and you might not be a supporter of U.S. imperialism...

The child is obviously going to want to live with the lenient parent, who gives the child what it wants rather than what it needs.

So? Is it not better to live with people who are nice to you than people who are mean to you "for your own good"?

Or is there an aspiring Leninist beneath your facade of "nice guy" reformist? Do you really believe that people, like sheep, need to be "herded" in the "right direction" whether they like it or not?

Maybe you believe that "suffering is good for the soul" or some such crap.

Or is it just kids, in your view, who should be shit upon?

Well what he has said is ludicrous to the extreme...

I suppose to suggest that children are not property is "ludicrous" to someone who lives in class society and fundamentally accepts its norms, its "rightness".

Whatever "changes" in the social order you might at one time or another propose, you fundamentally accept a social pyramid of inequality...where, among other things, big people decide the fate of little people without regard to their own wishes in the matter.

Hierarchy and dominance/submission are rooted so deeply in your whole outlook that you would embarrass a baboon.

Call yourself "AK47" or "Enigma" or whatever you like: at heart you are Colonel Blimp and everything you say about everything just confirms that.

What a "great mum" you must have had! :o

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Informed? Informed of what? All the kid needs to do is "pick one". They will pick who they want to live with.

Based on what though? The person who gives them what they want or the person who gives them what they need. And unless you wish to "spoil" a child, to much of something good is practically always a bad thing because you come to expect it.

Do you really believe that you or some third party should have the right to force someone to live with another person...on the grounds that you are bigger than them, and therefore they can't punch your arrogant face in like you deserve?!

A third party with an unbias perspective, well at least not as bias, is in a far better to make a decision which is in the childs best interest, even if the child does not know it.

Fair enough; but perhaps if you had had the chance to live with your father, he would have turned out to be a different kind of person (kids change the adults they live with...a lot).

Well as I hear he has a fair sized number of other kids I doubt one more would have made a startling differance.

Who knows? More train sets and fewer trips to the dentist and you might not be a supporter of U.S. imperialism...

Who knows maybe if you debated better you would not have to resort to bringing up different completely unrelated issues, when the flaws of your argument are exposed.

So? Is it not better to live with people who are nice to you than people who are mean to you "for your own good"?

At the age of 4-5 eating your veg may appear to be mean, at the age of 20+ whenever or you happen have kids, giving your kid a nutritional diet (so they dont become fat, and dont get bullied for it later) doesnt seam such a bad idea.

Or is there an aspiring Leninist beneath your facade of "nice guy" reformist? Do you really believe that people, like sheep, need to be "herded" in the "right direction" whether they like it or not?

LOL :lol: :D ... yet more evading the point of the issue.

I suppose to suggest that children are not property is "ludicrous" to someone who lives in class society and fundamentally accepts its norms, its "rightness".

No, I suggest that a small child has niether the experiance nor the capacity to make a decision which you expect of small children.

Whatever "changes" in the social order you might at one time or another propose, you fundamentally accept a social pyramid of inequality...where, among other things, big people decide the fate of little people without regard to their own wishes in the matter.

Hierarchy and dominance/submission are rooted so deeply in your whole outlook that you would embarrass a baboon.

Blah, blah, blah, as amuzing as your foolish attacks are, please stick to the issue. I know itshard for you especially when you are losing the dabate, but at least try.

sc4r

12th September 2003, 06:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 02:10 PM
Are you taking lessons from Moskitto? Redstar did NOT say and has never said ‘there will be no junkies, no thiefs, no spongers’, he didn’t even imply there wouldn’t be any. He did say ‘there will be no homeless...even "heroin addicts" will have a place to live, food to eat, etc.' which in itself is an admission that he believes there will still be junkies.
Saying he believes there will be none at all is of course an exagerration. But he most certainly does avoid addressing flaws (huge flaws) in his ideas by simply saying 'people wont be like that', 'people will work that out', 'they will organise themselves', etc etc etc. Some of these assertions are quite ludicrous to anybody who understands much about organisation. They do not merely require an almost total transfomation in attitudes and behaviour but in some cases would neccessitate people aquiring mind reading skils and instant data processing capabilities to rival the Cray supercomputer.

But let me ask the question [b]would[b] you allow a child to live with a junkie? Junkie does not in this context simply mean 'a heroin addict'. It implies a lifestyle which is destructive and careless. I doubt that even RS would think it a good idea. So how come it is not a problem? Answer - because RS is indeed saying there will be no Junkies. IN RS world Heroin addicts may exist, but not Junkies.

Yep I'm dismissive of RS.

Lets have a look at the 'children should not be Property' argument for further enlightenment on why I'm so dismissive.

Nobody here has ever said children should be considered property. Which measn that RS comment can only make sense if he is saying that any decision taken by another which affects you renders you property. That means that RS's communes are the property of other communes (other communes will apparently cut off supplies if they feel a commune is not performing); it means he considers US civilian workers in Iraq to be 'property' (he'd murder them); and numerous other examples.

The real truth is that as in so many other places RS simply inserts a word he knows will instantly create sympathy for him in the minds of many here and then uses the quite nebulous word association as a platform to 'win the argument'. RS quite simply argues about words not substance, he rarely does otherwise.

RS will allow a child to decide whether it lives with its mother or its father (or somewhere else presumably). Is he really going to allow a 1 yr old to do the same ? I imagine not; so where he does he draw his line? he is after all saying that other people must not draw an abitrary line, yet I assume he is doing exactly the same (though as usuall he avoids saying so, either deliberately because he isn't really interested in exploring truth, or because he simply has not thought anything through).

I'll bet that he will say 'when it can communicate'. This would fail because the determination of what constitutes communication is itself not an absolute, someone would have to decide.

Thats why I'm so dismissive of him. His only consistency is that he will indeed always maintain that certain words are 'bad'; but he attaches those words to concepts almost at random without any thought for whether they can properly apply or whether he is being contradictory.

RedFW

12th September 2003, 08:52

As it was not me who embelished the posts, do you not think that your question would be better directed to somebody else?

As it was you who decided to answer the post I made to sc4r, I was replying to you. Whether you think it is better directed at sc4r is neither here nor there. You answered it and I replied to you. If you don't like it, you don't have to answer things that are not addressed to you in future.

I never replied because, what you said was mearly a repeat of what you had said in the thread. There was no need to reply, as no new argument was put forward.

Indeed it was. You never discredited my argument, so why would I need to pm you a new one?

Well I know him personnaly and was in the room when he posted the "offending" material. So I think I know a hell of a lot more about what he "meant" to far better than you do. Or do your evident powers of telepathy work with more efficency than my powers of sight and hearing?

You may know Moskitto better than anyone on this board, but I based my judgment on what he has posted here, and I gave you the reasons. I am not convinced it was an accident because it wasn't the first time he has done it and he has done it to the same person twice. All the 'I hate Redstar threads' on various boards do not win him any points either.

And you misunderstood when I asked for a link, AK. You said:

When Moskitto did argue with you he absolutly destroyed your arguments. Especially when you tried to claim that abortion had no adverse affects on the womans health. Which any even remotly informed person can tell you.

If Moskitto did indeed destroy my arguments, then surely you can link to the thread and everyone will see him for the poor, misunderstood scientific genius he is. And I never said that abortions were risk free. Of course there are risks, that is true with any operation someone has, that is why it is so important to have safe, legal abortions for women. But other 'risks' and 'adverse effects' are either hugely exaggerated or invented to suit the pro-life lobby.

You can believe what you like, but in practically any pair of parents one will be more leniant in comaprison to the other,due to the fact that one may have a more forceful character or whatever.

And you too can believe what you like. *shrug* I know that all families are different, some parents may be more lenient than others, some may be equally strict, both may be lenient but that does not automatically follow that the needs of the child are not being met or cannot be met by a more lenient parent and children will not always choose the more lenient parent. In my experience, having a parent who was consistent was more appealing than having a parent who let me do what I liked or was indifferent to me. I definitely felt more loved and looked after with the former and definitely respected the former more than the latter.

I never said that being leniant was necessarily going to mean that the parant is not meeting the childs needs. I just said that they are unlikley to be as good a parant as the less leniant parant. Have you been "aking lessons from Moskitto"as well, as you put it?

You said:

The Child is obviously going to want to live with the leniant parent, who gives the child what it wants rather than what it needs.

By saying the lenient parent will give the child what it wants rather than what it needs IS saying the child's will not be met.

Just because one parent is lenient and a child picks up on that doesn't mean he or she will not also want the company of the other parent as well or will want to completely abandon the other parent. And the child may choose to live with the lenient parent exclusively, but does not mean the child will not want to see the other parent or stay with them. Who should be in a position to make the ulitimate decision, AK?

That is not the issue, child custody gives legal guardianship to a specific parent, it does not usually mean that the other parent will never get to see the child. Your point is completely irrelavant.

Your argument was that allowing children to decide with whom they are to live with was not practical because they would choose the more lenient parent. I responded that if a child did choose the more lenient parent, it would not automatically follow that the other 'good' parent's influence would cease altogether. So, I don't see why you were so quick to dismiss it.

sc4r

12th September 2003, 11:27

I think that like so many arguments between socialists this whole thing really boils down to whether it is intelligent to take a theoretical statement and then try to apply it absolutely across the board, or whether to recognise right at the outset that theoretical statements address generalities, make simplifying assumptions, and must be modified when talking about reality in specific circumstances.

In this example I doubt anyone here would argue with the general concept that people should be entitled to make their own decisons about matters that concern them. And thats the theoretical position that RS and RedFW are defending in essence.

But that generality simply fails to recognise that their are circumstances when allowing this will lead to harm. Either to society, to others, to the individual, or to all three.

And this is the case when discussing whether to allow a child to decide such important issues as with whom it will live. Make no mistake nobody here is suggesting that the childs input should be disregarded; only that it should not have the final say. Why? because quite simply a child does not have the experience to make intelligent judgements. Surely nobody here would seriously think that a 5 yr old is as competent as a 35 year old in making judgements (in general, in some specific examples it may of course be). Would anyone say it was OK for a double glazing salesman to take an order from a 5 yr old? of course not.

Once you have accepted that there is any age at all at which a child is not really the best judge then all you are arguing about is where to draw the line. To decide at what age a child probably is competent. This is highly debatable. Teenagers, for excample, are notorious for swapping between separated parents when given the opportunity to do so. Like most of us they dont look atr long term implications but only at what it is in for them right now. This is very poor judgement and I see no reason to simply say 'fuck em , its their hard luck'; thats like it or not, is what is implied by RS's position.

I'd set the age about where it is now - 15 or 16. Others may have a different view, and frankly I'd not care to dispute it unless is was senselesly low (like 5). What all who are arguing against RS are disputing is his absolutism not the idea that their may be a lower age than the current one to allow a person to take control of his/ her own life.

I dont understand why Redstar consistently takes this view that children should be allowed to judge for themselves, and that that those judgements should be acceptable. Frankly I dont like what it might imply; because I know, even if you do not, what class of people consistently push that view, and why.

I apologise in advance to RS for the above paragraph. I am not saying he is like that, I am saying that the view is shared by people like that.

Invader Zim

12th September 2003, 12:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 09:52 AM

As it was not me who embelished the posts, do you not think that your question would be better directed to somebody else?

As it was you who decided to answer the post I made to sc4r, I was replying to you. Whether you think it is better directed at sc4r is neither here nor there. You answered it and I replied to you. If you don't like it, you don't have to answer things that are not addressed to you in future.

I never replied because, what you said was mearly a repeat of what you had said in the thread. There was no need to reply, as no new argument was put forward.

Indeed it was. You never discredited my argument, so why would I need to pm you a new one?

Well I know him personnaly and was in the room when he posted the "offending" material. So I think I know a hell of a lot more about what he "meant" to far better than you do. Or do your evident powers of telepathy work with more efficency than my powers of sight and hearing?

You may know Moskitto better than anyone on this board, but I based my judgment on what he has posted here, and I gave you the reasons. I am not convinced it was an accident because it wasn't the first time he has done it and he has done it to the same person twice. All the 'I hate Redstar threads' on various boards do not win him any points either.

And you misunderstood when I asked for a link, AK. You said:

When Moskitto did argue with you he absolutly destroyed your arguments. Especially when you tried to claim that abortion had no adverse affects on the womans health. Which any even remotly informed person can tell you.

If Moskitto did indeed destroy my arguments, then surely you can link to the thread and everyone will see him for the poor, misunderstood scientific genius he is. And I never said that abortions were risk free. Of course there are risks, that is true with any operation someone has, that is why it is so important to have safe, legal abortions for women. But other 'risks' and 'adverse effects' are either hugely exaggerated or invented to suit the pro-life lobby.

You can believe what you like, but in practically any pair of parents one will be more leniant in comaprison to the other,due to the fact that one may have a more forceful character or whatever.

And you too can believe what you like. *shrug* I know that all families are different, some parents may be more lenient than others, some may be equally strict, both may be lenient but that does not automatically follow that the needs of the child are not being met or cannot be met by a more lenient parent and children will not always choose the more lenient parent. In my experience, having a parent who was consistent was more appealing than having a parent who let me do what I liked or was indifferent to me. I definitely felt more loved and looked after with the former and definitely respected the former more than the latter.

I never said that being leniant was necessarily going to mean that the parant is not meeting the childs needs. I just said that they are unlikley to be as good a parant as the less leniant parant. Have you been "aking lessons from Moskitto"as well, as you put it?

You said:

The Child is obviously going to want to live with the leniant parent, who gives the child what it wants rather than what it needs.

By saying the lenient parent will give the child what it wants rather than what it needs IS saying the child's will not be met.

Just because one parent is lenient and a child picks up on that doesn't mean he or she will not also want the company of the other parent as well or will want to completely abandon the other parent. And the child may choose to live with the lenient parent exclusively, but does not mean the child will not want to see the other parent or stay with them. Who should be in a position to make the ulitimate decision, AK?

That is not the issue, child custody gives legal guardianship to a specific parent, it does not usually mean that the other parent will never get to see the child. Your point is completely irrelavant.

Your argument was that allowing children to decide with whom they are to live with was not practical because they would choose the more lenient parent. I responded that if a child did choose the more lenient parent, it would not automatically follow that the other 'good' parent's influence would cease altogether. So, I don't see why you were so quick to dismiss it.
As it was you who decided to answer the post I made to sc4r, I was replying to you. Whether you think it is better directed at sc4r is neither here nor there. You answered it and I replied to you. If you don't like it, you don't have to answer things that are not addressed to you in future.

Well that is what a message board is for, it is to respond to messages left from different members, so like all your arguments in this thread, this one is flawed as well. If you want an argument to only be answered by one person then send it in a PM, as that is what it is therefor. And until I gain the power to read minds I will never know the answer to your question: -

If Redstar's views are so ludicrous why does sc4r need to add a 'little embelishment' to dismiss them?

Indeed it was. You never discredited my argument, so why would I need to pm you a new one?[/i]

Actually I did, in the thread and PM, then you just regurgitated the same arguments into different wording. So why waste my time arguing points I have already said my piece on?

[b]QUOTE
The Child is obviously going to want to live with the leniant parent, who gives the child what it wants rather than what it needs.

By saying the lenient parent will give the child what it wants rather than what it needs IS saying the child's will not be met.

What I child wants can often be a thing I child needs as well, for example a parent who lavishes a child with gifts every few weeks, will still send the child to school etc, but at the same time spoil the child, your misinterptitation's are not my problem. Ofeten what a child needs is to be disiplined to a degree, a bad parent will not do that, and the child will obviously prefer that parent, the leniant one. If this is such a difficult consept for you to understand, then I hope to god you are never a parent.

If Moskitto did indeed destroy my arguments, then surely you can link to the thread and everyone will see him for the poor, misunderstood scientific genius he is.

Why should I provide a link? I am not the one who is making false accusations against Moskitto. But in that debate, you stated something, Moskitto disagreed with, and he used scientific terminology, to make his point, and then you went on about his science lies, but you never disproved them because you cant.

And I never said that abortions were risk free

You said and I quote: -

"You haven't actually explained how a number of abortions are harmful to women."

That shows you obviously disagreed with him. So you contradict your self, I now consider this matter closed.

I responded that if a child did choose the more lenient parent, it would not automatically follow that the other 'good' parent's influence would cease altogether. So, I don't see why you were so quick to dismiss it.

Do you really believe that seeing a parent for 3 hours once a fortnight, is really going to have a startling infulence on how a child grows up? Stupid question, you are not going to change your mind, and I refuse to be dragged down into such a rediculous debate with womeone who's mind cannot be changed, even in the face of logic.

sc4r

12th September 2003, 13:02

Hang on, maybe I'm misunderstanding your position Enigma. I'm becoming very confused in this thread as to who is saying what :) because of the sheer number of quotes, followed by Italics, foilowed by bold, followed by.....

But assuming it is you to whom I am responding (of which I'm now totally unsure) then :

What a child wants can of course also be what it needs. I dont think anyone disputes that. But the key words are CAN BE the word is not IS, Must Be, Exclusively, etc. Nobody is saying forget the expressed wishes of the child; nobody is saying ignore them. People are saying dont simply accept those wishes as the final and only determining factor. In other words dont allow the child to actually make the final decision.

Thats all this is about. Maybe nobody (except RS) is saying 'let the child decide'. It's even possible that RS is not.

best wishes.

redstar2000

12th September 2003, 14:40

There's no way you can convince me that it's a good thing for a child that small to be made to chose between his parents.

No, it's not "a good thing". It is simply better than letting a third party do it...following months of high-priced legal squabbling, of course.

And the child is not "made" to choose; his or her preferences can easily be ascertained in a non-threatening atmosphere...and those preferences prevail.

Of course it is easy enough to imagine scenarios where difficulties arise--"mommy is a junkie", blah, blah, blah.

If you understood anything about the latitude of personal freedom in communist society, you'd realize that "junkies", providing they have regular access to their drug, are fully capable of normal functioning--it is "our own" Nazi-like persecution of drug users that results in them living on the streets at the edge of the abyss.

How about a real problem? What if the kid's choice is a member of a religious cult? There's a situation a lot worse than drug addiction...and the kid's choice would be reluctantly but firmly vetoed.

Happy now?

Would you allow a three year old to decide he wants to leave home because his parents made him eat his broccoli?

It's amazing how this stupid question constantly arises.

Perhaps the best step would be for communist society to render the broccoli plant extinct...so that the matter never arises!

What is it with you people and food that smells and tastes like shit? And you want to make kids eat it?!

If you take a multi-vitamin on a daily basis, you can live for 80 years or more and never eat a fucking vegetable!

The truth of the matter is that if kids are presented with a variety of foods tastefully prepared, they will choose a diet that suits their physical as well as their psychological needs. No kid is going to live on candy. That is a myth.

If you ask me, I think "food fights" with kids is just a way for some parents to play power games with their kids...games the parents always lose.

I was talking about the consequences of things like eating nothing but candy and other things that kids want to do. We DO know the consequences of these things.

Well, I already answered the "candy diet" objection. What "other things" are you referring to?

There's a difference between FORCING a child to live with a parent they HATE and asking them to choose who they want to live with. Not to mention, with the parents just broken up, the child is likely in no condition to be deciding their own living conditions (not that they ever are.)

You give yourself away with your parenthetical statement. Your real position is that kids should never have the right to choose who they live with.

Try Leninism; you'll like it.

And unless you wish to "spoil" a child, too much of something good is practically always a bad thing because you come to expect it.

And what would the world be like if people went around actually expecting an abundance of "good things"?

Why that's "outrageous"! "Utopian"! "Impossible"!!!

However, let's be fair. Note that the world "spoiled" was in quotes. The myth that children can be "spoiled"--like rotting meat?--is slowly dying a long-overdue death.

It wasn't that long ago that the quotation marks would not have been present.

A third party with an unbiased perspective, well at least not as biased, is in a far better [position] to make a decision which is in the child's best interest, even if the child does not know it.

It's better for me to make decisions that affect you because those decisions won't affect me. My decisions about what you have to do will have no consequences for me at all.

That strikes me as a pretty good definition of tyranny.

Want to re-think it?

Nobody here has ever said children should be considered property.

Because if they did, they'd openly expose their shitty politics for all to see...and reject.

Which means that RS's comment can only make sense if he is saying that any decision taken by another which affects you renders you property.

That's not only sophistry but inept sophistry at that.

What we are speaking of here is one of the most intimate and personal aspects of one's life...who will you live with?

If someone else is allowed to make that decision for you--and you have no recourse against that decision, then what does that make you?

Have you not been made into a thing? An object to be moved here or there at your owner's convenience? A favored pet, perhaps, if you are lucky? An ornament for someone else's self-esteem or perhaps an object of shame?

You can't do that to people.

On the other hand, perhaps you can.

I'll bet that he will say 'when it can communicate'. This would fail because the determination of what constitutes communication is itself not an absolute, someone would have to decide.

Yes, and the determination of what constitutes determination of what constitutes communication would have to be decided...and off we go into the reformist playground of infinite regression.

For someone who is so "practical", you display an extraordinary lack of common sense.

And this is the case when discussing whether to allow a child to decide such important issues as with whom it will live. Make no mistake, nobody here is suggesting that the child's input should be disregarded; only that it should not have the final say. Why? Because quite simply a child does not have the experience to make intelligent judgments.

But we are not speaking of judgments "in general"--I'm not consulting five-year-olds on, for example, which city is "best for kids" to live in. As you say, they have too little experience of the world to make informed decisions on almost everything.

Almost. One of the things that they do have first-hand experience of is what it's like to live with two people and which of those two people it would prefer to live with. In fact, the kid is the ranking authority on that question; no one else but a sibling is qualified to make an informed choice.

Like most of us they [teenagers] don't look at long term implications but only at what it is in for them right now.

Does that mean that even we grown-ups should seek out someone to "decide for us" everything of "long-term" consequence? Which is to say, everything?

Not on my planet!

What all who are arguing against RS are disputing is his absolutism, not the idea that there may be a lower age than the current one to allow a person to take control of his/ her own life.

That's a fair summary; I am an "absolutist" on questions like this. I favor maximum personal autonomy for all, even kids. As I noted towards the beginning of this long post, there are circumstances in which I would abridge that autonomy...but it would take a drastic situation for me to do so.

The careless presumption that "we grownups always know best" is unwarranted by current experience and is contrary to a core value of communist society.

I don't understand why Redstar consistently takes this view that children should be allowed to judge for themselves, and that that those judgments should be acceptable.

Because they are people, not property. Their lives belong to them...not anyone else.

And it would be a piss-poor "communist" revolution that did not free us all, young and old alike.

Often what a child needs is to be disciplined to a degree...

A few strokes of the cane from Colonel Blimp, eh?

Nice guys, these reformists.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim

12th September 2003, 17:17

A few strokes of the cane from Colonel Blimp, eh?

LOL, I never said that, it is not supprising that you would implicate that I would say that though, because you are a pathalogical "spin Dr" after all.

I am against Corporal punishment, I think that a harsh word may be necessary, but no more than that. I doubt I would ever even "smack" a child. But its good to know that you are still insinuating falicys, redstar, in an attempt to defame my character.

sc4r

12th September 2003, 23:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 02:40 PM
Scar :Which means that RS's comment can only make sense if he is saying that any decision taken by another which affects you renders you property.

That's not only sophistry but inept sophistry at that.

What we are speaking of here is one of the most intimate and personal aspects of one's life...who will you live with?

If someone else is allowed to make that decision for you--and you have no recourse against that decision, then what does that make you?

Have you not been made into a thing? An object to be moved here or there at your owner's convenience? A favored pet, perhaps, if you are lucky? An ornament for someone else's self-esteem or perhaps an object of shame?

You can't do that to people.

On the other hand, perhaps you can.

I'll bet that he will say 'when it can communicate'. This would fail because the determination of what constitutes communication is itself not an absolute, someone would have to decide.

Yes, and the determination of what constitutes determination of what constitutes communication would have to be decided...and off we go into the reformist playground of infinite regression.

For someone who is so "practical", you display an extraordinary lack of common sense.

And this is the case when discussing whether to allow a child to decide such important issues as with whom it will live. Make no mistake, nobody here is suggesting that the child's input should be disregarded; only that it should not have the final say. Why? Because quite simply a child does not have the experience to make intelligent judgments.

But we are not speaking of judgments "in general"--I'm not consulting five-year-olds on, for example, which city is "best for kids" to live in. As you say, they have too little experience of the world to make informed decisions on almost everything.

Almost. One of the things that they do have first-hand experience of is what it's like to live with two people and which of those two people it would prefer to live with. In fact, the kid is the ranking authority on that question; no one else but a sibling is qualified to make an informed choice.

Like most of us they [teenagers] don't look at long term implications but only at what it is in for them right now.

Does that mean that even we grown-ups should seek out someone to "decide for us" everything of "long-term" consequence? Which is to say, everything?

Not on my planet!

What all who are arguing against RS are disputing is his absolutism, not the idea that there may be a lower age than the current one to allow a person to take control of his/ her own life.

That's a fair summary; I am an "absolutist" on questions like this. I favor maximum personal autonomy for all, even kids. As I noted towards the beginning of this long post, there are circumstances in which I would abridge that autonomy...but it would take a drastic situation for me to do so.

The careless presumption that "we grownups always know best" is unwarranted by current experience and is contrary to a core value of communist society.

I don't understand why Redstar consistently takes this view that children should be allowed to judge for themselves, and that that those judgments should be acceptable.

Because they are people, not property. Their lives belong to them...not anyone else.

And it would be a piss-poor "communist" revolution that did not free us all, young and old alike.

Often what a child needs is to be disciplined to a degree...

A few strokes of the cane from Colonel Blimp, eh?

Nice guys, these reformists.

You truly send me into rages when you do this evasion coupled with distortion thing that you do so often. This applies to everything you have reponded to others with as well as to the replies to me you made. I wont address your respnses to them. But they are equally piss poor and dishonest; the comments on broccoli rate with the most distorted replies to a perosns point I have ever seen. They rank up there with the worst of American right wing distortions of socialism.

Answer the implied question you evasive fart. EXPLAIN WHY MAKING DECISUONS FOR A CHILD IS TO TREAT THEM AS PROPERTY WHEREAS MAKING DECISIONS LIKE WHETHER SOMEONE LIVES OR DIES IS NOT TO.

It's not sophistry. It is asking for yout bloody definition of what 'to treat someone as property' is. It seems extremely inconsistent and it is you who intoduced the notion not me. I'd be happier to talk substance rather than piss around with you about definitions.

The same thing goes for your evasions about what a child is and is not going to be allowed to judge. You seem to be saying that he/she now actualy will not be allowed to decide all things. So why allow him/her to decide one of the most crucial things that will affect his/her life ? Either RS you will allow it, or you wont. You cant say 'I'd allow him/her the final choice - except that I might override it' as you in fact do seem almost to be saying. That does not make sense.

If you seriously do not understand that you cannot have a rule that says 'provided they are capable of effective communication' without having somebody deciding whether the communciation actually is effecitve then you yourself need to take a course in communciataion. Chances are high that you actually did understand it; but true to form rather than address the point (hich was HOW do you decide if communication is effective) you'd rather waltz off and attack a straw man of an argument , and comine it with a bot of character assasination.

AS to the nonsense about 'not talking of judgement in general', this is (deliberately ?) taken totally out of context. When I spoke of 'in general' I was talking of whether there may be adults who are not good at judgements, not about types of decision.

It seems that you will treat children 'as property' in that you wont allow them to decide where they should live. How exactly RS is this different in importance from allowing them to decide who they should live with, and just why should this difference of importance matter anyway given that we (or more accurately you) are denouncing something in such absolute terms.

I have two versions of why you take these positions; One is unflattering, the other is outright fighting talk.

I am no reformist. You know it. Its just something you feel may help your case is it not.

synthesis

13th September 2003, 02:03

It wasn't that long ago that kids could be beaten by their parents for whatever reason their parents wanted.

It wasn't that much longer that slaves could be beaten by their masters for whatever reason their masters wanted.

Now, the beating must be done in private... just as wage slavery is much more discreet than plantation slavery.

Are kids only fractions of human beings until they reach an age where the state has deemed them capable of autonomy? For the state considered Africans only three-fifths of human beings, again, this was not that long ago.

Of course, I believe that in a communist society, asking a child to choose between parents would regarded like asking a slave to choose between masters. A slight improvement on a fundamentally wrong and totalitarian idea.

redstar2000

13th September 2003, 02:23

You truly send me into rages when you do this evasion coupled with distortion thing that you do so often.

Perhaps you should seek professional help. This is a message board, after all. The "loser" of a "debate" here doesn't get taken out and shot.

Indeed, perhaps you should try using the internet in a different and, from your standpoint, more productive way.

You could set up a web site of your own--humanizing_class_society.org, perhaps--featuring your own ideas on the best way "forward". You'd have time to write lengthy, coherent expositions of your views. Your only contact with message boards would be to drop in briefly and plug your site. The frustration and rage would diminish and, after a while, you'd be a happier man.

Or, as I suggested earlier, you could find boards that are more receptive to your views. There are, I'm told, more than 100,000 message boards on the internet and the number probably grows daily. I can tell you that I myself have visited dozens of boards looking precisely for places that it makes sense for me to invest my time and energy.

That doesn't mean places where people fall all over themselves to agree with me; it means boards where I actually get interesting responses to my views.

Certainly I would not stay at a board where I was constantly "enraged"--your word. That's just being a masochist.

Think it over.

They [Redstar's responses] rank up there with the worst of American right wing distortions of socialism.

Obviously, you are very upset to make a remark like that...one for which you have no evidence whatsoever.

Not to mention the fact that I am a communist, not a socialist. Naturally the people who are for socialism--a slightly more humane kind of class society--will view any criticism by communists as a "distortion".

Answer the implied question you evasive fart. EXPLAIN WHY MAKING DECISIONS FOR A CHILD IS TO TREAT THEM AS PROPERTY WHEREAS MAKING DECISIONS LIKE WHETHER SOMEONE LIVES OR DIES IS NOT TO.

This would presumably refer to my remarks about the death penalty in communist society for crimes of violence.

Very well. When someone commits a violent act on your person, they have, by definition, stated that you are something "less than human". As one of the de-constructionists might say, their act of violence against you is also a form of speech as well...and it says something specific about you.

It also asks something about communist society...do we permit people to treat others as "sub-humans", as "things" to be destroyed at someone's whim?

My answer is no. Those who attack and injure, rape, or kill have declared themselves to be enemies of communist society.

As you already know, my views towards the enemies of communist society are quite harsh...some would say "Stalinist". The only reason I am opposed to prisons, gulags, etc. is because of the effects of such practices on us...to use those methods is to become torturers and contaminate ourselves with a fascist world-view.

A bullet in the skull is both more humane, less damaging to ourselves, and eliminates a declared enemy.

It may or may not serve as a deterrent to violent crime--studies are mixed on the subject--but a dead murderer will never kill again.

That's good enough for me.

The same thing goes for your evasions about what a child is and is not going to be allowed to judge. You seem to be saying that he/she now actually will not be allowed to decide all things. So why allow him/her to decide one of the most crucial things that will affect his/her life? Either RS you will allow it, or you won't. You can't say 'I'd allow him/her the final choice - except that I might override it' as you in fact do seem almost to be saying. That does not make sense.

Do you want me to make a list?

Silly question; of course you do. And it better contain hundreds of pages of details; otherwise it's just "vague utopianism".

We were speaking of a specific situation here, remember? I'm in favor as a principle of kids choosing which parent or caregiver to live with (assuming the parent/caregiver is agreeable). I think in this particular case even a very young child's judgment is superior...because s/he knows the people involved. S/he knows from first hand experience what it is like to be taken care of by those people.

No one else knows that except a sibling.

Would I ever veto the kid's choice? Of course I would...and mentioned a specific example (the kid's choice is a member of a religious cult).

There would certainly be other extreme situations where that unhappy option might be unavoidable; as you like to constantly remind me, it is not a perfect world.

But I speak here of the "default option"--absent any truly grave considerations, the kid chooses and that's an end to it.

What else? Well, I think kids should be introduced to a wide variety of foods and allowed to choose freely--food fights with parents are simply stupid.

I think kids should be given the opportunity to socialize with other kids from a very early age...and allowed to choose their little friends freely.

I don't think it much matters what clothing kids wear as long as it's comfortable and durable.

On the other hand, kids do have to learn to use the toilet...they are not free to shit and piss wherever they like.

Kids do have to learn not to play in the streets...and for that matter, how to avoid or minimize the other dangers of a technological society.

And they do have to learn to read and write, use a computer and a calculator, and learn at least the rudiments of thinking about things in a scientific, rational way.

Recall that I never suggested that personal autonomy can be "unlimited", merely that it should be maximized.

That core value of communism is for little people as well as big people.

It seems that you will treat children 'as property' in that you wont allow them to decide where they should live. How exactly RS is this different in importance from allowing them to decide who they should live with, and just why should this difference of importance matter anyway given that we (or more accurately you) are denouncing something in such absolute terms.

I would let kids decide where to live if I could figure out a practical way to do that. In a highly mobile society, the sight of parents dragging their kids from place to place certainly "looks" indistinguishable from the way they drag the rest of their possessions around with them.

Thus I can only respond with the answer you always find so distasteful--after the revolution, we'll see what we can work out on this question. Perhaps some creative solutions are possible and just haven't been thought of yet. Or perhaps such solutions exist and I have just never run across them.

My (limited) observation is that very small children are quite flexible regarding locations...it is older kids who develop attachments to a particular place.

So we'll see.

I am no reformist. You know it. It's just something you feel may help your case, is it not?

Subjectively, you may be convinced that you are not a reformist. I think the evidence--which I have summarized elsewhere--shows objectively that you are well within the reformist paradigm--specifically pre-World War I social democracy.

I think that "world-view" informs all of what you write, is reflected in every position you take on matters of controversy.

And I think you try to distance yourself from this "tag" only because you think it makes you "look bad" on this board. On a board of declared reformists, the label wouldn't bother you at all.

I am against corporal punishment. I think that a harsh word may be necessary, but no more than that. I doubt I would ever even "smack" a child.

Good! We are in agreement on that, at least. But you know there are those who would think that view "unacceptably lenient". Such people have much to say on the subject of "discipline"...all of it pretty ugly.

And the "cane" is an "old English tradition", is it not?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

synthesis

13th September 2003, 04:30

My (limited) observation is that very small children are quite flexible regarding locations...it is older kids who develop attachments to a particular place.

I would disagree. I moved three times between the ages of one and six, and apparently I put up the most massive fuss this side of your typical Commie Club morality tantrum. The line I would always use, if memory serves, was "it may be my house, but it's not my home."

I didn't move again until I was fourteen, and when I reached 14, I was moving up and down the West Coast, rarely staying at any place for more than a few days and never staying anywhere longer than a few months.

And I loved it. I've been a nomad for six years now.

Mobility, independance, becomes a treasured thing to older kids. I should know, I'm just an older-older kid as we talk. ;)

BuyOurEverything

13th September 2003, 04:55

sc4r

13th September 2003, 05:00

You arogant twat. I do not need your advice on which message boards to frequent or how to use my time, and I certainly dont need counseling on such a subject. Nor am I such an egotist that I feel the need to republish my every utterance in 3-4 different forums and collect them all for posterity. Full stop.

I'm not enraged by people here in general, but by you. Thats what I said. I said it because you are a bad advert for Socialism (and communism).

Your observations are however revealing. I dont see message boards as a contest with winners and losers. I've several times remarked that this is exactly how you do seem to regard them. And now you seem to confirm it. To you this is all a game, a game in which you can distort and evade as much as you like so long as in your own eyes you emerge 'the winner'. Exactly the attitude of trolls.

If you are a communist then you are also a Socialist. By definition. Of course I never actually said you were either. I said that your distortions were on a par with the worst of right wing ones.

You still in fact fail to answer the question of why to take away a life is not to treat someone as property but to take a decision for a child is to. All you actually did was restate your two positions - That you'd kill an adult, but allow a child to decide.

The fact that I happen to agree with you on how criminals should be treated (or rather I agree with your version of your views this time; I've seen you in the past express totally different ones) is neitjer here nor there. Its the question of consitency when using this idea of people as property that i'm questioning. You used the 'children should not be treated as property' line with the clear intention of taking some moral high ground and implying that others were treating them as such. It is not unreasonable to ask why you feel able to be so morally smug.

As I suspected you are not in fact able to sustain this idea that a childs wishes about parent choice should be final. You expressly reserve a veto. Since that is in fact all anyone else is in effect saying, all the rest of your high horse crapola is just that - crapola. AS in so many situiations you make fantastically large play of how you would allow people freedom and choice, and then quitely say 'Oh provided of course they agree with me, provided I personally can override them if they make the wrong one '. That actually is sophistry.

I'm going to remind you once again that a reformist is BY DEFINITION. Someone who believes that with enough tweaking the liberal democrat model can be made desirable. I dont believe any such thing. I've said it perhaps a dozen times to you, and explained in detail why not.

Hence I am not one. and to repeat the observation. YOU FUCKING WELL KNOW THIS and persist with the label only because you think it will help you 'win' the 'debate'.

synthesis

13th September 2003, 08:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 04:55 AM

It wasn't that long ago that kids could be beaten by their parents for whatever reason their parents wanted.

It wasn't that much longer that slaves could be beaten by their masters for whatever reason their masters wanted.

Now, the beating must be done in private... just as wage slavery is much more discreet than plantation slavery.

Are kids only fractions of human beings until they reach an age where the state has deemed them capable of autonomy? For the state considered Africans only three-fifths of human beings, again, this was not that long ago.

Of course, I believe that in a communist society, asking a child to choose between parents would regarded like asking a slave to choose between masters. A slight improvement on a fundamentally wrong and totalitarian idea.

Great, lets introduce more completely irrelevant issues into this discussion. You're just confusing the issue. This has nothing to do with discrimination.
It's not irrelevant at all. The family system, gone unchecked, can be one of the most totalitarian systems in the world, just as the free market system can do the same unregulated. Or, just as the slavery-operated plantation farm with no regulations was totalitarian.

Invader Zim

13th September 2003, 11:27

And the "cane" is an "old English tradition", is it not?

No more so than it is a French, German, American, Italian, etc etc etc tradition. I am sure that practically every nation in existance at one point had a cain or similar barbaric object to inflict pain on small children. Objects such as whips, Cat'o'nine tails, a "berch", etc etc. I would say that the whip is very much an American tradition, especially due to its use on the famed slave run cotten plantations of the south.

redstar2000

13th September 2003, 16:55

I'm not enraged by people here in general, but by you.

Well, I am not a "professional" in the field, but that seems to me to be "over-reacting" by a considerable margin.

I can't deny, of course, that there are people who post here that I find annoying and would not miss them if they departed for other boards.

But rage?

Over a message board?

:blink:

I will confess it is bit frustrating for me to attempt to answer your questions and objections only to have you go into your refrain of "you evaded, you didn't really answer, blah, blah, blah".

It is as if you wish me to keep formulating answers until I finally, by process of exhaustion, come up with one that you can agree with...that is, one of yours.

That isn't going to happen.

The only "new" thing that you raised in your latest post was this...

If you are a communist then you are also a Socialist. By definition.

No, I'm not. Please see the article I just wrote this morning for the Che-Lives e-zine. You gave me the idea.

Thanks.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

sc4r

14th September 2003, 13:32

Matey the fact that you can write that communism is not a socialist branch dont make it so. It is. In fact I seem to recall you yourself explaining this to one of the cappies in OI not all that long ago. Certainly you did not at the time argue with whoever did say it, and you were involved in the debate.

I am of course fully aware that when someone says I'm not a communist I'm a socialist or vice versa they are communicating what their detailed belief actually is. But this does not change the fact that technically communism is a socialist doctrine.

It is of course irrelevant to this discussion anyway. Its only being discussed because you chose to respond to a remark of mine which said 'you are carrying on the same way that cappies carry on when talking about socialism' by saying 'I'm not a Socialist, I'm a communist'. To which the short answer woud be - So what?

Yes chummy I copnstantly demand that you provide answers. Thats because you almost never do actually answer the question. I'm not seeking an answer I like, I'm seeking any answer to the actual question posed which makes sense, addresses the question, and is not in contradiction of something else you have said. I virtually never get such an answer.

Its not like I'm the only person who has observed this. RAF, AK, Moskitto, and many others make exactly the same comment about you. They also have one of your insulting little labels attached to them of course. As anyone who points out what an intellectual lightweight you are always does.

The question is WHY DOES TAKING A DECISION ABOUT A CHILD MAKE THEM 'PROPERTY ' BUT TAKING A DECISION ABOUT A CIVILIAN ADULT NOT DO SO?; Or 'DEFINE PROPERTY'. You cant /wont do either because you know full well that to do so will reveal that you are, as usual, depending on word association to win you a few supporters. You are a slogan chanter. Nothing more.

AS to 'rage'; I am of course referring to internet type rage.; and fairly controlled one at that. You have not seen me calling you a [email protected]@@ etc., as at least one of your supporters recently did to me. I did not notice you advising them to seek counseling. Strange. One might almost conclude that you are indulging in your favourite hobby of looking for something to say which avoids you having to address substance.

redstar2000

14th September 2003, 23:09

the fact that you can write that communism is not a socialist branch don't make it so.

I didn't just "write it"...I explained the reasons for my views in some detail.

I quite agree that when someone simply asserts a proposition contrary to the "general consensus", there is indeed an obligation to put forward some reasons why the "general consensus" is wrong. Otherwise, your retort would be reasonable.

But I did that. Indeed, I do it all the time! To no avail, as far as you are concerned.

The question is WHY DOES TAKING A DECISION ABOUT A CHILD MAKE THEM 'PROPERTY ' BUT TAKING A DECISION ABOUT A CIVILIAN ADULT NOT DO SO?; Or 'DEFINE PROPERTY'.

The "common sense" definition of "property" is implicit in all of my posts on this thread--a thing that you own and can do with whatever you wish.

The execution of a violent criminal is to keep him from treating other people like things.

This is so fundamentally obvious that your "failure" to grasp my point suggests other motives for your dissent altogether.

It's not like I'm the only person who has observed this. RAF, AK, Moskitto, and many others make exactly the same comment about you. They also have one of your insulting little labels attached to them of course. As anyone who points out what an intellectual lightweight you are always does.

You think the labels are "insulting"--I think they are descriptive.

Either way, note that I make the effort to argue the substance of controversy with those people, and do not simply dismiss them out-of-hand...though I might be well advised to do so.

You are a slogan chanter.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you were "right" about that.

Are my "slogans" bad ones? Do they suggest or imply that I should be the "next" dictator? Do they suggest that you should "vote for me"? Or, send me your money? Or, trust me and I'll take care of things "for" you?

When I suggest the outlines of classless society, you always have plenty to say in disagreement--which is fair enough--but your disagreements are uniformly based on the "norms" of existing class society.

I can, in fact, summarize all your responses to my arguments in a single phrase: "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!"

Very well, let's suppose I "can't do that"...what then the source of your vehemence, not to mention your belligerence? If I am truly a "utopian nutter", then there is no chance that my views will gain acceptance by more than a handful of similar "utopian nutters".

You're home free; no contest.

You know what I think? I think that you suffer from a "totalitarian impulse" that you manage to keep under control most of the time...but, for some reason, I bring it out in the open.

The more personal freedom that I advocate in communist society, the more it seems to upset you. The more unwelcome/unneeded I suggest that "order-givers" will be in communist society, the more "impractical" and "utopian" I become in your view and the more you feel compelled to denounce me as a "slogan chanter" and an "intellectual lightweight", etc.

For all I know, it's possible that you think there would be "no room for you" in communist society...whereas you would have many opportunities in a socialist (class) society.

If so, you could be right about that. I don't think there would be a lot of room for people who assume an attitude of "authoritarian expertise" at the expense of ordinary people.

There will be "experts" in communist society; rarely will they be permitted to give orders and even then, they will be overseen with great vigilance.

I suspect that you would find that unsatisfying.

As to 'rage'; I am of course referring to internet type rage; and [a] fairly controlled one at that.

Well, that's nice to know.

At least I don't have to worry about someone taking a few shots at me when I go to the mailbox...for the "crime" of "chanting" the "wrong slogans".

For obvious reasons, I do not reproach the young for their occasional excessive language...it is to be expected. You, however, are a mature man in his mid-40s (if I'm not mistaken)...and, I think, should see that "rage", even "virtual rage", is hardly appropriate behavior for a person of your age.

Still, one encounters "all kinds" on the internet...and if you want to "rage" at my refusal to accept the constraints of class society, you'll just go ahead and do it.

And I'll just live with it.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

sc4r

14th September 2003, 23:56

No mate it does not matter how many reason you can conjure up for saying that communism should not be considered a branch of socialism. The fact is that by definition it is. You cannot simply choose to redefine definitions. All we can say at this moment is that you Redstar do not acknowlege it to be so. In this you are out of line with almost every informed view of the two words, and as such as doing what you seem to love doing - Interfering with communication by confusing the uninformed.

It does not actually matter to anything of substance whether communism is part of Socialism or not any more than it matters to a substantive discusion whether to call the USSR Communist/ Socialist or anything else. They are just labels, and are what they are. But for the purposes of communication it can matter. You bugger up communication; all the time.

I know what the 'common sense definition of property is'. What is at issue is just why you would consider that taking a decision on behalf of somebody makes them property in one case, but not in another. The fact that in the case of the US civilian you can cite a reason for actually making that decision does not alter the fact that you are making one, and hence (according to you) treating them as property. I can of course cite a reason for deciding on behalf of the child, its not abitrary - Namely that they are not mature enough to make a valid judgement for themselves.

My contention is of course that in neither case is the person being treated as property. The objective is not to own the child, not to use him/her however one likes and for ones own benefit, not to make a profit on them. That would be how one treats property.

You have of course still failed to adress this question. The reason fairly obviously being that it is impossible for you to do so, and maintain your original stance.

The labels are insulting. It is that bloody simple. Whether you personally think they are also descriptive is besides the point.

No I , fairly obviously, do not think all of your slogans are bad ones. But equally obviously I think your usage of them is bad. Because you mis-use them. You use them inappropriately.

Matey if I felt your arguments were incapable of convincing anyone I would indeed ignore you as an irrelevance. But they are not. I'm a little less dedicated to flattering egos than you. I dont mind saying that a huge number of visitors to this forum are very ignorant of political and economic theory and thinking. To them what you are saying is simultaneously attractive (of course it is you promise what amounts almost to heaven, use nice glorious terms, and espouse every 'nice'; cause going ) and potentially plausible. They dont have the background to see it for the sugar coated BS that it is. I suspect that you do know it is implausible BS, Which , of course, makes me wonder what your motivations are.

I do not see communist society as especially attractive it is true. When you think about how such a society might actually function it seems horribly mundane. This howver has no bearing on anything much, since I dount that before this paragraph you've ever seen me comment on it. What I do do is say that your notions of how it might be achieved and what might allow it to actually function are badly thought out (actually thats generous of me; not thought out at all is closer to the truth).

I admire your cheek in saying that in a communist society where nobody gives orders etc. those who might 'will be overseen' (seen as property?) It is such a laughable contradiction in itself. The fact is that in yoiur desparate efforts to defend your implausible views you throw out these contradictions all the time. It never seems to occur to you that it is precisely because your notions are impossible that these creep in all the time. An internal contradiction is practically the definition of a flawed theory.

You dont reproach 'youngsters'? really? whats your explanation for your suggestions of caging / banning AK47 for example then? Thje real fact is that you felt like talking down to me, you thought that adopting a condescending manner might help you to 'win' an argument (You've mentioned recently that you do see these discusions as about winning not about communicating) which you probably knew you could not 'win' in substance. Its the same reason you gratuitiously include the 'descriptive labels' about the person you are talking to all the time. AS an estimate I'd say that about 25% of your posts are nothing much more than a long ad hominem; a further 25% is egoistic self promotion, and 90% of the remaining 50% is unfounded assertion of unjustified claims for what 'it will be like in Redstar land'.

I think I'll refer to you as the Pied Piper. It seems pretty descriptive.