Anarchists and NAMBLA

[Brosa Luxemburg]

To anarchists, how would you stop a commune from forming that allows older men to screw and rape little children? How do you stop such a society from forming without the use of some centralized authority? Sure, you can kick them out of the Federation, but I think that a commune full of NAMBLAists would not really care about that. Unless you have some form of official and institutionalized law then how do you stop it?

By the way, I am not an anarchist, so it will take a lot of convincing that this can be stopped without a state and/or transitional period to a stateless society.

[bcbm]

i am pretty sure little children don't just grow in the wild

[Lolumad273]

A community could still vote to set up laws... and rehabilitation centers. Unless of course, pedophiles are not curable... I don't actually know. Comfortable prisons wouldn't be a bad option.

[gorillafuck]

this was settled in the case of anarchy vs. nambla where it was determined that children aren't a naturally occurring thing that will just pop up in pedophile communes

[arilando]

To anarchists, how would you stop a commune from forming that allows older men to screw and rape little children? How do you stop such a society from forming without the use of some centralized authority? Sure, you can kick them out of the Federation, but I think that a commune full of NAMBLAists would not really care about that. Unless you have some form of official and institutionalized law then how do you stop it?

By the way, I am not an anarchist, so it will take a lot of convincing that this can be stopped without a state and/or transitional period to a stateless society.
Your being wery stereotypical here, "older men" right? :rolleyes:
But if it consisted solely of men, how the fuck would they get children?

[Lanky Wanker]

We'd set up anti-NAMBLA militia groups and put chastity belts on our children with big Russian men escorting them everywhere they went.

But for real, I don't see what the problem would be. If someone gets caught raping a child, they'd be put away to protect the community's kiddies. They have mental issues and a different understanding of such things, so I don't think they should be thrown into scary dark rooms with people trying to beat them up or anything like that though. What part of anarchism would make this harder? I'm not an anarchist, but I don't see why we'd need the vanguard standing outside the White House behind a glass shield, threatening to castrate all the sex offenders in a violent speech of anti-NAMBLA passion. Anarchism always seems to be mistaken for this "run around and do whatever you want" ideology. Oops... I'm breeding an argument here.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why would this question apply to anarchists and not to communists in general?

[Ostrinski]

Why would this question apply to anarchists and not to communists in general?I think federalism vs. centralism is the basis for the OP's specification.

[Lanky Wanker]

Why would this question apply to anarchists and not to communists in general?

Reactionary child molesters organising a militia to hunt down young boys and girls. We all know the abuse you anarchists receive with the "anarchism can't fight off counter revolutionaries!!!" stuff.

[Tenka]

But if it consisted solely of men, how the fuck would they get children?
Life finds a way. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkWeMvrNiOM)
But in all seriousness OP reflects a common misunderstanding of Anarchism. Good thing this is in Learning.

[Drosophila]

inb4 TheAnarchistTension is mentioned

[Comrade Jandar]

I'm 12 and what is this?

[bcbm]

i thought this thread would be about hakim bey tbh

[KlassWar]

The surrounding unions, cooperatives and communes decide they're no longer going to put up up with the child-raping compound.

They then launch the militia against it and crush it.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Okay, I guess I need to better phrase the question :laugh:

I know Anarchism is not everyone running around, hell, I was an anarchist for 3 years and studied the works of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Bookchin, Proudhon, etc. Part of the anarchist "theory" (I won't call it an ideology because I know most anarchists are against the idea of ideology) is that communities should be allowed to decide their own laws and authority outside of a central power. While there would be a federation, the localities have the majority of power.

So, if this is true, then if a group of NAMBLA member decided to make their own community and run their society based on their own laws, how do you stop them from basically raping children? Yes, children don't grow from the ground, but they can be brought to these places (by some screwy parents to be sure:D). The federation could kick them out, but a group of rapists (men or women), obviously would not care about that. So, in conclusion, without the power of a central authority to make some common laws across the "nation":cool: how would a group like that be put down.

No, I am not a Leninist (although I wouldn't say I am anti-Leninist, just non-Leninist). I am a council communist and agree with anarchists on a lot of main and important points, the idea of a stateless society right after a revolution is just not one of them. I hope I made my question clearer :D.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

i thought this thread would be about hakim bey tbh

lol:laugh:

[NoPasaran1936]

We'd set up anti-NAMBLA militia groups and put chastity belts on our children with big Russian men escorting them everywhere they went.


ARM THE CHILDREN! ARM THEM!

From my own views, communities should propose a form of community guidelines in which members of said community can address concerns, and seek to find remedies in such a way which doesn't involve incarceration, benefits the community and help sort out the offender of said guidelines. Communities could set up flexible constitutions, which they can vote to amend through direct democracy.

That'd be my ideal set up.

[bcbm]

The federation could kick them out, but a group of rapists (men or women), obviously would not care about that.

why? surely a 'federation' would have some incentives for being a part of, otherwise why would it exist in the first place?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

ARM THE CHILDREN! ARM THEM!

From my own views, communities should propose a form of community guidelines in which members of said community can address concerns, and seek to find remedies in such a way which doesn't involve incarceration, benefits the community and help sort out the offender of said guidelines. Communities could set up flexible constitutions, which they can vote to amend through direct democracy.

That'd be my ideal set up.

Still, how do you stop a group of like-minded child rapists from setting up their own society and making their own rules for the community.

I know, when this question comes to "how do you stop racists from setting up their own exclusive communities and..." the anarchist response is "well, the state has done it too." That is a valid and logical argument, and I respect it, but why even allow such a society when you can ban such a horrible community coming to life with the use of a state? Yes, the state has done it to, so what? That argument seems to be basically avoiding the question.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

why? surely a 'federation' would have some incentives for being a part of, otherwise why would it exist in the first place?

True, but why should a bunch of rapists care? I am not saying that rapists are robots only surviving and living off the screams of their victims:laugh: but if they are screwing enough to make their own communities, then they obviously aren't thinking right.

Yes, and I know that this is a very hypothetical question, but I do think it is an important hypothetical. If they broke from the federation, would anarchists in other communities support using force to stop them? If so, then that is coercion and it would be easier to have simple laws from a small state run by direct democracy through workers councils outlaw it and use the state's coercion to stop it.

[NoPasaran1936]

Still, how do you stop a group of like-minded child rapists from setting up their own society and making their own rules for the community.

I know, when this question comes to "how do you stop racists from setting up their own exclusive communities and..." the anarchist response is "well, the state has done it too." That is a valid and logical argument, and I respect it, but why even allow such a society when you can ban such a horrible community coming to life with the use of a state? Yes, the state has done it to, so what? That argument seems to be basically avoiding the question.

I can see where you're coming from, and I would like to point out, I'm not entirely an anarchist. The problem is with anarchism, it is primarily theory as well, all the chances of setting up anarchist communes and societies have been crushed by assholes. I personally would prefer some sort of state to rectify issues such as violent sexual crimes, but to do so which does no restrict the liberties of people and their freedom is difficult to speculate, and even justify.

[Lanky Wanker]

So, if this is true, then if a group of NAMBLA member decided to make their own community and run their society based on their own laws, how do you stop them from basically raping children? Yes, children don't grow from the ground, but they can be brought to these places (by some screwy parents to be sure:D). The federation could kick them out, but a group of rapists (men or women), obviously would not care about that. So, in conclusion, without the power of a central authority to make some common laws across the "nation":cool: how would a group like that be put down.


Well I know most people wouldn't be happy with a group of child molesters keeping children prisoners in their own homes or in sex gulags for dirty old men and women to come and have fun with, so I should hope surrounding communities would find out about this and take action against it. I don't know what part of anarchist theory would stop people from intervening in the interest of the children's wellbeing; if we can take action against a bunch of Hitlers without a central authority we can probably take on some paedophile rapists without too much effort. If we're telling other communities how to do everything and threatening them with militant action then that's not very federal, but protecting those who can't defend themselves is surely within reason.

[bcbm]

Still, how do you stop a group of like-minded child rapists from setting up their own society and making their own rules for the community.

presumably in an anarchist society such people wouldn't feel so isolated and could seek the help they need without fear of serious repercussions, diminishing the ranks of people who would be likely to want to form such a community. for the remainder, they would be basically cutting themselves off from modern society which would limit the appeal. there is still the question of where they will get children. i don't think many communities are going to send children off to the childrape co-operative. if we want to get all dystopian and they had their own breeding program like some neo-sparta, i dont think it somehow is outside of anarchist ethics for other people to step in and stop that shit.

[NoPasaran1936]

presumably in an anarchist society such people wouldn't feel so isolated and could seek the help they need without fear of serious repercussions, diminishing the ranks of people who would be likely to want to form such a community. for the remainder, they would be basically cutting themselves off from modern society which would limit the appeal. there is still the question of where they will get children. i don't think many communities are going to send children off to the childrape co-operative. if we want to get all dystopian and they had their own breeding program like some neo-sparta, i think it somehow is outside of anarchist ethics for other people to step in and stop that shit.

But would you stand by and watch a child be abused, stripped of their dignity and exploited? I think some form of stepping in could be justified, but to what extend of 'stepping in' do I mean, I can't really give an answer.

[bcbm]

True, but why should a bunch of rapists care?

presumably they enjoy goods, services, electricity, running water, etc


Yes, and I know that this is a very hypothetical question, but I do think it is an important hypothetical. If they broke from the federation, would anarchists in other communities support using force to stop them? If so, then that is coercion and it would be easier to have simple laws from a small state run by direct democracy through workers councils outlaw it and use the state's coercion to stop it.

when you say 'the federation' i keep thinking of star trek.

[bcbm]

But would you stand by and watch a child be abused, stripped of their dignity and exploited? I think some form of stepping in could be justified, but to what extend of 'stepping in' do I mean, I can't really give an answer.

oops i meant i dont think it outside anarchist ethics to step in.

[NoPasaran1936]

oops i meant i dont think it outside anarchist ethics to step in.

Ah, in that case, I can agree.

[#FF0000]

fucking kids is enough of a taboo that i really dont think a commune of kid fuckers will sprout up anywhere

[Ele'ill]

Why wouldn't we defend ourselves and others? I don't think I understand this thread.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

fucking kids is enough of a taboo that i really dont think a commune of kid fuckers will sprout up anywhere

I disagree. There are some pretty fucked up people out there. NAMBLA has already organized them, so what would stop them from forming a community together?

[bcbm]

nothing can stop the pedo menace

[Brosa Luxemburg]

nothing can stop the pedo menace

Like the one guy said, ARM THE CHILDREN!:D

[bcbm]

yeah ok kony

[Comrade Jandar]

I understand the seriousness of pedophilia, but I think this one of those things you deal with when the issue comes up. And to answer your question on what anarchists would do, a commune based upon pedophilia would not have the right to self-determination and to think otherwise is ludicrous.

[Ele'ill]

I disagree. There are some pretty fucked up people out there. NAMBLA has already organized them, so what would stop them from forming a community together?

Bullets.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I understand the seriousness of pedophilia, but I think this one of those things you deal with when the issue comes up. And to answer your question on what anarchists would do, a commune based upon pedophilia would not have the right to self-determination and to think otherwise is ludicrous.

How would you stop them from having the right to self-determination? The use of force? Why not then just allow a small state (which I support) which the majority of power lies with the workers and can make laws in the interest and betterment of all through direct democracy?

[Comrade Jandar]

Of course force would be used. History has shown in every social revolution that the state becomes a force of counter-revolution. Rather than being used as a tool to repress the bourgeoisie it is used to repress other leftists and the proletariat in general.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Of course force would be used. History has shown in every social revolution that the state becomes a force of counter-revolution. Rather than being used as a tool to repress the bourgeoisie it is used to repress other leftists and the proletariat in general.

I somewhat agree. A highly centralized and bureaucratic state, yes. But a small and direct democratic state, probably not.

[Lanky Wanker]

How would you stop them from having the right to self-determination? The use of force? Why not then just allow a small state (which I support) which the majority of power lies with the workers and can make laws in the interest and betterment of all through direct democracy?

For some reason, I don't think anarchists would want to alter their theory and means of organisation for a commune of rapists. :lol:

[Comrade Jandar]

I'm sorry but is this even a serious thread? :rolleyes: It seems like a hilarious troll against anarchists.

[Deicide]

This thread is simultaneously a ridiculous joke and a deadly serious matter.

[black magick hustla]

hey gueys wat if fascist aliens invade from cthulhuland and wake up in rlyeh what would the anarchists do with their pathetic federlaims huh ?????????????????

[∞]

i am pretty sure little children don't just grow in the wild

They could just kidnap them.

To OP: What happens in that circumstance is not consensual therefore is an act of subversion that exists, but not on the state-level. So its pretty un-anarchist to let men exploit children.

[bcbm]

They could just kidnap them.

no shit but that makes the question irrelevant

[gorillafuck]

They could just kidnap them.I don't think that centralized government would be much more effective in catching an organization of kidnapping child molesters who bring kids to a pedophile commune than a decentralized one.

it would probably be fairly easy for either one.

[gorillafuck]

also, this topic isn't even touching upon the actual communist criticisms of anarchism.

[Ele'ill]

also, this topic isn't even touching upon the actual communist criticisms of anarchism.

I can't wait. Please, begin the death knell.

[gorillafuck]

I can't wait. Please, begin the death knell.what? no, I'm not actually going to say what they are. I'm just saying that this is weird because the possibility of pedophile communes isn't even a point of disagreement among communists and anarchists (and isn't something anyone of any political ideology has ever thought of before today)

[Ele'ill]

what? no, I'm not actually going to say what they are. I'm just saying that this is weird because the possibility of pedophile communes isn't even a point of disagreement among communists and anarchists (and isn't something anyone of any political ideology has ever thought of before today)

Yeah I know. I meant because the thread was turning into a downward spiral you might as well ring that bell. NEVERMIND ZEEKLOID

[blake 3:17]

A female friend mentioned this column to me. Apparently Dan Savage has had number of non-abusive pedophiles write him trying to figure out what to do. It came up in the context of the lack of support for men dealing either having been sexually abused/assaulted and those with urges to assault/abuse but not having acted on it. I was trying to find counselling for a friend a few years ago around these issues, and the only programs available were for those who'd been charged and/or convicted of sex crimes.



March 6, 2012
COLUMNS
Savage Love
Another Gold-Star Pedophile
by DAN SAVAGE

I'm a gay man in my late 20s who has been trying to deal with an attraction to young boys since I hit puberty. I know that what I feel is wrong and wish to Christ that I could have a normally wired brain. I have never abused a child; I do not look at child pornography. But I need to speak to a therapist because I can't get through this on my own. Bottom line is I'm afraid. Seriously afraid. I don't know what my legal rights are and I don't know how to go about getting more information without incriminating myself. I'm sure there are more people than just me who need to talk about this. My problem is that I'm not financially stable enough to afford seeing someone for more than a few sessions. I just can't keep saying I'm fine, and I can't let healthy relationships fall apart because I'm unable to talk to anyone about my problem.

Can't Wish It Away

I shared your letter with Dr. James Cantor, a psychologist, associate professor at the University of Toronto, and editor in chief of Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. (Follow Dr. Cantor on Twitter @JamesCantorPhD.) The first thing he said, CWIA, was that you deserved praise—he called you "an ace"—for making it this far without having committed an offense.

But accessing the support you need to get through the next six or seven decades of life without sexually abusing a child—support the culture should provide to men and women like you in order to protect children—isn't going to be easy, Dr. Cantor said, particularly if you live in the United States.

"Other countries have created programs to help people like CWIA," said Dr. Cantor. "Germany has Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, which includes a hospital-based clinic and anonymous hotlines that people who are attracted to children can call when they need to talk to someone, vent, or debrief. In Canada, we have the Circles of Support and Accountability—groups of volunteers who provide assistance and social support and who, in turn, receive support and supervision from professionals."

But Canada funds these programs only for people who committed a sexual offense. The Circles program isn't open to "gold-star pedophiles," my term for men and women who have successfully struggled against their attraction to children without any support or credit. (Yes, credit. Someone who is burdened with an attraction to children—no one chooses to be sexually attracted to children—and successfully battled that attraction all of his adult life deserves credit for his strength, self-control, and moral sense.)

Sadly, in the United States, we've taken steps that make it harder for pedophiles to get the support they need to avoid offending.

"One of the recent regulations in the United States is mandatory reporting," said Dr. Cantor. "These regulations vary by region, but in general, if a client has children or provides care to children and admits to experiencing sexual attraction to children—any children—the therapist is required to report the client to the authorities, regardless of whether any abuse was actually occurring."

The goal is to protect children, of course, and that is a goal I fully support as a parent and a human being. But broad mandatory reporting policies have an unintended consequence: People like CWIA—people who need help to avoid acting on their attraction to children—are cut off from mental health professionals who can give them the tools, insight, and support they need. Mandatory reporting policies, designed to protect children, may be making children less safe.

"The situation is not completely hopeless, however," said Dr. Cantor. "Therapists with training and experience working with people attracted to children are keenly aware of the delicate legal situation that both they and their clients are in. A good therapist—a licensed therapist, please—will begin the very first session by outlining exactly what they must report and what they may not report."

So long as there is no specific child in specific danger—so long as you don't have children (please don't), CWIA, and don't work with children (please don't)—your therapist is required to keep whatever information you share confidential.

"CWIA should ask questions about confidentiality before disclosing anything to a therapist," said Dr. Cantor. "He can ask these questions over the phone before making an appointment or even revealing his name."

To find a therapist, CWIA, you can contact—anonymously—the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (http://atsa.com/request-referral).

"Although that group is primarily about services to persons who have already committed an offense," said Dr. Cantor, "the professionals in their referral network are able and willing to help people in CWIA's situation as well."

Even the few sessions you can afford will help, CWIA.

source: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=12927907

[Zav]

To anarchists, how would you stop a commune from forming that allows older men to screw and rape little children? How do you stop such a society from forming without the use of some centralized authority? Sure, you can kick them out of the Federation, but I think that a commune full of NAMBLAists would not really care about that. Unless you have some form of official and institutionalized law then how do you stop it?

By the way, I am not an anarchist, so it will take a lot of convincing that this can be stopped without a state and/or transitional period to a stateless society.
The feck has this to do with NAMBLA? Oh, yes, because sexual attraction to minors is equivalent to rape. Obviously.
*aaaand... cue being called a pedophile for defending them by the same fallacious arguments used to describe homosexuals as diseased*
Anyway Anarchism and Communism achieve the same end (also you apparently think Anarchy is lawlessness), so you may as well ask how rape will be prevented in a Communist society. The answer is simple. It wouldn't happen as much, and when it does the perpetrators will be rehabilitated. Also, NAMBLA is a fly trap organization designed by the U.S. to facilitate the arrest of pedophiles. Since there is no State in a Communist/Anarchist society, an organization like it simply could not form.

EDIT: Five monopoly dollars to whomever can explain how the extreme hatred the Left in general has towards people who are either ill or have an unusual sexuality is anything but reactionary.

[∞]

Oh god please don't tun this into pedophile apologism.

[bcbm]

any opinion short of 'execute them in the streets and bathe in their blood' seems to qualify as apolgism here

[∞]

No. But attraction to children shouldn't be acceptable no matter how docile. Its is a sexual illness like attraction to animals.

"OH but Mora thats what people say about homosexuals,"
Homosexuality is consensual and poses absolutely no potential danger like incest or pedophilia.

[arilando]

I understand the seriousness of pedophilia, but I think this one of those things you deal with when the issue comes up. And to answer your question on what anarchists would do, a commune based upon pedophilia would not have the right to self-determination and to think otherwise is ludicrous.
I think they should be allowed to form a commune as long as they dont abuse any children, but if they do i see nothing un-anarchist about defending the rights of people from other communes.

[Aflameoffreedom]

Go to the Theory forums, and read THE ANARCHIST RESPONSE TO CRIME. Where the issues of rape and pedophilia are discussed in an Anarchist community.

[bcbm]

No. But attraction to children shouldn't be acceptable no matter how docile. Its is a sexual illness like attraction to animals.

"OH but Mora thats what people say about homosexuals,"
Homosexuality is consensual and poses absolutely no potential danger like incest or pedophilia.

nobody here is okay with diddling kids or would compare it to homosexuality:rolleyes: and how did incest get brought into this lovely mix of perversion?

[Hermes]

I'd just like to say that pedophilia is not synonymous with rape, as many seem to think. The letter from blake was a good example. These people are demonized, despite the fact that they have no choice in what they think. Are we just to kill everyone who doesn't think in a 'normal' way? Put them out of our misery?

As to the question, if a commune formed ENTIRELY of NAMBLA sprung up somewhere, it would depend on the situation (I'll use the two in this thread as examples).

1) NAMBLA goes out in the night and kidnaps, then molests/indoctrinates/etc our children. The solution for this would most likely be death, as it's a matter of self-defense.

2) NAMBLA somehow receives child... donations? From the parents of the children? (lanky wanker, do you really think this would happen?) If that was the case, then I don't really see anything you can do. NAMBLA, in that case, has done nothing to harm your community, or people. They've been given up by those who're primarily seen as their owners.

I think the whole thing's a little ridiculous though.

[Lanky Wanker]

There are two rough sides of child molesters and rapists from what I can see: those who do it for power and selfish pleasure at the expense of someone else's freedom and wellbeing, and those who have a different understanding of the situation and don't see anything wrong with it. It's common for the latter to actually think women (usually women) are sending them hints and actually want whatever it is they force on them, and I've noticed the same goes for paedophile rapists. I was watching a documentary about NAMBLA someone posted on here not too long ago, and one of them seemed to think that everything the young boys he knew did was "playful flirting" or something along those lines. I feel like people go too hard on paedophiles, which is counter-productive and harmful when they don't understand it like we do. Imagine someone telling you that people with green eyes can't consent to eating food they choose because they don't understand the process emotionally and therefore we have to choose for them. You'd be like "...da fok? :confused: I don't see anything wrong with it, so I'll let Bobby eat what he wants."




2) NAMBLA somehow receives child... donations? From the parents of the children? (lanky wanker, do you really think this would happen?) If that was the case, then I don't really see anything you can do. NAMBLA, in that case, has done nothing to harm your community, or people. They've been given up by those who're primarily seen as their owners.


You lost me on this one... are you saying we can't stop kids from donating to NAMBLA because their parents allow them to?

[Hermes]

There are two rough sides of child molesters and rapists from what I can see: those who do it for power and selfish pleasure at the expense of someone else's freedom and wellbeing, and those who have a different understanding of the situation and don't see anything wrong with it. It's common for the latter to actually think women (usually women) are sending them hints and actually want whatever it is they force on them, and I've noticed the same goes for paedophile rapists. I was watching a documentary about NAMBLA someone posted on here not too long ago, and one of them seemed to think that everything the young boys he knew did was "playful flirting" or something along those lines. I feel like people go too hard on paedophiles, which is counter-productive and harmful when they don't understand it like we do. Imagine someone telling you that people with green eyes can't consent to eating food they choose because they don't understand the process emotionally and therefore we have to choose for them. You'd be like "...da fok? :confused: I don't see anything wrong with it, so I'll let Bobby eat what he wants."




You lost me on this one... are you saying we can't stop kids from donating to NAMBLA because their parents allow them to?

I'm saying it would be wrong to go and kill all of NAMBLA/lock them up, simply because someone else decided to give them their children. I don't feel the society as a whole would be justified in going and asking for the children back either, since they were not the ones to give them away.

(my view, of course, is my opinion and doesn't represent anarchists everywhere)

[arilando]

No. But attraction to children shouldn't be acceptable no matter how docile. Its is a sexual illness like attraction to animals.

"OH but Mora thats what people say about homosexuals,"
Homosexuality is consensual and poses absolutely no potential danger like incest or pedophilia.
Incest can be consensual and "poses absolutely no potential danger".

[TheRedAnarchist23]

How are anarchists supposed to answer these "anarchist what do you think of..." threads if they get flooded with communists 5 minutes after being writen!

[bcbm]

There are two rough sides of child molesters and rapists from what I can see: those who do it for power and selfish pleasure at the expense of someone else's freedom and wellbeing, and those who have a different understanding of the situation and don't see anything wrong with it. It's common for the latter to actually think women (usually women) are sending them hints and actually want whatever it is they force on them, and I've noticed the same goes for paedophile rapists. I was watching a documentary about NAMBLA someone posted on here not too long ago, and one of them seemed to think that everything the young boys he knew did was "playful flirting" or something along those lines. I feel like people go too hard on paedophiles, which is counter-productive and harmful when they don't understand it like we do. Imagine someone telling you that people with green eyes can't consent to eating food they choose because they don't understand the process emotionally and therefore we have to choose for them. You'd be like "...da fok? :confused: I don't see anything wrong with it, so I'll let Bobby eat what he wants."

your comparison at the end is incredibly off the mark. unless they have some other issues going on i am pretty sure pedophiles understand there is a very serious difference between their idea of what is permissible and rest of society's. obviously some of them don't think it is that harmful to act on their desires anyway and that isn't naivete like you seem to be suggesting.


I'm saying it would be wrong to go and kill all of NAMBLA/lock them up, simply because someone else decided to give them their children. I don't feel the society as a whole would be justified in going and asking for the children back either, since they were not the ones to give them away.

children aren't property to be traded or sold

[Hermes]

children aren't property to be traded or sold

I'm not saying they are. However, unless the children themselves ask to return to their former community and NAMBLA said no (and if we had evidence of that), then I don't think we have any justification for retrieving them other than claiming some kind of moral high ground (which, if existed, would make an anarchist community of any kind extremely unlikely).

[Lanky Wanker]

your comparison at the end is incredibly off the mark. unless they have some other issues going on i am pretty sure pedophiles understand there is a very serious difference between their idea of what is permissible and rest of society's. obviously some of them don't think it is that harmful to act on their desires anyway and that isn't naivete like you seem to be suggesting.


Yeah I'm not exactly a king at comparisons, I'll give you that. I'm not saying we shouldn't take action against non-rapist paedophiles, I think we should give them all the help we can before something happens. What I meant is that people who go off on these "fucking dirty paedos need to be slaughtered" explosions aren't approaching the issue very well. And obviously such paedophiles/child molesters realise they hold a minority opinion on the topic, but why (in their eyes) should they hold off molesting children if they don't see anything wrong with it?

[thriller]

In response to anarchists and communists wondering about this, remember, the post-revolutionary society is not Utopian. Killings, assaults, and rapes will still occur, neither communism nor anarchism can perfect the world and the species that inhabit it. I would argue it would be on a very tiny scale as compared to today, but they can, and will, occasionally happen. Let's not forget that rape and sexual abuse is a LEARNED response, so the less people do it, the less others will learn to do it. But in response to the OP, it will be in the people's hands, not the police and bourgeoisie. I would assume most people would form a militia/organization to destroy any such NAMBLA ring (I know this is learning, but I don't see how hard it is to understand [people will decide, not a system]), but I can't predict the future, and no one else can either.

[gorillafuck]

Oh god please don't tun this into pedophile apologism.there is only one poster I can ever remember who actually was an apologist for sexual abuse and she was banned a long time ago. bcbm is pretty on the mark about what the term pedophile apologism means on revleft.

[Luc]

I'm not saying they are. However, unless the children themselves ask to return to their former community and NAMBLA said no (and if we had evidence of that), then I don't think we have any justification for retrieving them other than claiming some kind of moral high ground (which, if existed, would make an anarchist community of any kind extremely unlikely).

Parents shouldn't be allowed to send their children to pedophile communes in the first place.

That's pretty obvious

[Hermes]

Parents shouldn't be allowed to send their children to pedophile communes in the first place.

That's pretty obvious

...I agree. I was responding to a hypothetical situation brought up earlier in this thread.

[bcbm]

Yeah I'm not exactly a king at comparisons, I'll give you that. I'm not saying we shouldn't take action against non-rapist paedophiles, I think we should give them all the help we can before something happens. What I meant is that people who go off on these "fucking dirty paedos need to be slaughtered" explosions aren't approaching the issue very well.

yes i agree


And obviously such paedophiles/child molesters realise they hold a minority opinion on the topic, but why (in their eyes) should they hold off molesting children if they don't see anything wrong with it?

i think for the most part they know it is wrong whatever they feel, even those who act on it typically know they're doing something wrong which is why they try to hide it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

They could just kidnap them.

Anarchist militias would patrol the streets, pulling over all windowless vans. Any old dudes inside in possession of bags of Jolly Ranchers will be arrested!

Hahaha I think the idea of a NAMBLA commune is pretty hilarious for some reason. Reminds me of how some Inuit societies were organized: the criminals and "undesirables" were exiled off into their own little community. So there would be multiple clans of Inuit in this one area of northern Canada, and then there would be the "criminal clan".

I don't think that's how it would theoretically work in teh anarky, though.

[Ele'ill]

If I was a child who had a basic understanding of autonomy and anarchism and the (new) world around me would I be violating some pedophile's autonomy by killing them when they attempt to sexually assault me? If I didn't have a basic understanding of autonomy and anarchism and the (new) world around me would someone else be violating some pedophile's autonomy by killing them when they attempt to sexually assault me? (or in the actual context of this conversation, form a tribe of assholes who want to rape children and get away with it cuz'a freedum'

[bcbm]

i dont think anyone opposes self defense. if there is not an immediate threat, i think pursuing something other than murder would probably make the most sense as a starting point

[Raúl Duke]

Why would this question apply to anarchists and not to communists in general?

I like this question, because that's how I see the issue has it been stated so far.

Assuming there was a NAMBLA commune somewhere, shunned by the wider federation/etc; what would the federation/other communes do to "stop them?"

I don't see how this scenario is exclusive to an anarchist society...really.

Imagine if there was some sect of child molesters somewhere in the USSR...what will the central government do?

In an anarchist society, a whole slew of things can happen. In the end, the communes and collectives decide. If they decide in sending in a militia and stopping them than that's that.

In a centralized "vanguard of the working class in control" traditional Marxist-Leninist state I imagine that choice is up to a politburo, Supreme Soviet, etc.

If a bunch of child-molesters were running an odious child-molesting commune or whatever I imagine that in the end something will be done about it if the people in charge/in general find it an odious, repulsive, 'bad' thing.

[Ele'ill]

i dont think anyone opposes self defense. if there is not an immediate threat, i think pursuing something other than murder would probably make the most sense as a starting point

Sure, but it sounded like some users wanted to approach the scenario starting at the point where there's already a group of pedophiles organized somewhere doing this stuff. I took the question of 'what are you going to do as anarchists' to mean 'how could you protect yourselves, others, the community etc.. and still be 'anarchists'' and did not take this question as 'no literally how would it happen, what would the steps be'

[∞]

nobody here is okay with diddling kids or would compare it to homosexuality:rolleyes: and how did incest get brought into this lovely mix of perversion?

Incest creates deformed babies.

[∞]

Incest can be consensual and "poses absolutely no potential danger".

Incest creates deformed babies.

[Hermes]

Incest creates deformed babies.

For one, not all incest is between men and women. For the other, it doesn't always. Just usually (not that that makes it alright, just saying).
-
(you could also say this is similar to the question of whether or not people with hereditary mental deficiencies should be able to have sexual intercourse. I personally think they should be able to, others disagree.)

[∞]

For one, not all incest is between men and women. For the other, it doesn't always. Just usually (not that that makes it alright, just saying).

Usually is often enough.

[Hermes]

Usually is often enough.

Not that it really matters, but would you oppose homosexual incest, then?

[∞]

Not that it really matters, but would you oppose homosexual incest, then?

Not in public.

As long as people who commit incest don't reproduce (and it is consensual and they are old enough) I don't care. As fucking nasty as it is.

[bcbm]

Incest creates deformed babies.

not if they use a condom

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I started this thread in a friendly manner trolling on anarchists, I don't check it for a while, and this is how screwing the conversation got! Incest, really?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Deformed babies won't be a problem, we're going to have free on-demand abortion, remember?

[Lanky Wanker]

I started this thread in a friendly manner trolling on anarchists, I don't check it for a while, and this is how screwing the conversation got! Incest, really?

What can I say, we're a forum of interesting people... look forward to more of this, especially if NewLeft has posted on the thread. I hope he sees this.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The whole idea of this thread is fucked up. It's as if Nambla represents the worst possible type of crime. NAMBLA advocates consensual relationships between men and teens. You may not like the idea -- but the idea that this is the measure of criminal behavior is idiotic. Why wasn't something like what anarchists might do with sociopaths that maim and kill people the question? Why NAMBLA?

[Lanky Wanker]

The whole idea of this thread is fucked up. It's as if Nambla represents the worst possible type of crime. NAMBLA advocates consensual relationships between men and teens. You may not like the idea -- but the idea that this is the measure of criminal behavior is idiotic. Why wasn't something like what anarchists might do with sociopaths that maim and kill people the question? Why NAMBLA?

Well, not necessarily teens... just anyone not legally old enough to consent to, but physically "developed" enough to, handle being entered from behind. Society tells us to fear paedophiles and drug dealers like the plague, maaan.

[∞]

Deformed babies won't be a problem, we're going to have free on-demand abortion, remember?

Alot of them won't have abortions. Thats a big problem. Either way these acts are disgusting but I cannot tell people what to do unless there was some kind of state. In that case I'd support the outlawing of incest.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think it's kind of gross too but I just don't see how it's a problem large enough to warrant legislation against. Plus I don't really care...

[∞]

Under a state I would only support outlawing it because I am disgusted by it.
Without a state I may be disgusted by it, but I would value statelessness over some people not incest.

[Lanky Wanker]

Alot of them won't have abortions. Thats a big problem. Either way these acts are disgusting but I cannot tell people what to do unless there was some kind of state. In that case I'd support the outlawing of incest.

Do you find it disgusting in the sense that it's harmful, or do you just not like the thought of a brother and sister getting it on?

[Igor]

Alot of them won't have abortions. Thats a big problem. Either way these acts are disgusting but I cannot tell people what to do unless there was some kind of state. In that case I'd support the outlawing of incest.

You'd outlaw a form of consensual sex because it might give birth to an unhealthy baby. Even though, most of the time people probably would use contraceptives (what, sex for other purposes than getting children? oh dear) and in some cases, wouldn't have to, ie. they're gay. Just because somebody might have a kid, let's have a ban on those other people doing harmless consensual things I find gross, too, just to be sure, right?

are you fucking kidding me

[∞]

Do you find it disgusting in the sense that it's harmful, or do you just not like the thought of a brother and sister getting it on?

The latter.


You'd outlaw a form of consensual sex because it might give birth to an unhealthy baby. Even though, most of the time people probably would use contraceptives (what, sex for other purposes than getting children? oh dear) and in some cases, wouldn't have to, ie. they're gay. Just because somebody might have a kid, let's have a ban on those other people doing harmless consensual things I find gross, too, just to be sure, right?

are you fucking kidding me

I was thinking about outlawing it as long as there is a state. Otherwise a baby with extreme disabilities spawned out of incest shouldn't expect soicety's support economically.

[Lanky Wanker]

The latter.


Would eating poo be outlawed too then? :lol:

[Igor]

Outlawing - but why? You still keep ignoring contraception and homosexuality among other things. Sex is not all about procreation etc etc

Also a baby with extreme disabilities shouldn't expect society's support? What the fuck? Why would you punish the baby? That's some medieval shit man

[∞]

Would eating poo be outlawed too then? :lol:

That doesn't disgust me.


Outlawing - but why? You still keep ignoring contraception and homosexuality among other things. Sex is not all about procreation etc etc

Because I don't know how to enforce not having them pregnant with the kid so outlaw all together.


Also a baby with extreme disabilities shouldn't expect society's support? What the fuck? Why would you punish the baby? That's some medieval shit man

Its not medieval. I'm not going to have to support a severely handicapped incest-baby with any form of social welfare. Its nothing personal, it just prevents incest babies from being born.

[Igor]

It's not hard preventing babies getting born out of gay relationships, incest or not, really

Also it seriously is pretty medieval. If the child is seriously handicapped, the child has a special need for that support, "incest-baby" or not. The way the baby was born doesn't make the baby any less of a human and the fact that you're neglecting this is pretty sick.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

We'd set up anti-NAMBLA militia groups and put chastity belts on our children with big Russian men escorting them everywhere they went.

But for real, I don't see what the problem would be. If someone gets caught raping a child, they'd be put away to protect the community's kiddies. They have mental issues and a different understanding of such things, so I don't think they should be thrown into scary dark rooms with people trying to beat them up or anything like that though. What part of anarchism would make this harder? I'm not an anarchist, but I don't see why we'd need the vanguard standing outside the White House behind a glass shield, threatening to castrate all the sex offenders in a violent speech of anti-NAMBLA passion. Anarchism always seems to be mistaken for this "run around and do whatever you want" ideology. Oops... I'm breeding an argument here.


Psychological people need to be put in labor camps. Does this sound Stalinist? It's not, actually when mentally ill are trained in small scale manufacturing given a job and within a community with people like them, this is the most healthy to them. Cuba has had very good examples in dealing with the mentally ill, but this process is grounded on school requirements etc. i don't know if that could be dangerous to society in the long term as in not being used to or tolerant of mentally ill people. But it seems like a good system that Cuba uses for its mentally ill.

[bcbm]

turn the mentally ill in to slaves, what a great idea.


this is the worst thread i have seen in awhile

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

But it seems we have some faarr-right wing elements in this thread... It is though a sign of natural selection evolution to mate with animals with a ddifferent genetic code. This is also a reason why immigration is healthy.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

turn the mentally ill in to slaves, what a great idea.


this is the worst thread i have seen in awhile

LOL, not what i was actually saying. I am saying giving mentally ill a seperate education and seperate workplace as necessary. Incest would be most likely be non-existent in a socialist society, in growing up in society collectively. The bigger the society, the more social the individual, the less these problems here are really of any importance.

[Lanky Wanker]

Psychological people need to be put in labor camps. Does this sound Stalinist? It's not, actually when mentally ill are trained in small scale manufacturing given a job and within a community with people like them, this is the most healthy to them. Cuba has had very good examples in dealing with the mentally ill, but this process is grounded on school requirements etc. i don't know if that could be dangerous to society in the long term as in not being used to or tolerant of mentally ill people. But it seems like a good system that Cuba uses for its mentally ill.

Giving people work to do and putting them in labour camps are two completely different things though. If a person is able to work despite having mental issues then it would obviously be better for them to do something constructive with their time than sitting in an empty room eating pills. Also, mental illness could include a phobia of spiders, but I doubt we're gonna send everyone with arachnophobia to the gulags lol. The Cuba thing sounds interesting though, I'll check it out.

[∞]

It's not hard preventing babies getting born out of gay relationships, incest or not, really

Also it seriously is pretty medieval. If the child is seriously handicapped, the child has a special need for that support, "incest-baby" or not. The way the baby was born doesn't make the baby any less of a human and the fact that you're neglecting this is pretty sick.

I don't care. I don't want incest-babies walking around. That is that.

[gorillafuck]

Incest creates deformed babies.incest does not always lead to pregnancy though. also, isn't inbreeding only a problem if it's many generations?

I am pro-sibling incest on the grounds that it is an edgy opinion to have

[PhantomRei]

"I don't care. I don't want incest-babies walking around. That is that"

I don't care about your ableist libertarian eugenics bullshit. It's fucking murder and the baby certainly did not do anything to deserve it. Whether a child or thier parents disgust you, or they are deformed or disabled, has absolutely no bearing on their right to live. You'd fit in better on mises.org with that kind of crap.

[∞]

"I don't care. I don't want incest-babies walking around. That is that"

I don't care about your ableist libertarian eugenics bullshit. It's fucking murder and the baby certainly did not do anything to deserve it. Whether a child or thier parents disgust you, or they are deformed or disabled, has absolutely no bearing on their right to live. You'd fit in better on mises.org with that kind of crap.

But I'm a socialist I can prove it to yo- I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOU SHIT.

[PhantomRei]

But I'm a socialist I can prove it to yo- I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOU SHIT.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

OK, good. And proceed with your support of leaving disabled babies to die as if that wasn't completely reactionary.

[Prometeo liberado]

Would eating poo be outlawed too then? :lol:

Are we talking squishy or a heavy-on-the-bran type of poo. Huuuge difference. Just sayin.:rolleyes:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Ah, a thread featuring NAMBLA, poop eating, incest babies, and slave factories for the mentally handicapped. This is definitely going in the "revleft's greatest hits" thread.

[Ostrinski]

ITT: some fucked up shit

[bcbm]

i think this has probably run its course