Age, identity, and the left

[MKS]

I think that RevLEft should impose an age limit (18+) for all members. My reasoning behind this is that youth and their ideals are often very malleable and tend to change with age and maturity, and such a serious struggle as the Progressive Egalitarian Movement needs only seriously committed members, not youthful zealots who in 2 years time could be espousing the virtues of Adam Smith and neo-liberalism.

[Rollo]

I'm 16 and I know more about most things then a lot of 18+ year olds. Age does not determine ability to understand and learn for ones self.

[bezdomni]

Yes. Arbitrary age requirements work wonders.

[colonelguppy]

seems like it would be easier to convert malleable youth to your cause

[Rollo]

If I'm such a malleable youth I challenge you to 'convert' me. Good luck.

[which doctor]

Sure a lot of youth burn out and become liberals or even worse, conservatives. But it's not a problem to have them on this board especially since a lot of the young members on this board seem to know a helluva lot more than some of the older members. This is a board for learning too, and we should start by educating the youth.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 09:52 pm
If I'm such a malleable youth I challenge you to 'convert' me. Good luck.
well i wans't really referring to my side, but sure see you in the forum

[Rollo]

I'm exercising my right to not see you in the forum. Not so malleable eh?

[apathy maybe]

I think that not only is this a compleatly stupid idea, it would also be quite impossible to enforce.

"Are you are terrorist?" Why yes actually I am.

"Are you under 18?" Why yes actually I am.

How do you make people give a valid age over the Internet?

[Rollo]

Half the people on the forum are underage drinkers and drug users. Why would they listen to the authority of an 18+ rule?

[LoneRed]

Even though it is not true that Age determines knowledge of politics and society, it is true that the older you are, the more experiences you have been through and thus the more concrete you are in whatever views you have been shaped into

[apathy maybe]

True but not relevent to the discussion. RevLeft is not just for discussing ideas of revolution, it is also for learning, which can be done at any age.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 10:41 pm
I'm exercising my right to not see you in the forum. Not so malleable eh?
malleable no, stupid yes

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 03:00 am
Sure a lot of youth burn out and become liberals or even worse, conservatives.
I think you mean:

Sure a lot of youth burn out and become conservatives or even worse, liberals ;)

[Rollo]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+October 30, 2006 02:47 pm--> (colonelguppy @ October 30, 2006 02:47 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2006 10:41 pm
I'm exercising my right to not see you in the forum. Not so malleable eh?
malleable no, stupid yes [/b]
If I'm so malleable I'de listen to you and read what you have to say. My mind is made up and I choose not to listen to you.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 02:41 am
I think that RevLEft should impose an age limit (18+) for all members. My reasoning behind this is that youth and their ideals are often very malleable and tend to change with age and maturity, and such a serious struggle as the Progressive Egalitarian Movement needs only seriously committed members, not youthful zealots who in 2 years time could be espousing the virtues of Adam Smith and neo-liberalism.
Because the youth are often quick-witted they are likely to dispose of old nonsense quicker than thier elders. Commited to the death or not, shutting out the youth is the stupidest thing one can do to build a mass movement. A mass movement needed for progressive revolutionary struggle.

The trick is to open up the doors for class war as much as possible, so you don't end up with a liberal baby boomer situation again.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Rollo+October 30, 2006 12:03 am--> (Rollo @ October 30, 2006 12:03 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 02:47 pm

[email protected] 29, 2006 10:41 pm
I'm exercising my right to not see you in the forum. Not so malleable eh?
malleable no, stupid yes
If I'm so malleable I'de listen to you and read what you have to say. My mind is made up and I choose not to listen to you. [/b]
well thats a stupid way to go about life

[Delirium]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 10:49 pm
Half the people on the forum are underage drinkers and drug users. Why would they listen to the authority of an 18+ rule?
yar

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

I understand MKS wanting to impose an age requirement in the hopes of generating some more meaningful and thought provoking discussion from RevLeft, but I'm afraid that would be impossible as well as totally against the ideals that this Forum stands for.

[RedAnarchist]

I've an idea, why not prevent members over 60? Or all women? Or people with brown eyes? :wacko:

This idea is nonsense. We can help educate younger leftists here, and many of our most active members are under 18.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Blue Collar [email protected] 30, 2006 05:32 am
I understand MKS wanting to impose an age requirement in the hopes of generating some more meaningful and thought provoking discussion from RevLeft, but I'm afraid that would be impossible as well as totally against the ideals that this Forum stands for.
Bingo!

The intention may have been good, but this is perhaps one of the worst ideas ever. If anything I am less engaged in theory and "politics" thanI was during mid-late teens.

Age restrictions are, in ever conceivable case, counterproductive. The leap from viewing a person in terms of their years on the planet and in terms of gender/sexuality or race is not huge...

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Anyway, you aren't necessarily going to get a good debate going with someone who is over 18. Likewise, someone who is under 18 isn't necessarily going to be a roll over in debate.

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

Age requirements are just plain stupid.

Case Closed. You can be a revolutionary at any age.

[kaaos_af]

Half of us are anarchists. Enough said.

[Zeruzo]

Naah... revleft would lose 3/4th of it's active members...
Bad idea...

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 03:00 am
Sure a lot of youth burn out and become liberals or even worse, conservatives. But it's not a problem to have them on this board especially since a lot of the young members on this board seem to know a helluva lot more than some of the older members. This is a board for learning too, and we should start by educating the youth.
That's true, their mastery of all the latest slogans is second to none.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Ridiculous suggestion. We young un's rock your socks, admit it.

-Alex

[kaaos_af]

And besides, how would such a limit be enforced?

[Wanted Man]

Silly idea. The youth is the future. The future is socialism. So no.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by Monty Python

Michael Palin:
You were lucky! We lived for three months in a rolled-up newspaper in a septic tank! We used to have to go up every morning, at six o'clock and clean the newspaper, go to work down the mill, fourteen hours a day, week in, week out, for six pence a week, and when we got home, our dad would slash us to sleep with his belt!

Graham Chapman:
Luxury! We used to have to get up out of the lake at three o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot grubble, work twenty hours a day at mill, for two pence a month, come home, and dad would beat us around the head and neck with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!

Terry Jones:
Well, of course, we had it tough! We used to have to get up out of the shoebox in the middle of the night, and lick the road clean with our tongues! We had to eat half a handful of freezing cold grubble, work twenty-four hours a day at mill for four pence every six years, and when we got home, our dad would slice us in two with a breadknife!

Eric Idle:
Right! I had to get up in the morning, at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill and pay millowner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our dad would kill us and dance about on our graves, singing Hallelujah!

Michael Palin:
Aah. Are you trying to tell the young people of today that, and they won't believe you!


Script (http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/HollywoodBowl/hollywood.html#yorkshireman)

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 02:30 pm
Half of us are anarchists. Enough said.
I dispute that.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by Marx Lenin Stalin+October 30, 2006 12:13 pm--> (Marx Lenin Stalin @ October 30, 2006 12:13 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2006 02:30 pm
Half of us are anarchists. Enough said.
I dispute that. [/b]
You would.

I'd say it is roughly true, depending on where you draw the line.

Personally, I've always felt that in every communist there is a bit of an anarchist, and in every anarchist a bit of a communist.


It would be interesting to see an anarchist-communist demographic graph broken down by age. While I am sure all are represented in each age group, I'd bet the anarchist graph would be slanted towards the young and the communist graph slanted the other way. Nothing statistically significiant, just "leaning" one way or the other.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It was Rowan Atkinson who did the "Luxury" one, and John Cleese who did the last one, as I remember it from comic balls.

Still, total classic.

-Alex

[Patriot76]

Why do you care? You are restricted anyway.

[LuXe]

What the...

If this is enforced, I am kicked out?

[Demogorgon]

That can't be enforced. They would simply say they were over 18. At any rate, somebody's opinion is worth the same to me no matter how old they are.

It's true that your ideas do change a bit as you get older. My views have changed I'll admit. Economically I'm as left as ever but my social views have become much more Libertarian and more importantly my views on how to achieve socialism have changed utterly to become far more realistic.

I'll admit when I see kids here yelling about their fantasies of violent revolution, I think "Oh God, six months from now they could as easily be screaming about invading the next 'Axis of Evil' country or whatever" but then again they could as easily keep their ideas or better still let them mature and become applicable to the world we have today, but still as left as ever.

[MKS]

Let me first say that when I first posted this topic I realized that imposing an age limit would be useless as it would be impossible to enforce. The main point of this post what to start a discussion on age, reason, behavior, and the necessity of identity with community.

Most youths are looking for identity to a community, whether it be cultural (ethnic), sport, religious, political or to a more criminal community i.e. gangs. I think it is the nature of youth to be curious, motivated, and restless as they want to form an independent identify as well as find camaraderie and community with like minded people. Leftist politics, especially Revolutionary Leftist Politics can seem very attractive to youths as it is very different from the familiar status quo, it is very interesting, and tends to be put forth as something romantic, think of Che adorned with his beret and rifle, fighting in the jungles of Cuba, it is a very romantic and heroic image. Like most other things youthful zeal tends to ignore the realities of warfare, or class struggle and of the complex nature of humanity. Simply stated, the youths (and some of the more aged) tend to use this zeal to travel down the same path as past revolutionaries, all of them failed, and it is this constant redundancy that has stagnated the Progressive Egalitarian movement. Instead of seeking new perspectives or concepts or understandings of humanity, society and economics, the youthful "revolutionary" is enveloped by the stale dogma and doctrines of the past. They become sheep instead of wolves, they are all too willing to recite Marx, Luxembourg or Lenin, but uninterested in the intellectual pursuit of something original or unique. What made Marx so revolutionary was that he produced original principles and so should the Movement should always encourage the constant evolution of ideology.
I do not want to discourage anyone, but I also do not want to see valuable time and energy wasted, we should let the young be young, let them explore, grow and learn and once they are matured by experience and time then we should welcome them as equals in the struggle.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 02:41 am
I think that RevLEft should impose an age limit (18+) for all members. My reasoning behind this is that youth and their ideals are often very malleable and tend to change with age and maturity, and such a serious struggle as the Progressive Egalitarian Movement needs only seriously committed members, not youthful zealots who in 2 years time could be espousing the virtues of Adam Smith and neo-liberalism.
Someone who has studied Marxism so in depth that they're able to have intelligent debate on this forum will most likely not be a capitalist ever. Plus, students and youth are an important part of the revolution. A little known fact about the red star is that each side stands for groups of people that are the base of the revolution. The students are one of the sides.

[Red Menace]

Age is irrelevant. You do not need to be 18 to be a revolutionary. You do not need to be 18 to care. You do not need to be 18 to do anything technically. anything that requires this as a prerequisate for anything should be consideredd age discrimination.

[Raisa]

Man MKS my communism could kick your communisms ass when I was 10. Shit.
Leave the kids alone.

[MKS]

Leave the kids alone

Exactly.

We don’t need children in our ranks, we need them to become intelligent, free-thinking individuals who will hopefully be the bright future of the Movement, but they should not be an active part of the present Movement. Does my view seem discriminatory, obviously it is, but it is not malevolent and I do not seek to marginalize the importance of inclusion of all of humanity, but youth being a temporary condition should be allowed a separate existence, an excluded existence in order to preserve innocence and allow for the cultivation of a developed ethos not a spoon fed dogmatism.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 30, 2006 03:47 am
I think that not only is this a compleatly stupid idea, it would also be quite impossible to enforce.

"Are you are terrorist?" Why yes actually I am.

"Are you under 18?" Why yes actually I am.

How do you make people give a valid age over the Internet?
"Have you committed a crime that you want to report?"
No.

"Then you have committed a crime that you don't want to report. A police car has been sent to your home".

:P

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 07:37 pm
Let me first say that when I first posted this topic I realized that imposing an age limit would be useless as it would be impossible to enforce. The main point of this post what to start a discussion on age, reason, behavior, and the necessity of identity with community.

Most youths are looking for identity to a community, whether it be cultural (ethnic), sport, religious, political or to a more criminal community i.e. gangs. I think it is the nature of youth to be curious, motivated, and restless as they want to form an independent identify as well as find camaraderie and community with like minded people. Leftist politics, especially Revolutionary Leftist Politics can seem very attractive to youths as it is very different from the familiar status quo, it is very interesting, and tends to be put forth as something romantic, think of Che adorned with his beret and rifle, fighting in the jungles of Cuba, it is a very romantic and heroic image. Like most other things youthful zeal tends to ignore the realities of warfare, or class struggle and of the complex nature of humanity. Simply stated, the youths (and some of the more aged) tend to use this zeal to travel down the same path as past revolutionaries, all of them failed, and it is this constant redundancy that has stagnated the Progressive Egalitarian movement. Instead of seeking new perspectives or concepts or understandings of humanity, society and economics, the youthful "revolutionary" is enveloped by the stale dogma and doctrines of the past. They become sheep instead of wolves, they are all too willing to recite Marx, Luxembourg or Lenin, but uninterested in the intellectual pursuit of something original or unique. What made Marx so revolutionary was that he produced original principles and so should the Movement should always encourage the constant evolution of ideology.
I do not want to discourage anyone, but I also do not want to see valuable time and energy wasted, we should let the young be young, let them explore, grow and learn and once they are matured by experience and time then we should welcome them as equals in the struggle.
Well you do make a decent point.

Many of the less intelligent youth on this board have come here because they have experienced the first stages of rebellion. They have seen that their parents and other authority figures have not been living up to their own values that they have been trying to instill in their children. It's typical adolescent rebellion. However, they have not yet made up their own mind on their own values yet. Most youth never go past this point and make up their own mind on their lives. Most youth who come to this board link Che Guevara to this spectacle of rebellion.

[Zero]

Though please don't commit the tyrrany of the majority. I came here when I was 16. Politically, Socially, and Philosophically I am a whole new person.

RevLeft should have a learning section for youth, and a more serious philosophical, and theoretical section for older, or more mature young people.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by MKS
I do not want to discourage anyone, but I also do not want to see valuable time and energy wasted, we should let the young be young, let them explore, grow and learn and once they are matured by experience and time then we should welcome them as equals in the struggle.

I.E. People under the age of 18 aren't capable of being 'our' equals until... their 18th birthday, then all of a sudden they're capable of thinking for themselves and not just acting like a sheep!

Your attitude is patronising as fuck. Who the fuck are you to say that people under 18 are incapable of grasping revolutionary concepts without becoming sheep? If anything this board shows that age should not be taken as a determing factor (plenty of under 18s who have critical minds and are not sheep, and plenty of 18+ who fit the opposite category), and moreover the world shows that people over the 18+ are just as capable as people under 18 of being naive, acting like sheep etc. etc.

And if people are coming to revolutionary theory at a young age, and they become 'enveloped by stale dogma' then its good that they can come to a place like this and read discussions of people who do have more experience, that they can read different POV and engage in debate to develop their own ideas.

The way people develop into free-thinking, critically-minded revolutionaries is not by being treated like they are mentally inferior, that they are incapable of 'getting it', but by encouraging full participation and critical engagement as an equal with people of all ages and experience levels.

Moreover, part of developing your mind as a young person is about the evolution of your ideas. If someone does get 'enveloped in stale dogma' in their youth this is part of their own process of intellectual development. They have to explore and feel out what makes sense to them, if the same people are simply excluded from participating in discussion until they have reached the magic number of 18, there is no certainty that they will not fall into the same situation.

Instead of excluding them or regarding them as incapable, we should be trying to engage with young people as soon as possible, i wish i was exposed to the ideas and debate of this board when i was under 18, i have no doubt i would have matured politically at a much faster rate.

[Raisa]

the innocence of childhood is bourgeois.
I wasnt innocent as a child.
But before I had real class contiousness do you know what I wanted to be when I grew up?
A BOSS.....like scarface.

[MKS]

I.E. People under the age of 18 aren't capable of being 'our' equals until... their 18th birthday, then all of a sudden they're capable of thinking for themselves and not just acting like a sheep!

I don’t think you read my posts correctly, I want the youth to think for themselves, therefore they should not be heavily involved in any socio-political movement, or any movement that asks such a great commitment. I'll admit the age 18 is not some magic age, but it is the understood norm in most circles of thought, of when a person reaches maturity, and therefore I draw the line at 18 just for expedience.



Who the fuck are you to say that people under 18 are incapable of grasping revolutionary concepts without becoming sheep?

Actually it is a well known basis for most behavioral studies that adolescents are more susceptible to indoctrination.

My argument is not for exclusion from discussion by exclusion from action or serious effort.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by MKS+--> (MKS)I don’t think you read my posts correctly, I want the youth to think for themselves, therefore they should not be heavily involved in any socio-political movement, or any movement that asks such a great commitment. [/b]

I know, that's called paternalism.

On the surface you appear to 'mean well', but underlying your proposal is the assumption of inferiority, that young people are incapable of being anything but sheep until they are 18. The solution, exclude all young people 'for their own good'. It doesn't matter if you couch your idea in rhetoric like, 'I want the youth to think for themselves'.

As for wanting the youth to think for themselves, i.e. critically, perhaps you could address the body of my last post which dealt with this question?


Originally posted by BD+--> (BD)And if people are coming to revolutionary theory at a young age, and they become 'enveloped by stale dogma' then its good that they can come to a place like this and read discussions of people who do have more experience, that they can read different POV and engage in debate to develop their own ideas.

The way people develop into free-thinking, critically-minded revolutionaries is not by being treated like they are mentally inferior, that they are incapable of 'getting it', but by encouraging full participation and critical engagement as an equal with people of all ages and experience levels.

Moreover, part of developing your mind as a young person is about the evolution of your ideas. If someone does get 'enveloped in stale dogma' in their youth this is part of their own process of intellectual development. They have to explore and feel out what makes sense to them, if the same people are simply excluded from participating in discussion until they have reached the magic number of 18, there is no certainty that they will not fall into the same situation.

Instead of excluding them or regarding them as incapable, we should be trying to engage with young people as soon as possible, i wish i was exposed to the ideas and debate of this board when i was under 18, i have no doubt i would have matured politically at a much faster rate.[/b]

--------------------



Originally posted by MKS

I'll admit the age 18 is not some magic age, but it is the understood norm in most circles of thought, of when a person reaches maturity, and therefore I draw the line at 18 just for expedience.

For someone who is assumed to be so critical, accepting false 'norms' like age = maturity or worse, 18 years of age = maturity, is not expediency but stupidity.

Because it has, following your uncritical acceptance of this norm, led to developd pternalistic notions of the (un)suitability of under 18s in the revolutionary movement. Necause 'the norm' and following, you - say so, under 18s are mentally incapable of participating as equals, and what's more?

'Behavioural studies' prove the inferiority of the youth!


[email protected]
Actually it is a well known basis for most behavioral studies that adolescents are more susceptible to indoctrination.

Yes, but non-adolescents are also susceptible to indoctrination, yet you dont feel it necessary to patronise all adults in the same manner.


MKS

My argument is not for exclusion from discussion by exclusion from action or serious effort.

Why should under 18s be excluded from 'action or serious effort'? Plese define these terms.

[Sadena Meti]

While we are on the subject of age, who's the oldest known member? Do we have any pensioners here?

[MKS]

I know, that's called paternalism.

The paternalism is justified. In my opinion.



For someone who is assumed to be so critical, accepting false 'norms' like age = maturity or worse, 18 years of age = maturity, is not expediency but stupidity.

No its not stupidity it is expediency. Why reexamine and subsequently reestablish a new organization of humanity? How is age a false norm? If anything it is a scientific fact, now you could argue maturity is a subjective term, I agree, however there is scientific evidence that establishes the difference between a 14 year old persons behavior, reasoning ability, impulses etc and those of a 25, 35, 45 year old. While these things may be products of environment they are substantial especially when forming any definitive ideology.



Yes, but non-adolescents are also susceptible to indoctrination, yet you dont feel it necessary to patronise all adults in the same manner.

If you read what I wrote I said that adolescents are more susceptible to indoctrination, this obviously is a proven maxim of psychology.


Why should under 18s be excluded from 'action or serious effort'? Please define these terms.

I think I have made my argument pretty clear on why it is inappropiate to allow youths to be active in the struggle. Just as I dont think they should be active in religous movements, or any movement.

I will conceed that workers of any age are always included in the struggle. Students on the other hand can take their ivory tower paternalism and wait until they grow up a little.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 12:37 am
Let me first say that when I first posted this topic I realized that imposing an age limit would be useless as it would be impossible to enforce. The main point of this post what to start a discussion on age, reason, behavior, and the necessity of identity with community.

Most youths are looking for identity to a community, whether it be cultural (ethnic), sport, religious, political or to a more criminal community i.e. gangs. I think it is the nature of youth to be curious, motivated, and restless as they want to form an independent identify as well as find camaraderie and community with like minded people. Leftist politics, especially Revolutionary Leftist Politics can seem very attractive to youths as it is very different from the familiar status quo, it is very interesting, and tends to be put forth as something romantic, think of Che adorned with his beret and rifle, fighting in the jungles of Cuba, it is a very romantic and heroic image. Like most other things youthful zeal tends to ignore the realities of warfare, or class struggle and of the complex nature of humanity. Simply stated, the youths (and some of the more aged) tend to use this zeal to travel down the same path as past revolutionaries, all of them failed, and it is this constant redundancy that has stagnated the Progressive Egalitarian movement. Instead of seeking new perspectives or concepts or understandings of humanity, society and economics, the youthful "revolutionary" is enveloped by the stale dogma and doctrines of the past. They become sheep instead of wolves, they are all too willing to recite Marx, Luxembourg or Lenin, but uninterested in the intellectual pursuit of something original or unique. What made Marx so revolutionary was that he produced original principles and so should the Movement should always encourage the constant evolution of ideology.
I do not want to discourage anyone, but I also do not want to see valuable time and energy wasted, we should let the young be young, let them explore, grow and learn and once they are matured by experience and time then we should welcome them as equals in the struggle.
Thius I agree with. A tendency to recite dogma and not think about reality (and that goes for all ages) is the most annoying thing about this board.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by SovietPants+October 31, 2006 02:36 am--> (SovietPants @ October 31, 2006 02:36 am)
apathy [email protected] 30, 2006 03:47 am
I think that not only is this a compleatly stupid idea, it would also be quite impossible to enforce.

"Are you are terrorist?" Why yes actually I am.

"Are you under 18?" Why yes actually I am.

How do you make people give a valid age over the Internet?
"Have you committed a crime that you want to report?"
No.

"Then you have committed a crime that you don't want to report. A police car has been sent to your home".

:P [/b]
Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Barney left Homer's car in the plaza at the World Trade Center, and so it had about 45 parking tickets on it. Homer calls the number on the tickets and gets an automated service that asks him to enter 1 if innocent or 2 if guilty. He enters "1" and hears, "Thank you. Your plea has been REJECTED. Please wait by your car..."

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Or those stupid questions they ask you at the airport.

"Did you pack your bag yourself?"
"No actually, Osama won't let me handle the really high explosives so he had someone else do it instead."

[Janus]

:lol: How could this be properly enforced? A better idea would be to have a mental age limit for the OI forum. :lol:

Anyways, if any members want to make serious proposals, please do so in the member's forum rather than OI.

[Janus]

Let me first say that when I first posted this topic I realized that imposing an age limit would be useless as it would be impossible to enforce. The main point of this post what to start a discussion on age, reason, behavior, and the necessity of identity with community.
I was gonna close this thread until I saw this. I guess I'll just change the thread title now in the hopes of preventing spam.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

MKS, since you generally, as far as I can see, try to discuss things reasonable, I will leave you alone. However, one could make a cause for banning you for ageism. I mean, as people stated, age division is arbitrary. We already restrict/ban people who don't meet a certain criteria. If more people don't meet that criteria, it may be due to those people being of a younger age. This is a far superior method of managment than an age limit.

As for your whole protect the children thing, that is just nonsense. Communism isn't a method of indoctrination. It is a political theory. If we were talking about religion, I might agree with you, but left-wing politics are far different.

[MKS]

I mean, as people stated, age division is arbitrary

Age division is not arbitrary, sure some dilienations might seem arbitrary but somewhere a line must be drawn. Science will agree that people grow, they age and as they age they mature, such evolution of the person needs to be gradually emerged into the different aspects of society, be they economic, social, educational, or political.


Communism isn't a method of indoctrination. It is a political theory. If we were talking about religion, I might agree with you, but left-wing politics are far different.

Its the same idea; I believe people need to enter into any organization independent of any coercive force. Just because religion teaches one thing and the socio-economic ideals of the Left teach another it is the same principle of altering a person’s perception of the world. The subjective moral question of both is irrelevant.

I read somewhere that we are all brainwashed from birth on, so the act of brainwashing is not inherently "bad" but some would bring up the morality of what a person is being brainwashed to think. (just something to think about)

[apathy maybe]

Age division is not arbitrary, sure some dilienations might seem arbitrary but somewhere a line must be drawn. Science will agree that people grow, they age and as they age they mature, such evolution of the person needs to be gradually emerged into the different aspects of society, be they economic, social, educational, or political.Age division is arbitrary. People grow and mature at different rates, having a line drawn some where means that you are ignoring these differences. Thus being arbitrary.

[quote]I believe people need to enter into any organization independent of any coercive force. /quote]Sure, but having arbitrary age limits (people mature, learn and deteriorate at different rates, thus age limits are arbitrary) does not help. What you are doing is using coercive force to keep people out.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 04:59 pm

Communism isn't a method of indoctrination. It is a political theory. If we were talking about religion, I might agree with you, but left-wing politics are far different.

Its the same idea; I believe people need to enter into any organization independent of any coercive force. Just because religion teaches one thing and the socio-economic ideals of the Left teach another it is the same principle of altering a person’s perception of the world. The subjective moral question of both is irrelevant.

I read somewhere that we are all brainwashed from birth on, so the act of brainwashing is not inherently "bad" but some would bring up the morality of what a person is being brainwashed to think. (just something to think about)
Granted, your logic says that any method of teaching, when it comes to so-called "subjective" matters, is wrong before a certain age. So I presume I children should be shielded from the belief that murder is wrong, too. That is, after all, a subjective value. A parent can never say "that is bad" to a child.

You can't separate everyday beliefs about morality and say they are ok to teach children at an early age while demonizing others. Again, communism isn't about indocrinating individuals with beliefs that are false. We don't say capitalism is bad or murder is wrong. We say this is why it is beneficial to create a society where capitalism doesn't exist. You can accept these premises if you wish...

Sure, a lot of us (myself included) talk about communism as if it is self-evident. However, this is a leftist forum. We are working with premises that most people don't accept to form other conclusions.

[Matty_UK]

If a young person comes to this forum, most likely they are sympathetic to communism already and it's better they can actively take part in discussions to increase their knowledge of the subject. I don't see how this is harmful in anyway; besides young people aren't stupid and are capable of disagreeing with something and questioning, I think this is evident from this forum. The younger members (myself included) show no signs of acting like sheep.

[Patchd]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 06:05 pm
Or those stupid questions they ask you at the airport.

"Did you pack your bag yourself?"
"No actually, Osama won't let me handle the really high explosives so he had someone else do it instead."
If you answer them with that they'll take it literally and probably have you arrested. It happened to some girl in britain or the USA I think, :lol: :lol: :lol: :rolleyes: