Marx on the Family - This is for DDAY and other family lover

[Mazdak]

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime, we plead guilty.
But, you wil say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations when we replace home education by social.

This is directly from the pages of the Manefesto of the Communist Party. Next time you want to whine about how much you love family, remember Marx himself sides with me on this.

[man in the red suit]

the BOURGEOISIE family.

[Mazdak]

Abolition of family. i dont see bourgeois there.

[man in the red suit]

yeah but he was referring to the current bourgeoisie family system and not the proletarian.

[Mazdak]

shut up


*edit*
Yes, but he only used Bourgeosie family as an example, he never used the world when speaking of the abolition of family.


(Edited by Mazdak at 6:22 pm on Nov. 24, 2002)

[Cassius Clay]

Indeed Mazdak, the family is a tool of oppression (and the bit about the bourgese exchanging wifes etc is so true to today it's unreal). This I believe was one of Stalin's mistake's when he encouranged the family in the mid 1930's, however from the perspective of the time I can see his point of view. People don't realise at this time that there were gangs of 12 year old hooligans going about and such and this was the generation whose parents had died in the Civil War.

However we don't want to be too hasty with abolition of the family, look what happened when Mao tried it.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 6:36 pm on Nov. 24, 2002
.

However we don't want to be too hasty with abolition of the family, look what happened when Mao tried it.

when did Mao try to abolish family? the cultural revolution?

[Cassius Clay]

The Great Leap Forward Comrade, putting everybody into giant communes didn't exactly turn out to well.

[new democracy]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 7:51 pm on Nov. 24, 2002
putting everybody into giant communes didn't exactly turn out to well.
neither his attampt to eliminate sparrows.

[timbaly]

Lardlad and I had a very long debate on this topic. It was in Mazdak's Retardation topic, in Theory. The debate is from pages 17 to 20 if anyone wants to read them.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 7:51 pm on Nov. 24, 2002
The Great Leap Forward Comrade, putting everybody into giant communes didn't exactly turn out to well.


that wasnt trying to abolish families though. That was uniting them, if anything.

[Xvall]

Then again, Marx supports democracy in the manifesto, which means he doesn't support authoritarianism; something that you support.

[man in the red suit]

families should not be abolished in my opinon but rather supported through the wood cheese and children program.

[Lardlad95]

OK then I have come to a conclusion...Marx was a moron

That or Mazdak is a fanatical psycopath.

Mazdak we have a world to unify and an opressed people to liberate.

Worry about your father making you mow the lawn later.

[redstar2000]

It occurs to me to note that UNDER CAPITALISM the family appears to be "withering away". By the time we have a revolution and begin the transition to communism, there may not be much left to "abolish".

[HS The Whap]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 11:19 pm on Nov. 24, 2002
Then again, Marx supports democracy in the manifesto, which means he doesn't support authoritarianism; something that you support.

What you say marx considered democracy to be was not anti-authoritarian political openness or freedom, -- thats what bourgeois democracy is. Marxist democracy is government of the people, its economic democracy under strict political control if necessary (dictatorship of the proletariat) to prevent the inevitable attempt at a takeover by other bourgeois nations (as was histrocially proven).For example, The German Democratic Republic was not just a false title, it implied the country was ruled by marxist democracy not bourgeois democracy. Also seeing that you never read Marx, you are in no position to comment on it.

Edit: BTW, Drake, why don't you come to the Phora anymore?

(Edited by HS The Whap at 1:57 am on Nov. 25, 2002)

[Xvall]

I have read some of Marx; Do not jump to the conclusion that I have not. My point was that Mazdak might support somethings that the Manifesto says; and at the same time go against them. (I do not post on the phora, because it is hard to keep up with so many boards now that I have started school. In fact, I rarely post on this one.)

[Mazdak]

I will respond to this tomorrow, i have much to say

[thursday]

OK then I have come to a conclusion...Marx was a moron

Marx was a moron? Have you looked around the forums recently? This is Che-Lives.com (Che was a Marxist, guys), not Cappies-that-hate-Marx-com.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from thursday on 6:28 am on Nov. 25, 2002

OK then I have come to a conclusion...Marx was a moron

Marx was a moron? Have you looked around the forums recently? This is Che-Lives.com (Che was a Marxist, guys), not Cappies-that-hate-Marx-com.


Wow...you are incredibly dense. Everyone else here realized that I was joking. Did you read the rest of the post?

Obviously I wouldn't have meant Marx was a moron if I put

"That or Mazdak is a fanatical psycopath.

Mazdak we have a world to unify and an opressed people to liberate.

Worry about your father making you mow the lawn later. "

I spent the rest of the post talkingabout Mazdak, not Marx, obviously I don't dislike marx

[Mazdak]

I have no problems with my parents. I was quoting fucking Marx. Get your copy of the Manefesto out(which every good little leftist should have) and see for yourself. the Family is a capitalistic unit. It is not necessary for a healthy society, in fact, it is detrimental.

As for my being crazy, i will proudly pull out a quote from Lenin AKA Kryuchkov who i generally support.

"i personally don't question your maturity Mazdak. you are not naive at all and well read for your age. what i question, is your sanity."

The family creates irrational love and corruption.

[Xvall]

Yeah, Mazdak is a little bit nuts. But who isn't?

[HS The Whap]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 3:36 am on Nov. 25, 2002
I have read some of Marx;

How much did you read and what? You obvoiusly are in no position to interpet the meaning behind Marx, i can tell by your utter misinterpretation of "democracy", the only way that can happen that i can think of is due to lack of context.


My point was that Mazdak might support somethings that the Manifesto says; and at the same time go against them.

Well considering your use of democracy is out of context, that and the fact that most true (historical) Marxists and non-Marxists alike agree that Marx was not refering to some sor t of "freedom" or "bourgeois" democracy. considerign this, its not apparent where exactly mazdak was contradicting a message of the manifesto.


PS: Your witty "signature" of AK-47s and the subliminal "red power" message illustrates mazdak's views much better than they describe your "anarcho-communism"

[Mazdak]

??? Whap, where exactly am i contradicting Marx, i did not understand what you meant by this:


Well considering your use of democracy is out of context, that and the fact that most true (historical) Marxists and non-Marxists alike agree that Marx was not refering to some sor t of "freedom" or "bourgeois" democracy. considerign this, its not apparent where exactly mazdak was contradicting a message of the manifesto.

[Mazdak]

How come it isnt showing my post? what the hell?

[HS The Whap]

Mazdak, my whole post was refering to Drake. I was pointing out how Drake was wrong when he assumed you contradicted Marx

[Xvall]

" How much did you read and what? "

All of the Communist Manifesto. The Principles of Communism. I'm working on Capital.

" You obvoiusly are in no position to interpet the meaning behind Marx, i can tell by your utter misinterpretation of "democracy", the only way that can happen that i can think of is due to lack of context. "

I think that Marx's works speak for themselves. I hardly see how I 'misinterpreted' democracy. I said that Marx supports 'democracy' in the manifesto; which is true. I never specified what type of democracy that was; I never claimed it was 'bourgeois' democracy. From my experience with Mazdak, it seems that he has suported dictators. And democracies, last time I checked, do not include dictators.

" that and the fact that most true (historical) Marxists and non-Marxists alike agree that Marx was not refering to some sor t of 'freedom' or 'bourgeois democracy.' "

From what I recall when reading, Marx supports all kinds of freedom and liberation for the working class. I am well aware that he opposed 'bourgeois' democracy.

" considerign this, its not apparent where exactly mazdak was contradicting a message of the manifesto. "

As I stated; unless I am wrong, he supports single dictators, something that I do not think promotes the revolutionary cause in any way. If he does not, then he should say so. I am not claiming that he is not a communist, I just don't like it when people use the manifesto to 'attack' other revolutionaries for such trivial things like their views on 'family'.

" PS: Your witty "signature" of AK-47s and the subliminal "red power" message illustrates mazdak's views much better than they describe your 'anarcho-communism' "

Are you implying that my signature is violent and indoctrinative?

(" We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. ")

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 10:10 pm on Nov. 25, 2002
I have no problems with my parents. I was quoting fucking Marx. Get your copy of the Manefesto out(which every good little leftist should have) and see for yourself. the Family is a capitalistic unit. It is not necessary for a healthy society, in fact, it is detrimental.

As for my being crazy, i will proudly pull out a quote from Lenin AKA Kryuchkov who i generally support.

"i personally don't question your maturity Mazdak. you are not naive at all and well read for your age. what i question, is your sanity."

The family creates irrational love and corruption.


I have my copy of the manifesto...right next to my wooden Rhino Statue, my cds, and my licorice crows.

Irrational Love? So we should be void of emotion...even love for stalin?

I think comrade Stalin would be disappointed Mazdak

[Mazdak]

Lardlad, there is a difference between love and irrational love. You irrationally love your parents by nature. If a friend beats the hell out of you, you will most likely kick the crap out of him without hesitation, but raising a fist to one's parents is almost impossible(unless they are downright serial killers/evil people).

[Michael De Panama]

What? Are you saying it is "bourgeois" for family members to unite and mutually help one another? What the hell is the sense in that?

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Mazdak on 11:11 pm on Nov. 27, 2002
Lardlad, there is a difference between love and irrational love. You irrationally love your parents by nature. If a friend beats the hell out of you, you will most likely kick the crap out of him without hesitation, but raising a fist to one's parents is almost impossible (unless they are downright serial killers/evil people).


I can see your point to this. With this irrational love, we do in fact open our selves up for more potential of hurt. Loving somebody just because they are family makes little sense, especially if you turn out to not share their values. I can see the potential for harm with this type of love. Loving somebody or respecting them no matter what just because they gave birth to you is corny. If you are in a really abusive household then it gets worse because society preaches and teaches love they father and mother.

This is a problem that is slowly going to past however. When we look at the abusive at home, we see that they almost all share the same reasons. Welfare, uneducated, depression, alcoholism which comes from usually the first three in the list. If we eliminate poverty, welfare or the need for it, depression and reinforce with childcare type services and education about strangers and mommies and daddies at the school we can combat those ill effects of the irrational love.

But the removal of the family and I have Fredrick Engles book, Family, Private Property and something...state? And it didn't seem like he wanted to abolish the family but show the evolution of it.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 11:11 pm on Nov. 27, 2002
Lardlad, there is a difference between love and irrational love. You irrationally love your parents by nature. If a friend beats the hell out of you, you will most likely kick the crap out of him without hesitation, but raising a fist to one's parents is almost impossible(unless they are downright serial killers/evil people).



Survival Trumps love. Obviously if yoyr dad is choking you (which has happened to me) you are gonna try and psh him off you, I'm not gonna attack him but I'll stop him from attacking me.

There are friends that I have that I would never hit.


All emotions are irrational love is not an oddball

[Mazdak]

Irrational love is the most dangerous of all of them.

Exploited Class- at least someone sees what i am trying to say.

[RedRevolutionary87]

k for any of you of lesser intelligences (mitrs) you are right it is the bourgoise familly he refers to, but the bourgoise familly is husband wife and children, the communsit familly is fukking every1, every1 participates in bringing up any1 they encounter, abolishing familly too quickly can be a problem, but we can start with at least idealogicly abolishing the meaning of marriage, people should no longer be able to "wed" eachother...and go from there..ill explain more later maybe if i remember but i gtg sleep now
tah tah

[Panamarisen]

Just a parenthesis: maybe it could be of some help to re-read the classic written by Erich Fromm, "The Art of Loving". It gives a lot of keen reasonings about love among family members. I say it specially because of the post of exploitedclass, which I think is a very important point here...

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[Conghaileach]

My parents raised me, they took care of me, they worked hard and continue to work to keep a roof over my head, they taught me my morals and made me the leftist I am today.

Why should I not love them?

[Panamarisen]

You are just lucky, CiaranB. Too many people aren´t. So I guess that´s not enough...

PS: I´m glad you are that lucky, CiaranB!

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[cry of the harvester]

lady evil the "discerner of thoughts" warns men "don't dream or close your eyes and never trust your shadow in the dark."

"cause there's a lady I know who'll take your visions and turn them all around. The things you see...are what to be...lost and never found!" - rjd

abolish the family? yes, because within the dynasties the families serve no function, after awhile they become lazy in preservation of the ruling power.

tell me, does anyone know how many revolutions were controlled and supported by the poor?

for eveyone knows that "REVOLUTIONS ARE FOR THE PRIVILEGE"

the cost of liberty:
-------------------------------------------------------
henceforth, no man should trouble me, for I bear the marks of Jesus.

[Socialist Pig]

Quote: from Mazdak on 5:48 pm on Nov. 24, 2002

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime, we plead guilty.
But, you wil say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations when we replace home education by social.

This is directly from the pages of the Manefesto of the Communist Party. Next time you want to whine about how much you love family, remember Marx himself sides with me on this.


From what I'ved read, Marx was a family man who spent large amounts of time with his wife and playing with his children. Not the horrible uncaring monster you seem to want him to be.

I for one would like to eliminate the bias of family by making everyone "family", al la tribal communism.

[RedRevolutionary87]

thats what marx meant by abolishon of the familly, making every child the responsibility of ef every1 its called a social upbringing.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 7:40 pm on Nov. 28, 2002
Irrational love is the most dangerous of all of them.

Exploited Class- at least someone sees what i am trying to say.





Anger is just as irrational as love, even more so Anger clouds judgement like fuckin a fifth of vodka

Love isn't the worst

[Ian]

the bourgeois family is a nuclear family, Mother+Father and 2 kids, this is obviously no way to organise a society and only benefits the capitalists (The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated in 2000 that the unpaid labour a mother does in a nuclear family enrichens business to the sum of $60 Billion Australian dollars, about $30 Billion US).
Of course no true communist would break up a loving family, we just want people to live the way they wish to as long as it doesn't exploit another, Gays should be allowed to be comfortably gay, women should be allowed rights over her body.

I think that marriage should be abolished as a state instituted agreement, it should be a bond between two people, whether 2 men, 2 ladies or a heterosexual couple.

[redstar2000]

I agree with comrade Ian--intimate relationships are NOT a legitimate subject of govenmental interference unless there is some form of abuse.

Let 2, 3, ... N number of people co-habit in whatever way and on whatever basis they feel comfortable with.

Communists have OTHER matters to concern themselves with.

[Iepilei]

I always thought that the abolition of the bourgeoise family was a result of the steadily increasing numbers of families working together in factories. It was my impression that Marx wanted the youth out of the harmful conditions, and into facilities where they could learn... rather than having them face hostile environments to profit both the parents (who had rights and still do over the income of a child) as well as the capitalist.

[tommyt1alacrana]

Marx i hate you with the hate that Fidel Castro has for America.

Lennin, I hate you more, I hate you with the hate that Che and Castro have for America. lol.

What good are they to the poor? I am indifferent to communism. Of course, I don't hate communism I just don't have an indirect interest in it. I have studied the prophet who influenced Marx. He was the top of the top and frequented in intellectual circles. He executed people who had a faith different than his. My perception is that he was a fragment of Islam who learned to role play in different religious settings. Henry the VIII killed him for treason.

Che quote: "I'm not religious, I am a communist." lol

Che with his Marxism reminds me of myself and the dark metal music I subject myself to listen to.

Keeping an open mind and learning from many things gives a person ideas and may sometimes provide answers or explainations for a person. I don't really have a music that I prefer over the others, most of the music I listen to is unappealing yet it has it's uses for me. I get an idea all of a sudden to listen to a particular group that I would never have listen to and then all of a sudden the songs I encounter seem to be refering to the time in which I am passing. Artists possess some of the most unique talents I have encountered.

When I want to be good to myself I treat myself to Tito Puente - "Mucho Cha Cha" or mexican cabajero music. I was so happy to find on my answering machine the other day a piano concerto piece...it was lovely! I have been meaning to listen to it again and again once I clean out my mailbox. I'm erasing everything, even the messages from the guys I don't ever call back. It's an ego thing for me I guess, the guys leaving messages, half of them are drunk or sexual perverts. yes, definately an ego thing as it serves no purpose. Maybe, I save them incase I am forced to provide evidence to my family regarding my sexual preference. I had to quit hanging out because the guys started thinking I was gay. It gets on my nerves after a while. Nothing is as beautiful as the piano piece. I'm going to cherish this message on my phone, its the only good piece I have at the moment. I didn't deserve it.

I will shut my mouth now with a tamale and a budlite, my orange juice is gone and I'm still thirsty.

[Edelweiss]

It's obviosly that Marx was a great economist, sociologist and philospher, but a lousy pedagog. Stop making him an infallible god. His ideas about the role of the family in a society are pretty strange, to say the least. I think he even advocated to detract the childs from their family during their youth (!).
The family is the fundament of every society, no matter if capitalist or socialist.

[redstar2000]

"The family is the fundament of every society, no matter if capitalist or socialist."

FUNDAMENT, noun, 1a. the buttocks; 1b. the anus (from the American Heritage Dictionary)

I guess I can live with that.

[Conghaileach]

He means 'basis'.

There are many comrades here whose first language isn't English, you know.

[redstar2000]

Oh? Then he's wrong.

[Ian]

Marx's ideas on the family aren't as crazy as they sound, you see at that time anthropology was in its rudimentary stages and most assumptions were mere speculation (much like many fields in psychology), Marx used these inaccurate facts about the origin of the family and developed a theory around an already flawed basis. So its really not his fault that some of his work on family matters seems odd.

Marx wishes have already come into fruition in some respects, Marx didn't want a home schooling system, he wanted the community to take control and educate the children collectively, something that has come about in many countries. Still, in Australia the school community has little say in the education of the youth, this will change after the revolution though.

~Ian

[redstar2000]

"Marx's ideas on the family aren't as crazy as they sound..."

With all due respect, comrade Ian, on what grounds are Marx's ideas on the family "crazy" at all? Be specific, please.

[Conghaileach]

Am I the only person who is getting the impression that some people here would like to turn every child into an orphan?

[redstar2000]

Why CB, who COULD you be talking about? :confused:

[Corvus Corax]

hhhhhmmmm, 1984 rings a bell. Kids become closer to the party than their own parents...

[redstar2000]

hhhmmmm...perhaps, if the "party" treated them BETTER.

Don't know what that would have to do with Marx's views though.

:cool:

[RedRevolutionary87]

just becuz you aare blood doesnt mean you will be treated better, is it not better to have the whole community caring for you than only two people that gave birth to you, the familly is a capitalist patriarchal system that promotes male dominence and inheritance, both of which any self respecting communist doesnt believe in. marx speaks of a social familly where children are brought up socially and not by their blood parents. we are anyways influenced more by things around us than just our parents, so bettermake an organized social upringing than have the mass media bring us up.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from RedRevolutionary87 on 2:39 pm on Dec. 9, 2002
just becuz you aare blood doesnt mean you will be treated better, is it not better to have the whole community caring for you than only two people that gave birth to you, the familly is a capitalist patriarchal system that promotes male dominence and inheritance, both of which any self respecting communist doesnt believe in. marx speaks of a social familly where children are brought up socially and not by their blood parents. we are anyways influenced more by things around us than just our parents, so bettermake an organized social upringing than have the mass media bring us up.

Family instills love, respect for elders, and social inter action

[new democracy]

The Taiping movement created some sort of primitive communism, and they abolished the family in the areas the conquer(it was not an easy process), so maybe there was some sense behind this idea.

(Edited by new democracy at 10:19 pm on Dec. 9, 2002)

[redstar2000]

"Family installs love, respect for elders and social interaction."

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. But is that the ONLY way those things could be done?

:cool:

[RedRevolutionary87]

exactly so does a communal upbringing except the communal familly eliminates all the faults of the patriarchal nuclear familly

[timbaly]

I have a question for Lardlad which was left unanswered from our last debate on family.

I know you believe mothers have special bonds with their children right from the moment of birth. Lets just say that after a mother gave birth she passed out due to the shock of giving birth. Now lets say the doctors switched her baby with another persons. So now the mother and live together for their lives without knowing of the incident. Do you think that because the child is not biologically hers that they will not have a bond? I believe that the bond is more of a concious thing than fact. Do you really believe that the mother in my scenario can not love the child as much as the biological one?

The point of having having children will be to raise children, why must the child be biologically yours? Everyone in the community has the right to help partake in the raising of the child, not just the biological parents. By allowing the society as a whole to raise the child, the child will become more openminded and they won't have their biological parents mindsets ingrained in their head.

[Lardlad95]

I neever said that they couldn't love the child just as much but you guys all forget one thing.

IT'S THEIR FUCKING CHILD.

Jesus, I dont want to be mean but all you who hate families are fuckin retarded...not retarded literally but this is the dumbest idea on earth.

And you know what I am fuckin mad and defewnsive because it's moronic

The mother carried it for nine months, she threw up every morning, she had hemmoroids, she went through the pain of child birth you think she would be able to keep the damn child.

She didn't carry another woman's baby for nine months God Damn it.

She went through all that damn trouble for her child why shouldn't she keep it.

If you had to go to the dentist everyday to have your teeth adjusted for nine months wouldn't you want to keep your straigt teeth?

Would'nt you be pissed if they decied to give you someone else's straight teeth after you went through all that work to get yours straight?

[redstar2000]

Well, comrade timbaly, looks like you "hit a nerve" there...shows what happens when you practice "political dentistry" without a license. :cheesy:

Evidently, Lardlad95, you have some mental picture of the "NKVD" roaming through maternity wards, snatching screaming infants from sobbing mothers, knocking over hospital equipment, shoving doctors and nurses out of the way, pissing in the hallways, and just generally acting like a bunch of turds.

And you think I'm unrealistic?

"All you who hate families are fuckin retarded"--believe it or not, Lardlad95, "hate" is a rather minor consideration...although some folks may indeed have many legitimate reasons to hate THEIR families.

The question is not one of "should communists hate families"--it's more like: is there a legitimate role in communist society for the old concept of biological families?

That is a QUESTION--to be decided by argument and evidence...not ranting!

And we could begin with your assertion that "it's their/her fucking child, god damn it!" Does copulation, conception, pregnancy and birth confer a "right of possession" in the resulting "product"?

Are children the "property" of their biological parents? And if you think this is so, why? And is it a kind of "property" that should be recognized under communism?

If we decide NOT to have biological families under communism, what sorts of arrangements SHOULD we institute?

I would remind you, Lardlad95, that just because an idea is new, untraditional, etc., that doesn't mean you can refute it by calling it "dumb", "moronic", etc. The same kinds of things were said in reaction to the Communist Manifesto...but the verdict of history was otherwise.

:cool:

[Conghaileach]

What better example is there of the commune and the communal life than that of the family unit? In a family, everybody plays their own part and chips in around the house, the resources are shared between the members of the family, and an attack against one is an attack against all.

This is how a commune should function. Instead of ripping apart the family unit, the family unit should be extended to include the community.

[timbaly]

Lardlad if I worked on farm for 9 months, taking care of the crops and planting seeds, should I keep those vegetables of my labor for myself?

Don't you think that your argument on children is similar to that argument? Everyone is entitled to everything, this includes the up bringing of a child.

[timbaly]

This is part of my idea for a new family system

I wouldn't just take the baby from its mother the second it is birthed, the biological parents will raise the kid for a year. You might say that the parents would get to attached to the kid but that might be unaviodable, they would even get attached to someone else's kid and somebody has to raise that child. There could be a rotation every six months, which means all the people would be reconfigured into new family units. These units would be much more diverse than living with the same two parents for your whole adolescent life. you would learn many different things and trains of thought. It would make the children more openminded. Rather than hearing your biological parents point of veiw on thngs you would see diverse thoughts on the events. People would be more tolerant, if you have a gay male as your "father" figure in your family unit than you would see how gays are no different from straight people. You would learn to look out and care for everyone equally rather than putting your biological family before the rest of the community. In todays society if a family member commited a crime and you were the only one to know, many people wouldn't rat out the person even though it's the right thing to do. People put their family before justice at times. In this system you will see everyone as equal and therefore put the good of the community before the individual.

The thing I like about this system the most is that it has the possibility to rush the process of "killing religion"
If your "parental figures" preach a religion to you and your next family preachs a different one and so and so on. Maybe, just maybe people will start thinking instead of going on blind faith. Maybe they'll realize how illogical religion is. If you learn about all these different religions when young it will get so confusing, especially since certain religions contradict each other. So I anticipate that people will become anagnostic or maybe they just won't believe in organised religion, which is a benefit for humans as a whole.

[redstar2000]

Well, CB, you have a point. In SOME respects, the traditional biological family DOES resemble a communal organization.

But there are differences:

1. A real commune is VOLUNTARY; in a "family" the kids are stuck...at least until they're old enough to scratch out some kind of living for themselves--something which we communists could make ENORMOUSLY easier.

2. In a real commune, the wealth created is distributed in an equitable fashion; in a biological family, the wealth is distributed according to the whims of one or two adults.

3. In a real commune, political power is equitably distributed; in a biological family, political power usually goes to the physically strongest member of the family.

These differences are usually defended by making reference to the physical and intellectual limitations of some members of the family; small children are neither strong enough nor do they know enough to survive without some form of guardianship.

But is there anything we KNOW (as opposed to traditional prejudices) that says that ONLY the biological parents can perform the functions associated with guardianship in an enlightened fashion?

There actually HAS been a good deal of research on the traditional family, as well as on some of the variants that emerged in the last century. It's not my field, but my understanding is that traditional families are VERY GOOD at certain functions, which implies, at least, that they are not so good at other functions.

The MAIN thing that traditional families seem to be really good at is creating social conformity among the young. The kid who grows up in a traditional family is less likely to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, less likely to use recreational drugs, less likely to quit school, less likely to come to the attention of the police, more likely to get good grades, more likely to be popular with other traditionally-raised kids, more likely to serve in the military, more likely to be successful in college, more likely to be successful in business, more likely to marry and establish a new traditional family, and more likely to be strongly religious. They are also more likely to live longer; non-conformity shortens life span.

In short, it seems to me that the traditional family is very good at creating new generations of "good Germans" who will "carry out their orders". But is THAT what WE want?

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:06 pm on Dec. 10, 2002
Well, comrade timbaly, looks like you "hit a nerve" there...shows what happens when you practice "political dentistry" without a license. :cheesy:

Evidently, Lardlad95, you have some mental picture of the "NKVD" roaming through maternity wards, snatching screaming infants from sobbing mothers, knocking over hospital equipment, shoving doctors and nurses out of the way, pissing in the hallways, and just generally acting like a bunch of turds.

And you think I'm unrealistic?

"All you who hate families are fuckin retarded"--believe it or not, Lardlad95, "hate" is a rather minor consideration...although some folks may indeed have many legitimate reasons to hate THEIR families.

The question is not one of "should communists hate families"--it's more like: is there a legitimate role in communist society for the old concept of biological families?

That is a QUESTION--to be decided by argument and evidence...not ranting!

And we could begin with your assertion that "it's their/her fucking child, god damn it!" Does copulation, conception, pregnancy and birth confer a "right of possession" in the resulting "product"?

Are children the "property" of their biological parents? And if you think this is so, why? And is it a kind of "property" that should be recognized under communism?

If we decide NOT to have biological families under communism, what sorts of arrangements SHOULD we institute?

I would remind you, Lardlad95, that just because an idea is new, untraditional, etc., that doesn't mean you can refute it by calling it "dumb", "moronic", etc. The same kinds of things were said in reaction to the Communist Manifesto...but the verdict of history was otherwise.

:cool:




You forget one damn thing i've been disgussig this topic for a while and I'm tired of it..the idea is unreasonable I'll explain when I reply to Timaly's plan

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 8:59 pm on Dec. 10, 2002
Lardlad if I worked on farm for 9 months, taking care of the crops and planting seeds, should I keep those vegetables of my labor for myself?

Don't you think that your argument on children is similar to that argument? Everyone is entitled to everything, this includes the up bringing of a child.


your damn right you should especially if you did it all alone.

The difference is that in Socialism you don't do shit alone...people help you.

Two people created the child, two people went through the paint of carrying it and caring for the one carrying it...those two should have it.

If you did something totally by yourself reap teh benefeits but no one under capitalism did anything totally solo

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 9:32 pm on Dec. 10, 2002
This is part of my idea for a new family system

I wouldn't just take the baby from its mother the second it is birthed, the biological parents will raise the kid for a year. You might say that the parents would get to attached to the kid but that might be unaviodable, they would even get attached to someone else's kid and somebody has to raise that child. There could be a rotation every six months, which means all the people would be reconfigured into new family units. These units would be much more diverse than living with the same two parents for your whole adolescent life. you would learn many different things and trains of thought. It would make the children more openminded. Rather than hearing your biological parents point of veiw on thngs you would see diverse thoughts on the events. People would be more tolerant, if you have a gay male as your "father" figure in your family unit than you would see how gays are no different from straight people. You would learn to look out and care for everyone equally rather than putting your biological family before the rest of the community. In todays society if a family member commited a crime and you were the only one to know, many people wouldn't rat out the person even though it's the right thing to do. People put their family before justice at times. In this system you will see everyone as equal and therefore put the good of the community before the individual.

The thing I like about this system the most is that it has the possibility to rush the process of "killing religion"
If your "parental figures" preach a religion to you and your next family preachs a different one and so and so on. Maybe, just maybe people will start thinking instead of going on blind faith. Maybe they'll realize how illogical religion is. If you learn about all these different religions when young it will get so confusing, especially since certain religions contradict each other. So I anticipate that people will become anagnostic or maybe they just won't believe in organised religion, which is a benefit for humans as a whole.



that is so damn stupid it's increedible.

Kill religion? What the hell is wrong with you? Stop trying to stop religion let people worshi[ if they want.

if a kid is going to rebel against religion they will?

Alot of atheist here had religious parents...did they rotate around alot to become atheist?

Also having several veiws forced upon you will ultimateely confuse a child.

You say children aren't property but you rotate them like crops.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:36 pm on Dec. 10, 2002
Well, CB, you have a point. In SOME respects, the traditional biological family DOES resemble a communal organization.

But there are differences:

1. A real commune is VOLUNTARY; in a "family" the kids are stuck...at least until they're old enough to scratch out some kind of living for themselves--something which we communists could make ENORMOUSLY easier.

2. In a real commune, the wealth created is distributed in an equitable fashion; in a biological family, the wealth is distributed according to the whims of one or two adults.

3. In a real commune, political power is equitably distributed; in a biological family, political power usually goes to the physically strongest member of the family.

These differences are usually defended by making reference to the physical and intellectual limitations of some members of the family; small children are neither strong enough nor do they know enough to survive without some form of guardianship.

But is there anything we KNOW (as opposed to traditional prejudices) that says that ONLY the biological parents can perform the functions associated with guardianship in an enlightened fashion?

There actually HAS been a good deal of research on the traditional family, as well as on some of the variants that emerged in the last century. It's not my field, but my understanding is that traditional families are VERY GOOD at certain functions, which implies, at least, that they are not so good at other functions.

The MAIN thing that traditional families seem to be really good at is creating social conformity among the young. The kid who grows up in a traditional family is less likely to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, less likely to use recreational drugs, less likely to quit school, less likely to come to the attention of the police, more likely to get good grades, more likely to be popular with other traditionally-raised kids, more likely to serve in the military, more likely to be successful in college, more likely to be successful in business, more likely to marry and establish a new traditional family, and more likely to be strongly religious. They are also more likely to live longer; non-conformity shortens life span.

In short, it seems to me that the traditional family is very good at creating new generations of "good Germans" who will "carry out their orders". But is THAT what WE want?

:cool:


so in a communal raising the child would be equal with the guardians?

The Child would decide what they did, where they went, what they ate, when they go to bed, how to act?


*Note answer the question on the previous page also

[redstar2000]

Lardlad95, I'm confused about which question "on the previous page" you want me to answer. If it's the one about teeth, my answer is as long as teeth work properly and don't hurt, that's good enough for me. Don't know how that's relevant, but...:confused:

One of the problems with the biological family--which you yourself may have observed--is a kind of "over-concern" that even small children find quite frustrating. Contrary to parental "wisdom", for example, kids would NOT live on a permanent diet of candy and sodapop even if they could...they are just as HUMAN as we are and they'd get tired of a steady diet of ANYTHING just as we would. Forcing kids to eat "what's good for them" is likely to be just as bad as forcing them to "learn what's good for them". In MY case, I don't even want to be in the SAME ROOM with certain cooked vegetables...can you guess WHY?

If there are only two responsible adults involved in caring for a child (or even just one), a sleeping schedule becomes a practical necessity...but, as far as I know, no child in history has refused to go to bed at a certain time only to remain awake FOREVER.

Except in EXTREMELY unusual circumstances, kids will eat when they're hungry and sleep when they're tired...just like we do. It's not the BIG DEAL that biological parents make it out to be.

In fact, one of the biggest problems with biological parents is that they don't recognize "their" child as an independent human being with a separate existence. They think that ANY expression of a child's personality may potentially reflect "badly" on them as parents--in the worst cases, they think "their" kid is THEM v.2.0!

Some form of communal child care...perhaps involving as many as half-a-dozen older kids and adults might well prove to be easier on the children and easier on the adults...and perhaps help raise the first generation of communists from birth.

That would be nice. :cool:

(PS: I'm sorry to hear that you are "tired" of such an interesting topic. Myself, I'm pretty tired of "Stalin vs. Trotsky" and similar political necrophilia...which is why I don't post much in those topics any more.)

[timbaly]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 5:25 pm on Dec. 11, 2002
[
that is so damn stupid it's increedible.

Kill religion? What the hell is wrong with you? Stop trying to stop religion let people worshi[ if they want.

if a kid is going to rebel against religion they will?

Alot of atheist here had religious parents...did they rotate around alot to become atheist?

Also having several veiws forced upon you will ultimateely confuse a child.

You say children aren't property but you rotate them like crops.


I, myself wouldn't be killing religion. I see religion killing itself in this system. I'm against banning religion because it would cause people to be angry and want to strike back. However I am anti-religous, all I'm saying is that if everyone is teaching different religions to a kid the kid will realize that it all can't be true and there is no proof of it. Kids will get confused and see that religions contradict each other and contradict scientific theories, which are the most logical explanations. They will learn to pick logic over illogic. Since religion is illogic it will die out.

As you said many of the people on this sight have religous parents yet they themseves are not religious. However how many more people are religious ONLY because their parents forced them to go to church out of tradition, their parents didn't give them a choice. Their parents told them, your going cause I said so, there is no choice in the matter. When you ask questions to the priest or your family about religion they always tell you not ot question and to go on blind faith. I'm sure that we all want to eliminate blind faith and thats the main reason I see religion as an evil.

What exactly will they be confused about? How old a child? I think I see what your saying, but I don't want to make any arguments against something I'm unsure of.

Since when do you rotate crops? You distribute them.
Children aren't property and to prevent them from becoming the property of their parents in the current system we must rotate them. If they are rotated nobody has the oppurtunity to make them their property. The child will be recognized as a person in this system, not the property of their parents. They feel the need to force their ways down the childs throat. They make the child do what ever they want them to do.
It's like a dictatorship. They try to make their children perfect because their afraid of what other people will think if their kids aren't saints. In this system no person can have that much influence so instead of a childs personality being developed by two people they wil encounter many different people and become a more complete individual rather than an extension of their parents.

[Socialist Pig]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 10:25 pm on Dec. 10, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 9:32 pm on Dec. 10, 2002
This is part of my idea for a new family system

I wouldn't just take the baby from its mother the second it is birthed, the biological parents will raise the kid for a year. You might say that the parents would get to attached to the kid but that might be unaviodable, they would even get attached to someone else's kid and somebody has to raise that child. There could be a rotation every six months, which means all the people would be reconfigured into new family units. These units would be much more diverse than living with the same two parents for your whole adolescent life. you would learn many different things and trains of thought. It would make the children more openminded. Rather than hearing your biological parents point of veiw on thngs you would see diverse thoughts on the events. People would be more tolerant, if you have a gay male as your "father" figure in your family unit than you would see how gays are no different from straight people. You would learn to look out and care for everyone equally rather than putting your biological family before the rest of the community. In todays society if a family member commited a crime and you were the only one to know, many people wouldn't rat out the person even though it's the right thing to do. People put their family before justice at times. In this system you will see everyone as equal and therefore put the good of the community before the individual.

The thing I like about this system the most is that it has the possibility to rush the process of "killing religion"
If your "parental figures" preach a religion to you and your next family preachs a different one and so and so on. Maybe, just maybe people will start thinking instead of going on blind faith. Maybe they'll realize how illogical religion is. If you learn about all these different religions when young it will get so confusing, especially since certain religions contradict each other. So I anticipate that people will become anagnostic or maybe they just won't believe in organised religion, which is a benefit for humans as a whole.



that is so damn stupid it's increedible.

Kill religion? What the hell is wrong with you? Stop trying to stop religion let people worshi[ if they want.

if a kid is going to rebel against religion they will?

Alot of atheist here had religious parents...did they rotate around alot to become atheist?

Also having several veiws forced upon you will ultimateely confuse a child.

You say children aren't property but you rotate them like crops.


I have to agree. You treat children like a commodity.

The end result would be a child with deep emotional scars. They would be devoid of love for their new parents. Even if the child has managed to form some bond with the parents they would have to go through the pain of leaving them again and again and again.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:15 am on Dec. 11, 2002
Lardlad95, I'm confused about which question "on the previous page" you want me to answer. If it's the one about teeth, my answer is as long as teeth work properly and don't hurt, that's good enough for me. Don't know how that's relevant, but...:confused:

One of the problems with the biological family--which you yourself may have observed--is a kind of "over-concern" that even small children find quite frustrating. Contrary to parental "wisdom", for example, kids would NOT live on a permanent diet of candy and sodapop even if they could...they are just as HUMAN as we are and they'd get tired of a steady diet of ANYTHING just as we would. Forcing kids to eat "what's good for them" is likely to be just as bad as forcing them to "learn what's good for them". In MY case, I don't even want to be in the SAME ROOM with certain cooked vegetables...can you guess WHY?

If there are only two responsible adults involved in caring for a child (or even just one), a sleeping schedule becomes a practical necessity...but, as far as I know, no child in history has refused to go to bed at a certain time only to remain awake FOREVER.

Except in EXTREMELY unusual circumstances, kids will eat when they're hungry and sleep when they're tired...just like we do. It's not the BIG DEAL that biological parents make it out to be.

In fact, one of the biggest problems with biological parents is that they don't recognize "their" child as an independent human being with a separate existence. They think that ANY expression of a child's personality may potentially reflect "badly" on them as parents--in the worst cases, they think "their" kid is THEM v.2.0!

Some form of communal child care...perhaps involving as many as half-a-dozen older kids and adults might well prove to be easier on the children and easier on the adults...and perhaps help raise the first generation of communists from birth.

That would be nice. :cool:

(PS: I'm sorry to hear that you are "tired" of such an interesting topic. Myself, I'm pretty tired of "Stalin vs. Trotsky" and similar political necrophilia...which is why I don't post much in those topics any more.)




I think you missed your point...if you allow the child do do as she or he pleases it will ultimately hurt the child.

My brother only eats when my mom cooks for him...it's not cuz he's to stupid to eat when he is hungry, it's becase

1. he can't cook to save his life (literally)

2. It's not at teh forefront of his mind...

he'll eat like four times a week or something.

Not all kids have the same priorities

and letting a child not eat until he his stomache is aching horribly is cruel.

Kids need breakfast...especially little children.

my parents weren't over controling.

Also My parents did the best job anyone could of raising me...you know why?

Because I am very like both my mother and father

I've got my fathres temper, my mothers thirst for knowledge, my father emotional depth, my mothers heart.

I'm like them...only htey know how to help me.

CHildren are individuals and raising them teh same as four hundred other children is killin ghte individual

My mother was a black panther and a communist

I didn't know that until after I started reading marx and Huey newton

she never pushed a damn thing on me except for one thing

READING

she forced me to read every fuckin day of my life and I used to hate it


but you know what?

That is the greatest gift she ever gave me and I thank her every damn day for that.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 2:36 am on Dec. 11, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 5:25 pm on Dec. 11, 2002
[
that is so damn stupid it's increedible.

Kill religion? What the hell is wrong with you? Stop trying to stop religion let people worshi[ if they want.

if a kid is going to rebel against religion they will?

Alot of atheist here had religious parents...did they rotate around alot to become atheist?

Also having several veiws forced upon you will ultimateely confuse a child.

You say children aren't property but you rotate them like crops.


I, myself wouldn't be killing religion. I see religion killing itself in this system. I'm against banning religion because it would cause people to be angry and want to strike back. However I am anti-religous, all I'm saying is that if everyone is teaching different religions to a kid the kid will realize that it all can't be true and there is no proof of it. Kids will get confused and see that religions contradict each other and contradict scientific theories, which are the most logical explanations. They will learn to pick logic over illogic. Since religion is illogic it will die out.

As you said many of the people on this sight have religous parents yet they themseves are not religious. However how many more people are religious ONLY because their parents forced them to go to church out of tradition, their parents didn't give them a choice. Their parents told them, your going cause I said so, there is no choice in the matter. When you ask questions to the priest or your family about religion they always tell you not ot question and to go on blind faith. I'm sure that we all want to eliminate blind faith and thats the main reason I see religion as an evil.

What exactly will they be confused about? How old a child? I think I see what your saying, but I don't want to make any arguments against something I'm unsure of.

Since when do you rotate crops? You distribute them.
Children aren't property and to prevent them from becoming the property of their parents in the current system we must rotate them. If they are rotated nobody has the oppurtunity to make them their property. The child will be recognized as a person in this system, not the property of their parents. They feel the need to force their ways down the childs throat. They make the child do what ever they want them to do.
It's like a dictatorship. They try to make their children perfect because their afraid of what other people will think if their kids aren't saints. In this system no person can have that much influence so instead of a childs personality being developed by two people they wil encounter many different people and become a more complete individual rather than an extension of their parents.



rotate crops every growing season to keep teh soil fresh.

anyway.

1. a five year old is told all in two years, buddha is a savior, Jesus is a savior, Ganesh is a jovial god, there is no God.

So now the five year old believes in God but he has taken elements of for beliefs and spliced them together...you wont be killing religion you will mutitlate teh child's mind and creating an abomination of a new religion

most five year olds can't even spell religion yet understand it.

2. Your take on parents being embaressed of their children is bullshit...discipline doesn't work that way...you want a child to be a productive and sucessful person if you don't disciplin them then you havenm't done your job.

Thats right parents do care about what others see there children as...I don't know about you but I don't want to see my son on the news for raping a 10 year old girl and if I discipline him that wont happen.

[Conghaileach]

from redstar2000:

1. A real commune is VOLUNTARY; in a "family" the kids are stuck...at least until they're old enough to scratch out some kind of living for themselves--something which we communists could make ENORMOUSLY easier.

I personally don't think it's feasible to suggest that a 2-year old could choose to leave the commune, and be on their merry way - perhaps to join another one.

About 16 or 18-years old is the age at which a child will usually spread his/her wings and leave the nest, so to speak. I dare say that in a commune a child would not be able to leave until roughly this age as well.

In Amish families, they have a tradition whereby, when a child turns 16, he/she is allowed to choose whether to stay in the community or go out into the big world. They are given this free choice, no strings attached. If they decide to go to see what it's like, they are free to return when they wish.


2. In a real commune, the wealth created is distributed in an equitable fashion; in a biological family, the wealth is distributed according to the whims of one or two adults.

As it is, families usually have to use their "wealth" to pay for housing, electricity, clothes, food, taxes et al. This is the so-called whim of the parents.

In the commune, children are likely to be studying to the age of 16, and for some beyond that. What use would they have for money (if there even is such a thing in the commune) when the family/community can provide what they will need.


3. In a real commune, political power is equitably distributed; in a biological family, political power usually goes to the physically strongest member of the family.

Whta exactly to do you man by 'political power'? Is it the politics which the family will follow? The candidates they will vote for? The party they will support?


These differences are usually defended by making reference to the physical and intellectual limitations of some members of the family; small children are neither strong enough nor do they know enough to survive without some form of guardianship.

That's what education should be for.


But is there anything we KNOW (as opposed to traditional prejudices) that says that ONLY the biological parents can perform the functions associated with guardianship in an enlightened fashion?

I'm not saying that biological parents the ONLY people who can perform these tasks, however I do believe that they CAN.


I can't say I agree with that last part, on the research. My politics are nothing like those of my parents (and I'm sure that the same is true for many comrades here) and I do not conform to everything I am told. I make my own decisions, and it was my parents who taught me to be my own person.

[RedRevolutionary87]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 4:22 pm on Dec. 10, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 8:59 pm on Dec. 10, 2002
Lardlad if I worked on farm for 9 months, taking care of the crops and planting seeds, should I keep those vegetables of my labor for myself?

Don't you think that your argument on children is similar to that argument? Everyone is entitled to everything, this includes the up bringing of a child.


your damn right you should especially if you did it all alone.

The difference is that in Socialism you don't do shit alone...people help you.

Two people created the child, two people went through the paint of carrying it and caring for the one carrying it...those two should have it.

If you did something totally by yourself reap teh benefeits but no one under capitalism did anything totally solo


so your saying allow sole proprieter ship...if i remember correctly communism= from all according to their abilities..to all according to their needs, just becuz you made something its not yours, one could argu then that your child belongs to the eldest in the familly since you are theres and a physical part of them, however i dont feel this way, anything that influences society belongs to all of society, two people make more mistakes that a group of people, 200 brains know more than two.

secondly the familly unit isnt a representation of communism it is in fact if closely studied a representation of fascism, in fascism everything is shared among the clique, but every1 belongs to eachother and any1 not in the clique is less important, in communism we dont want that we want every1 to be considered "familly" and if one would give their life for their son one should give their life for any1 else in the society, famillies r just another boundry that seperate people, every1 should be able to behave with every1 else as if they were familly that is what communism is.

[redstar2000]

Lardlad95, I congratulate you on your good fortune in having such a caring mother...I just wish you could grasp that there are MILLIONS of kids with LESS happy tales to tell. (I assume she quit the BPP because of its wretched attitude towards women.)

A kid born into a rich family is, with high probability, likely to have a very favorable opinion of capitalism. He doesn't recognize that his "reality" was a matter of CHANCE.

Likewise, a kid with one or two carring, nurturing parents is likely to have a good opinion of the family as an institution--folks like YOU don't recognize the HUGE role of CHANCE in your good fortune.

(But I wonder why your brother can't LEARN to heat meals in a microwave oven...I thought EVERYBODY could do that.)

Pleasantries aside, now your posts become much more ominous. Consider...

You accuse comrade timbaly of "mutilating a child's mind" and creating "an abomination of a new religion."

I don't know a gentle way to break this to you, Lardlad95, but ALL religions are "syncretic" religions--"abominations"--that is, a muddle of borrowings from one another. Religions borrow (actually, steal) from each other just like conmen borrow/steal ideas from each other for a good con...and, of course, for exactly the same reason. When it comes to fooling the suckers (believers), whatever "works" is "good".

And then you get even worse: you're already planning to "discipline" (beat the crap out of) "your" future son so "you won't have to see your son on the news" (be publicly disgraced as a "bad" parent) when he goes out and "rapes a 10-year-old girl".

You've already DECIDED that he's a potential RAPIST and the poor little kid HASN'T EVEN BEEN BORN YET!

Even STALIN waited for his victims to be BORN before convicting them!

And, by the way, you think the kids who DO commit horrible violent crimes HAVEN'T been exposed to violent "discipline" before? WHERE do you think they LEARNED to behave like BARBARIANS? Unless you are a remarkably stupid kid, there's one lesson you always learn in a violent home: it is MUCH better to hit than to be hit!

Frankly, Lardlad95, I QUESTION how much of a "socialist" you really ARE, considering your semi-fascist attitudes towards kids. At the least, I think you NEED to do some SERIOUS re-thinking of your politics. :shocked:









(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:48 am on Dec. 12, 2002)


(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:52 am on Dec. 12, 2002)

[redstar2000]

Socialist Pig raised a good objection to comrade timbaly's proposal; small children DO prefer consistency in their early social lives. That's why I'm inclined to favor an arrangement involving six to twelve people: adults, older kids, small kids that would be on-going in a loose way. A good "mix" is important--all three age groups should be more or less equally represented.

CB, I have mixed feelings about your reply to what I have said. But I want to respond as fairly as I can.

I think by the age of 7 to 10, a kid KNOWS whether or not s/he is happy with his/her living arrangements. If s/he wants a change, I think a communist society should make that not only possible but EASY. The details of how that would work can be talked about and might change as experience accumulates...but the principle seems to me to be SIMPLE: No one should be COMPELLED to live with anyone they DESPISE.

Groups like the Amish play a deliberately NASTY trick on their kids--by "sheltering" them from knowledge of the modern world and then allowing or even forcing them to live in the modern world for a year...they create an overwhelming urge on the part of the kid to return to the "safe" world that "he knows". It is exactly as if I strapped you to a wheelchair for 16 years and then undid the straps and said, "get up, kid, you're free to walk." Some of those groups do embrace communal principles, but in every other respect (treatment of women in particular), they are REACTIONARY ASSHOLES!

In the biological family, one or both parents DECIDE how wealth is USED and the other parent and especially the kids have little or no say in the matter. If money is handled in a responsible way, fine. If it isn't, the KIDS SUFFER...and have little recourse. That can happen in a real commune too, of course, but it's more difficult to do and there are other grown-ups present that one can appeal to.

As regards political power, are you TRYING to misunderstand me? I'm not talking about political parties or that kind of crap; I'm talking about WHO IS MASTER OF THE HOUSE! Who does everyone scurry to please? Who does no one DARE to contradict or else risk being the victim of a violent attack? WHO says what church the family will attend, when dinner will be eaten, what schools the kids will go to, etc., etc., etc.? THAT is what political power means in a biological family context--the monopoly of "legitimate" violence or the threat thereof. :shocked:

If your parents taught you to be your own person, I consider you lucky. Now, what about the millions who are not lucky?

:cool:

[timbaly]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 7:14 am on Dec. 12, 2002
. 2. Your take on parents being embaressed of their children is bullshit...discipline doesn't work that way...you want a child to be a productive and sucessful person if you don't disciplin them then you havenm't done your job.

Thats right parents do care about what others see there children as...I don't know about you but I don't want to see my son on the news for raping a 10 year old girl and if I discipline him that wont happen.


Discipline isn't always the answer. You have to teach kids to think for themselves and use their own judgement. You can't just tell them "I'm in charge cause I'm older than you". You can't raise kids to go along with everything they hear and do whatever is dictated to them. You must go through being critical, of yourself and the world around you. You can't just take what is thrown at you, you should question all. Discipline is so often used to stop free thought and thats why I'm against most forms of discipline. Everything can be taught with logic and reason, discipline isn't a nessecity.

NowI'm betting someone is going to tell me that without discipline nobody will respect anyone else. I will disagree with that statement right now by saying, morality is part of logic and reason. You can be taught what is right from wrong without discipline.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from RedRevolutionary87 on 9:13 pm on Dec. 11, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 4:22 pm on Dec. 10, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 8:59 pm on Dec. 10, 2002
Lardlad if I worked on farm for 9 months, taking care of the crops and planting seeds, should I keep those vegetables of my labor for myself?

Don't you think that your argument on children is similar to that argument? Everyone is entitled to everything, this includes the up bringing of a child.


your damn right you should especially if you did it all alone.

The difference is that in Socialism you don't do shit alone...people help you.

Two people created the child, two people went through the paint of carrying it and caring for the one carrying it...those two should have it.

If you did something totally by yourself reap teh benefeits but no one under capitalism did anything totally solo


so your saying allow sole proprieter ship...if i remember correctly communism= from all according to their abilities..to all according to their needs, just becuz you made something its not yours, one could argu then that your child belongs to the eldest in the familly since you are theres and a physical part of them, however i dont feel this way, anything that influences society belongs to all of society, two people make more mistakes that a group of people, 200 brains know more than two.

secondly the familly unit isnt a representation of communism it is in fact if closely studied a representation of fascism, in fascism everything is shared among the clique, but every1 belongs to eachother and any1 not in the clique is less important, in communism we dont want that we want every1 to be considered "familly" and if one would give their life for their son one should give their life for any1 else in the society, famillies r just another boundry that seperate people, every1 should be able to behave with every1 else as if they were familly that is what communism is.


FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME

I'M NOT A GODDAMN COMMUNIST, I'M A FUCKIN DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:36 pm on Dec. 11, 2002
Lardlad95, I congratulate you on your good fortune in having such a caring mother...I just wish you could grasp that there are MILLIONS of kids with LESS happy tales to tell. (I assume she quit the BPP because of its wretched attitude towards women.)

A kid born into a rich family is, with high probability, likely to have a very favorable opinion of capitalism. He doesn't recognize that his "reality" was a matter of CHANCE.

Likewise, a kid with one or two carring, nurturing parents is likely to have a good opinion of the family as an institution--folks like YOU don't recognize the HUGE role of CHANCE in your good fortune.

(But I wonder why your brother can't LEARN to heat meals in a microwave oven...I thought EVERYBODY could do that.)

Pleasantries aside, now your posts become much more ominous. Consider...

You accuse comrade timbaly of "mutilating a child's mind" and creating "an abomination of a new religion."

I don't know a gentle way to break this to you, Lardlad95, but ALL religions are "syncretic" religions--"abominations"--that is, a muddle of borrowings from one another. Religions borrow (actually, steal) from each other just like conmen borrow/steal ideas from each other for a good con...and, of course, for exactly the same reason. When it comes to fooling the suckers (believers), whatever "works" is "good".

And then you get even worse: you're already planning to "discipline" (beat the crap out of) "your" future son so "you won't have to see your son on the news" (be publicly disgraced as a "bad" parent) when he goes out and "rapes a 10-year-old girl".

You've already DECIDED that he's a potential RAPIST and the poor little kid HASN'T EVEN BEEN BORN YET!

Even STALIN waited for his victims to be BORN before convicting them!

And, by the way, you think the kids who DO commit horrible violent crimes HAVEN'T been exposed to violent "discipline" before? WHERE do you think they LEARNED to behave like BARBARIANS? Unless you are a remarkably stupid kid, there's one lesson you always learn in a violent home: it is MUCH better to hit than to be hit!

Frankly, Lardlad95, I QUESTION how much of a "socialist" you really ARE, considering your semi-fascist attitudes towards kids. At the least, I think you NEED to do some SERIOUS re-thinking of your politics. :shocked:









(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:48 am on Dec. 12, 2002)


(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:52 am on Dec. 12, 2002)


I'm fortunate? I'm fortunate?

1. My dad beat me...not spanked, beat me with; extenstion cords, brooms, hard plastic baseball bats, staffs, canes, belts, and threw hard plastic toys at me like he was playing baseball.

2. my dad beat my mom

3. needless to say my dad was an alcoholic and while he isn't anymore he still struggles with inner demons

4. Ever sleep on a damp shag carpet filled with fleas and ticks? I did for a year.

5. Ever have to wake up and see a oppsum run out of a hole in your door? I have

6. ever go to a rich shcool and be dirt poor? I have

7. ever go to a rich school with out clean clothes that haven't been washed in a week

8. ever gone to school reach in your pocket in hopes of finding a forgotten dollar and pulled out a roach? I have.

I was fuckin dirt poor don't call me lucky.

The fact that religions borrow from one another doesn't mean that they are abominations.

They steal subtle things from each other.

not to mention that the three major religions are all branched off of each other. All three call Abraham father.

What will happen with the child wwont even make sense to teh most religious person on earth.

every kid I knew in milwaukee was hit as a child they are fine they don't act like barbarians.

Hell I was beaten till i couldn't breathe I'm not committing crimes.

I am not going to do what my father did but I am going to discipline my children.

And this will only happen when they are between 2-8

after that I will discipline them in other ways that aren't physical.

you can't reason with a two year old, simple as that.

What I said about my future son wasn't litteral,

but if my son learns to be respectful and to be morally good then I did my job and that starts at home.

And that starts teh first time that he does something wrong.

If he yells at an elder when we get home he's getting hit.

Maybe like once or twice with a belt...that wont emotionally scar him.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 2:29 am on Dec. 12, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 7:14 am on Dec. 12, 2002
. 2. Your take on parents being embaressed of their children is bullshit...discipline doesn't work that way...you want a child to be a productive and sucessful person if you don't disciplin them then you havenm't done your job.

Thats right parents do care about what others see there children as...I don't know about you but I don't want to see my son on the news for raping a 10 year old girl and if I discipline him that wont happen.


Discipline isn't always the answer. You have to teach kids to think for themselves and use their own judgement. You can't just tell them "I'm in charge cause I'm older than you". You can't raise kids to go along with everything they hear and do whatever is dictated to them. You must go through being critical, of yourself and the world around you. You can't just take what is thrown at you, you should question all. Discipline is so often used to stop free thought and thats why I'm against most forms of discipline. Everything can be taught with logic and reason, discipline isn't a nessecity.

NowI'm betting someone is going to tell me that without discipline nobody will respect anyone else. I will disagree with that statement right now by saying, morality is part of logic and reason. You can be taught what is right from wrong without discipline.


I'm gonna use this in teh style of a Plato like dialouge

[B]

Mom: son it's time to go to bed ( to her four year old son)

Son: why

Mom: because you need your rest

Son: why?

Mom: so you can have energy tomorrow

Son: well Timbaly said that parents suck and that I should always question

Mom: well Timbaly isn't raising you...also you have a bit of a cold, rest will help you get better

Son: I don't care...I'm going to stay up (runs around yelling and screaming and jumping)

Mom: please stop son your annoying mommy

Son: nah nah you can't catch me (it's 10 at night)

Mom: please son....please

Son: nah nah

(Mom calls timably)

Mom: can i Please discipline my son?

Timbaly: no let him express himself

Mom: he's drawing on the walls

Timably: then explain to him why he shouldn't

Mom: I already did that this morning

Timbaly: well then why isn't he in bed

Mom: he wont go...because he's allowed to question my authority

Timbaly: oh ok....well then let him do what he wants (loud crash heard)whats that

Mom: he just broke a window

TImbaly: he's just expressing himself [B]



Now what do you do about children with a ADD

or when one child wants to go to teh playground at night time? While another wants to go to a movie, at 12 midnight?

When the children don't feel like going to sleep until 3 in the morning?



Your ideas aren't promoting creativity, they are careless.

All you are allowing is children to control theire own lives..

If the kid wants to play in a busy street are you gonna let it until it gets hit by a car? You certainly can't pull them away...thats stunting their creative growth.

[redstar2000]

Well, Lardlad95, I just don't know WHAT to tell you. You clearly had a hellish childhood and the only response to that you have is to promise to make your kid's childhood slightly less hellish--you'll beat him up, but not as badly as you were beaten up.

Perhaps, in your case, that's the best that can be hoped for...generation after generation of slight improvement until one day very far in the future your great-great-great-great-great grandchild will conclude that beating kids really sucks!

I agree completely that you're NOT "a fucking communist"--the LAST thing we need is "communists" like you.

You poor sad fucked bastard! :sad:

[Conghaileach]

Redstar, I think that you're spending too much time analysing the family as it exists now to write off as it would, or should, exist under communism.

You talk of threats by the stronger adult against all other members of the family. You mention how not everyone has good parents - how some have alcohol problems, some beat their children (which is usually caused by an event such as the parent being frustrated at work by the boss and venting the anger of the child).

Do you expect a family unit to function under communism as it does under capitalism?

The majority of parents' wages do go towards paying bills etc (working class families at least) - these payments benefit the entire family. I understand that sometimes the money can be irresponsibly wasted by parents, but what are kids likely to spend any money the get on? Crap. Isn't providing everything needed one of the fundamental aspects of communism (each according to his ability to each according to his need) - most parents in today's society do try to do that.

I feel that people today, especially with the increase in teenage pregnancies, are not prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood - many do not want kids but can't afford abortions, for instance. There are those who cannot provide properly for their children - this is not the parents' fault, it is the fault of the society and system under which we live.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:41 pm on Dec. 12, 2002
Well, Lardlad95, I just don't know WHAT to tell you. You clearly had a hellish childhood and the only response to that you have is to promise to make your kid's childhood slightly less hellish--you'll beat him up, but not as badly as you were beaten up.

Perhaps, in your case, that's the best that can be hoped for...generation after generation of slight improvement until one day very far in the future your great-great-great-great-great grandchild will conclude that beating kids really sucks!

I agree completely that you're NOT "a fucking communist"--the LAST thing we need is "communists" like you.

You poor sad fucked bastard! :sad:


Listen you condecending fuck don't compare smacking a 6 year old on the back of the head when he steals something from a store

to

being beaten within an inch of your life

and I can see you didn't bother to answer my question

[truthaddict11]

i believe you have to teach a kid boundries and rules. i am 18 and i make sure i am home when my mom wants me to be around 11 o'clock unless i call her first. this is because i know she worries about my safety. i could easiely stay out to 1 o'clock if i felt like it, she doesnt check on to see if i am home at that time or not. i respect her.
spanking or sending a child to bed without dinner for doing something wrong such as stealing, lying or cheating is only helping that child learn that those are wrong.
who do you think a child is more going to look up to as a role model thier family or a community? i would say thier family because thats where you learn certain morals like stealing is wrong, killing is wrong, lying is wrong, ect.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 12:07 am on Dec. 13, 2002
i believe you have to teach a kid boundries and rules. i am 18 and i make sure i am home when my mom wants me to be around 11 o'clock unless i call her first. this is because i know she worries about my safety. i could easiely stay out to 1 o'clock if i felt like it, she doesnt check on to see if i am home at that time or not. i respect her.
spanking or sending a child to bed without dinner for doing something wrong such as stealing, lying or cheating is only helping that child learn that those are wrong.
who do you think a child is more going to look up to as a role model thier family or a community? i would say thier family because thats where you learn certain morals like stealing is wrong, killing is wrong, lying is wrong, ect.


amen comrade

[redstar2000]

Not much to reply to there, right?

Of the several books I've read on the experiences of people imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps, one of them made an interesting point: it seems that a small minority of prisoners came to IDENTIFY with their captors to the extent of imitating the guards' mannerisms, wearing disgarded scraps of Nazi uniforms, even believing that somehow they "deserved" the horrors visited on them by the Nazis.

In the waning years of the last century, this came to be known as the "kidnap victim syndrom"--where the victim, far from hating his/her kidnappers, came to "love" them. Thus the heiress Patricia Hearst "joined" her kidnappers--the "Symbionese Liberation Army"--even though they treated her VERY badly.

You can guess where I'm going with this: some people who have been horribly abused develop a "coping" strategy of "loving" their abusers...and even plan to imitate them when they get the chance. I don't think anyone knows at this point WHY this happens...but, as we have seen in this thread, it certainly does. People who would be expected to be livid with rage at what was done to them...DEFEND the institution and the persons who have oppressed and brutalized them, and WANT to get the chance to do it themselves. :sad:

CB, I grant that you have another good point--it is certainly POSSIBLE that the family in communist society MIGHT function in a much more humane and egalitarian fashion than it does under the strains imposed on it by capitalist society. We have NO way of knowing that, one way or the other. All we have to go on is how we see the family as an institution operating NOW and how it has operated in previous class societies. I believe an honest evaluation of the evidence suggests pretty strongly that the track record is VERY BAD.

I suspect you disagree with this and I won't deny that you COULD be right...anything really resembling unimpeachable evidence is HARD to come by. (By the way, a point I neglected to make in an earlier post: I SHARE your scepticism regarding bourgeois social "science"...it's just all we have to go on, as bad as much of it undoubtedly is.)

I suppose what I would fall back on is a kind of "revolutionary bias"--the very PROJECT of creating an altogether NEW social order implies VERY STRONGLY that EVERYTHING is up for challenge, reform, or, if necessary, ABOLITION...and that DEFINITELY includes the traditional biological family. I flatly refuse deference to this "sacred institution" simply because "we've always done it that way."

Note to truthaddict11: If you're having a good time, stay out as long as you want to! :cool:

[timbaly]

Well back to i should have written that discipline thing differently. What I should of said was I'm opposed to violent punishment, or any hitting or beating of any kind. You discipline your kid through trial and error, as long as it's not anything ludicris like playing in the street. If the kid wants to stay up until 3 then let them, let them see where it gets them. They attempt to stay up until 3, but they probaly won't make it that far. That's because, when you're tired you go to sleep. Thereis no harm done there. But lets suppose they do make it to 3am now they won't wake up early enough the next day to watch there favorite morning TV show. Thats a consequence, so now they'll start thinking before they go to bed late. As for the adults and older children, they shouldn't interfere with the kid who is sleeping too latley. Let them sink or swim on there own. Just ignore them because they thrive on making others mad. They'll eventually tire themselves out and see that they're accomplishing nothing.

Now if the kids are doing something completely ridiculous like playing in the street, you take different measures. You have to shown them what the consequences are, you shown them the danger. Kids get scared easily, you tell them what to do in order to be safe while crossing the street. They'll get it.

I must have been a rare breed of child, so to speak.
I was scared to cross the street, and I had a reason to because it's a real danger. By the time I was five my parents trusted me while crossing the street. I followed the rules of logic and reason. I Looked to see if any cards were coming, I didn't just walk blindly across the street because I knew better. I just must have been a rare case, not meant sarcastically.

You definetly have good points, but I still think kids will get it through there own mistakes, and understand it better that way rather than dictated restrictions, in most cases that is. I don't want kids to ask "What happens if I stick a knife in my ear", and than let them try it. You have to show them certain dangers at all expenses to insure their saftey.

[timbaly]

Let me also add this, when I was young I had logic and reasoning skills, they were probaly better than most kids my age. I never believd in the tooth fairy or santa claus or the easter bunny. I even remember a conversation I had with my parents when I was 4 telling them to stop the lies.

Now back to the roatation system idea. I'll explain it in a little more detail. Lets say the adults are 25 and 23 and the small children are 6 and 8, and the older kids are 14 and 15. When the rotation is made the 6 people will all be switched into different units. They won't have any former members of the old unit with them.

Now I have a question. When the 8 year old turns 9 rotates into a new unit should the adults in his unit be 26 an 24. What I'm basically asking is should all the members of the unit be the same distance apart in age from after every rotation?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

A social up-bringing would seem logical though you would still hold a certain love for your biological parents, unless you live far away from them. Psycologicaly, not everyone in a society can be a maternal and paternal figure to a child, there will be only two.
That what I've come to, but I'm quite open-minded though, as always.


(Edited by Victorcommie at 9:50 am on Dec. 13, 2002)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I also read something saying that in several generations, domestic abuse will simply go away as people who are abused will not do that to their own children.
I must state that this is a very invalid argument. Nuclear families have existed for hundreds of generations, and I'm sure abuse has occured quite often and it has not gone away. It will not go away, people will eventualy have to evolve emotionaly to the point where they no longer need to take out their frustrations on innocent children as "dicipline."

[Conghaileach]

Speaking of disciplinging kids, I just found this article...

Beat on the brat - The economics of spanking (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2075217)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:07 am on Dec. 13, 2002
Not much to reply to there, right?

Of the several books I've read on the experiences of people imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps, one of them made an interesting point: it seems that a small minority of prisoners came to IDENTIFY with their captors to the extent of imitating the guards' mannerisms, wearing disgarded scraps of Nazi uniforms, even believing that somehow they "deserved" the horrors visited on them by the Nazis.

In the waning years of the last century, this came to be known as the "kidnap victim syndrom"--where the victim, far from hating his/her kidnappers, came to "love" them. Thus the heiress Patricia Hearst "joined" her kidnappers--the "Symbionese Liberation Army"--even though they treated her VERY badly.

You can guess where I'm going with this: some people who have been horribly abused develop a "coping" strategy of "loving" their abusers...and even plan to imitate them when they get the chance. I don't think anyone knows at this point WHY this happens...but, as we have seen in this thread, it certainly does. People who would be expected to be livid with rage at what was done to them...DEFEND the institution and the persons who have oppressed and brutalized them, and WANT to get the chance to do it themselves. :sad:

CB, I grant that you have another good point--it is certainly POSSIBLE that the family in communist society MIGHT function in a much more humane and egalitarian fashion than it does under the strains imposed on it by capitalist society. We have NO way of knowing that, one way or the other. All we have to go on is how we see the family as an institution operating NOW and how it has operated in previous class societies. I believe an honest evaluation of the evidence suggests pretty strongly that the track record is VERY BAD.

I suspect you disagree with this and I won't deny that you COULD be right...anything really resembling unimpeachable evidence is HARD to come by. (By the way, a point I neglected to make in an earlier post: I SHARE your scepticism regarding bourgeois social "science"...it's just all we have to go on, as bad as much of it undoubtedly is.)

I suppose what I would fall back on is a kind of "revolutionary bias"--the very PROJECT of creating an altogether NEW social order implies VERY STRONGLY that EVERYTHING is up for challenge, reform, or, if necessary, ABOLITION...and that DEFINITELY includes the traditional biological family. I flatly refuse deference to this "sacred institution" simply because "we've always done it that way."

Note to truthaddict11: If you're having a good time, stay out as long as you want to! :cool:



My mom i always loved...my dad, I didn't love him until after he stopped drinking.

Even a while after he stopped I didn't trust him, I doubt that victims syndrome is what is the case with me or other children.

Most children I've talked to who were abused hate their parents

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 2:45 am on Dec. 13, 2002
Well back to i should have written that discipline thing differently. What I should of said was I'm opposed to violent punishment, or any hitting or beating of any kind. You discipline your kid through trial and error, as long as it's not anything ludicris like playing in the street. If the kid wants to stay up until 3 then let them, let them see where it gets them. They attempt to stay up until 3, but they probaly won't make it that far. That's because, when you're tired you go to sleep. Thereis no harm done there. But lets suppose they do make it to 3am now they won't wake up early enough the next day to watch there favorite morning TV show. Thats a consequence, so now they'll start thinking before they go to bed late. As for the adults and older children, they shouldn't interfere with the kid who is sleeping too latley. Let them sink or swim on there own. Just ignore them because they thrive on making others mad. They'll eventually tire themselves out and see that they're accomplishing nothing.

Now if the kids are doing something completely ridiculous like playing in the street, you take different measures. You have to shown them what the consequences are, you shown them the danger. Kids get scared easily, you tell them what to do in order to be safe while crossing the street. They'll get it.

I must have been a rare breed of child, so to speak.
I was scared to cross the street, and I had a reason to because it's a real danger. By the time I was five my parents trusted me while crossing the street. I followed the rules of logic and reason. I Looked to see if any cards were coming, I didn't just walk blindly across the street because I knew better. I just must have been a rare case, not meant sarcastically.

You definetly have good points, but I still think kids will get it through there own mistakes, and understand it better that way rather than dictated restrictions, in most cases that is. I don't want kids to ask "What happens if I stick a knife in my ear", and than let them try it. You have to show them certain dangers at all expenses to insure their saftey.

..................Let me also add this, when I was young I had logic and reasoning skills, they were probaly better than most kids my age. I never believd in the tooth fairy or santa claus or the easter bunny. I even remember a conversation I had with my parents when I was 4 telling them to stop the lies.




If it worked out for you so well then why destroy families?


What about a kid with fuckin ADD?


And if the kid is annoying the hell out of everyone and breaking things no action should be done?

Children aren't mature enough or responsible enough to run a house hold and letting them do as they please is letting them run it.

Also how are you gonna show a kid how dangerous playing in the street it?

You gonna throw them at a moving truck?

[redstar2000]

I don't know if you were aware of this, timbaly, but something of what you suggest actually existed once--among the nobility in the middle ages and even somewhat earlier in Scandanavia.

As I understand it, it worked something like this: a child--usually a son, I believe--was raised by his biological parents until age 7 or thereabouts. Then, he would be sent to live with an ally of that particular nobleman up through his teen-age years and even into early adulthood before returning to the family home. Thus the sons (and perhaps some daughters) matured under the "guidance" of someone unrealted to the biological parents; the practice was called "fostering". It may have had its origins in the desire to protect the continuity of the "family line"--if a particular nobleman was defeated by his enemies and killed with all of his nearby relatives, any "fostered" sons would still be alive to continue the family line as well as seek revenge if possible. As far as we know, it "worked".

But timbaly, I'm not confident of a system of essentially arbitrary rotation of kids...I don't think the kids would understand or accept being separated from people they really LIKED.

I would rather see a system of voluntary collectives that form for the PURPOSE of raising children--NOT having children, raising them. The adults who would initiate the formation would be motivated by a GENUINE liking for kids...NOT a vulgar desire to "extend their family line" or a search for a vicarious life.

Kids would be made aware of the existence of such collectives as an immediate, safe, and viable alternative to living with their biological parents...which they could choose to exercise around age 7 and which could be chosen for them at an even younger age in the event of family abuse.

People who already had children, particularly unattached young women, could join such collectives and bring their children with them. They would, no doubt, show some favoritism to "their own" child...but the other adult members of the collective could step in if it got out of hand.

And of course, once a kid has reached the age of 7+ and discovers that the collective he finds himself in is not to his/her liking, s/he can move on to a different one.

The whole point of this idea--and other ideas like it--is to make VOLUNTARY what was hitherto considered COMPULSORY or even INEVITABLE. The whole point of Marx's criticism of the family in capitalist society--with which this thread began--is that BEHIND the appearance of mutual affection and concern looms the ugly reality of economic survival or doom. As in Marx's era, so in ours: people try to kid themselves that they stay with people they don't really like out of "love" or "duty"...the reality is that young people who flee abusive homes, unless they are very lucky, find themselves driven by economic survival into some pretty awful situations. THAT will NOT be tolerated in communist society.

One can always argue about how MANY kids would take advantage of such alternatives if they in fact existed...I admit that I don't know. Defenders of the traditional biological family will always assert that for most people it works just fine; critics will always counter that mostly it's a fucking snake pit.

Under communism, we shall put the matter to a real test...and THEN we'll see.

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:47 pm on Dec. 13, 2002

Under communism, we shall put the matter to a real test...and THEN we'll see.

:cool:

no no no no no

thats everyone's damn problem you can't experiment these are people not lab rats...

Thats what the fucked the USSR up then tested shit

[redstar2000]

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

How is it treating people like "lab rats" to give them a CHOICE as children as to how and who they will live with?

Does the idea that kids might choose a freer and more egalitarian living arrangement--one that would, by the way, be free of ALL violence--terrify some people so much that all they can respond with is hysterical rhetoric and personal abuse? What is it REALLY that scares them so badly? Loss of personal authority, perhaps?

:cool:

[timbaly]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 7:15 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 2:45 am on Dec. 13, 2002
Well back to i should have written that discipline thing differently. What I should of said was I'm opposed to violent punishment, or any hitting or beating of any kind. You discipline your kid through trial and error, as long as it's not anything ludicris like playing in the street. If the kid wants to stay up until 3 then let them, let them see where it gets them. They attempt to stay up until 3, but they probaly won't make it that far. That's because, when you're tired you go to sleep. Thereis no harm done there. But lets suppose they do make it to 3am now they won't wake up early enough the next day to watch there favorite morning TV show. Thats a consequence, so now they'll start thinking before they go to bed late. As for the adults and older children, they shouldn't interfere with the kid who is sleeping too latley. Let them sink or swim on there own. Just ignore them because they thrive on making others mad. They'll eventually tire themselves out and see that they're accomplishing nothing.

Now if the kids are doing something completely ridiculous like playing in the street, you take different measures. You have to shown them what the consequences are, you shown them the danger. Kids get scared easily, you tell them what to do in order to be safe while crossing the street. They'll get it.

I must have been a rare breed of child, so to speak.
I was scared to cross the street, and I had a reason to because it's a real danger. By the time I was five my parents trusted me while crossing the street. I followed the rules of logic and reason. I Looked to see if any cards were coming, I didn't just walk blindly across the street because I knew better. I just must have been a rare case, not meant sarcastically.

You definetly have good points, but I still think kids will get it through there own mistakes, and understand it better that way rather than dictated restrictions, in most cases that is. I don't want kids to ask "What happens if I stick a knife in my ear", and than let them try it. You have to show them certain dangers at all expenses to insure their saftey.

..................Let me also add this, when I was young I had logic and reasoning skills, they were probaly better than most kids my age. I never believd in the tooth fairy or santa claus or the easter bunny. I even remember a conversation I had with my parents when I was 4 telling them to stop the lies.




If it worked out for you so well then why destroy families?


What about a kid with fuckin ADD?


And if the kid is annoying the hell out of everyone and breaking things no action should be done?

Children aren't mature enough or responsible enough to run a house hold and letting them do as they please is letting them run it.

Also how are you gonna show a kid how dangerous playing in the street it?

You gonna throw them at a moving truck?


As I've said before, destroying the family as we know it creates greater equality and less double standards.

You know, i never really thought about the kid with ADD. Thats a very good point. I really don't know what to tell you.

See, I realized I came across the wrong way by saying "I'm against discipline". Like a said I'm just opposed to using violence as the answer. If a child is breaking things, you don't let them. What you have to do is take away something they like. It's as simple a rule as Those who do not Work do not eat. The rule here is those who don't comply to sane rules, like throwing and breaking things for fun are being counterproductive. The person who CAN work and doesn't is also counterproductive, so action should be taken.

The children won't be running the households, but they'll have greater freedoms within the household than what the average parent gives them. If you're not hurting anyone or anything by doing something, shouldn't you be able to do it? Just like kids going to bed when they're tired or doing homework according to their schedule not the parents.

To show a kid what happens when you're hit by a car just use a model, like toy cars. Car goes fast, hits figurine. Figurine falls down meaning he gets hurt or run over resulting in death. Or you could show them roadkill if it's nearby.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 4:04 am on Dec. 15, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 7:15 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 2:45 am on Dec. 13, 2002
Well back to i should have written that discipline thing differently. What I should of said was I'm opposed to violent punishment, or any hitting or beating of any kind. You discipline your kid through trial and error, as long as it's not anything ludicris like playing in the street. If the kid wants to stay up until 3 then let them, let them see where it gets them. They attempt to stay up until 3, but they probaly won't make it that far. That's because, when you're tired you go to sleep. Thereis no harm done there. But lets suppose they do make it to 3am now they won't wake up early enough the next day to watch there favorite morning TV show. Thats a consequence, so now they'll start thinking before they go to bed late. As for the adults and older children, they shouldn't interfere with the kid who is sleeping too latley. Let them sink or swim on there own. Just ignore them because they thrive on making others mad. They'll eventually tire themselves out and see that they're accomplishing nothing.

Now if the kids are doing something completely ridiculous like playing in the street, you take different measures. You have to shown them what the consequences are, you shown them the danger. Kids get scared easily, you tell them what to do in order to be safe while crossing the street. They'll get it.

I must have been a rare breed of child, so to speak.
I was scared to cross the street, and I had a reason to because it's a real danger. By the time I was five my parents trusted me while crossing the street. I followed the rules of logic and reason. I Looked to see if any cards were coming, I didn't just walk blindly across the street because I knew better. I just must have been a rare case, not meant sarcastically.

You definetly have good points, but I still think kids will get it through there own mistakes, and understand it better that way rather than dictated restrictions, in most cases that is. I don't want kids to ask "What happens if I stick a knife in my ear", and than let them try it. You have to show them certain dangers at all expenses to insure their saftey.

..................Let me also add this, when I was young I had logic and reasoning skills, they were probaly better than most kids my age. I never believd in the tooth fairy or santa claus or the easter bunny. I even remember a conversation I had with my parents when I was 4 telling them to stop the lies.




If it worked out for you so well then why destroy families?


What about a kid with fuckin ADD?


And if the kid is annoying the hell out of everyone and breaking things no action should be done?

Children aren't mature enough or responsible enough to run a house hold and letting them do as they please is letting them run it.

Also how are you gonna show a kid how dangerous playing in the street it?

You gonna throw them at a moving truck?


As I've said before, destroying the family as we know it creates greater equality and less double standards.

You know, i never really thought about the kid with ADD. Thats a very good point. I really don't know what to tell you.

See, I realized I came across the wrong way by saying "I'm against discipline". Like a said I'm just opposed to using violence as the answer. If a child is breaking things, you don't let them. What you have to do is take away something they like. It's as simple a rule as Those who do not Work do not eat. The rule here is those who don't comply to sane rules, like throwing and breaking things for fun are being counterproductive. The person who CAN work and doesn't is also counterproductive, so action should be taken.

The children won't be running the households, but they'll have greater freedoms within the household than what the average parent gives them. If you're not hurting anyone or anything by doing something, shouldn't you be able to do it? Just like kids going to bed when they're tired or doing homework according to their schedule not the parents.

To show a kid what happens when you're hit by a car just use a model, like toy cars. Car goes fast, hits figurine. Figurine falls down meaning he gets hurt or run over resulting in death. Or you could show them roadkill if it's nearby.

Get help...now

that car thing is dumb because there will be children who wont understand

second they will be running the damn household

THey make their own choices for everything.

Around 2 in the morning I ge really tired I fall asleep......the next morning I'm still tired.

If the kid falls asleep from exhuastion they will still be tired.

Taking things away is sadistic

what do you do when they have nothing left to take away? Stop feeding them?

"clean your room or I'm taking your bed away"

My family is as close as they come

we laugh, we talk, we disscusss life and politics practicaly every day

Yet my parents are still authority figures, but I can still have a disscussion with them.

But the important part is that I respect them.

Let parents be parents

and redstar if you let them do trial and error that shit labratory scientists do.

Try until you get it right.

You can't do that with governments and peoples lives.

[redstar2000]

Timbaly, it may well be that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "ADD"--though it's a great "excuse" to drug kids into obedience and has been a bonanza for the drug industry.

"Let parents be parents"? Why not "let bosses be bosses"? Let "archbishops be archbishops"? Let "fuhrers be fuhrers"? No.

"You can't experiment with people's lives"--LIFE IS AN EXPERIMENT! EVERYTHING we think and do is "trial and error"...except for religious rituals and bullshit like that.

What you are clearly OPPOSED to, Lardlad95, is ANY kind of SUBSTANTIVE freedom for children, ESPECIALLY regarding their right to CHOOSE who will raise them.

That your REACTIONARY position prevents you from comprehending any alternative is understandable. That you will STOP the liberation of children is...well, doubtful, no matter how often you reach for your belt.

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:05 pm on Dec. 15, 2002
Timbaly, it may well be that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "ADD"--though it's a great "excuse" to drug kids into obedience and has been a bonanza for the drug industry.

"Let parents be parents"? Why not "let bosses be bosses"? Let "archbishops be archbishops"? Let "fuhrers be fuhrers"? No.

"You can't experiment with people's lives"--LIFE IS AN EXPERIMENT! EVERYTHING we think and do is "trial and error"...except for religious rituals and bullshit like that.

What you are clearly OPPOSED to, Lardlad95, is ANY kind of SUBSTANTIVE freedom for children, ESPECIALLY regarding their right to CHOOSE who will raise them.

That your REACTIONARY position prevents you from comprehending any alternative is understandable. That you will STOP the liberation of children is...well, doubtful, no matter how often you reach for your belt.

:cool:

What liberation...those children don't even know what freedom really is they probably can't even spell freedom.

Liberating them? They aren't opressed slaves. They aren't migrant workers.

So they are told to go to bed at 8:00 when they are FOUR

not to mention trial and error is how people die.

Stalin TRIED his five year plan. People died.

You can't just go back to the drawing board because Jimmy will never be alive again.

I understand what you are saying and I can see it happening I just cna't see it working

[redstar2000]

"You can't see it working" and yet you're unwilling to permit it being put to the test, even when I made it clear that I was talking about voluntary measures.

<shakes head in disbelief>

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:42 am on Dec. 16, 2002
"You can't see it working" and yet you're unwilling to permit it being put to the test, even when I made it clear that I was talking about voluntary measures.

<shakes head in disbelief>



because you need to stop and realize that this isn't some test.

These are people and you run the risk of fuckin children up mentaly

[redstar2000]

And the PRESENT traditional biological family hasn't "fucked up people mentally"? In VERY LARGE NUMBERS?

:cool:

[timbaly]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 12:23 pm on Dec. 16, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 4:04 am on Dec. 15, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 7:15 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 2:45 am on Dec. 13, 2002
Well back to i should have written that discipline thing differently. What I should of said was I'm opposed to violent punishment, or any hitting or beating of any kind. You discipline your kid through trial and error, as long as it's not anything ludicris like playing in the street. If the kid wants to stay up until 3 then let them, let them see where it gets them. They attempt to stay up until 3, but they probaly won't make it that far. That's because, when you're tired you go to sleep. Thereis no harm done there. But lets suppose they do make it to 3am now they won't wake up early enough the next day to watch there favorite morning TV show. Thats a consequence, so now they'll start thinking before they go to bed late. As for the adults and older children, they shouldn't interfere with the kid who is sleeping too latley. Let them sink or swim on there own. Just ignore them because they thrive on making others mad. They'll eventually tire themselves out and see that they're accomplishing nothing.

Now if the kids are doing something completely ridiculous like playing in the street, you take different measures. You have to shown them what the consequences are, you shown them the danger. Kids get scared easily, you tell them what to do in order to be safe while crossing the street. They'll get it.

I must have been a rare breed of child, so to speak.
I was scared to cross the street, and I had a reason to because it's a real danger. By the time I was five my parents trusted me while crossing the street. I followed the rules of logic and reason. I Looked to see if any cards were coming, I didn't just walk blindly across the street because I knew better. I just must have been a rare case, not meant sarcastically.

You definetly have good points, but I still think kids will get it through there own mistakes, and understand it better that way rather than dictated restrictions, in most cases that is. I don't want kids to ask "What happens if I stick a knife in my ear", and than let them try it. You have to show them certain dangers at all expenses to insure their saftey.

..................Let me also add this, when I was young I had logic and reasoning skills, they were probaly better than most kids my age. I never believd in the tooth fairy or santa claus or the easter bunny. I even remember a conversation I had with my parents when I was 4 telling them to stop the lies.




If it worked out for you so well then why destroy families?


What about a kid with fuckin ADD?


And if the kid is annoying the hell out of everyone and breaking things no action should be done?

Children aren't mature enough or responsible enough to run a house hold and letting them do as they please is letting them run it.

Also how are you gonna show a kid how dangerous playing in the street it?

You gonna throw them at a moving truck?


As I've said before, destroying the family as we know it creates greater equality and less double standards.

You know, i never really thought about the kid with ADD. Thats a very good point. I really don't know what to tell you.

See, I realized I came across the wrong way by saying "I'm against discipline". Like a said I'm just opposed to using violence as the answer. If a child is breaking things, you don't let them. What you have to do is take away something they like. It's as simple a rule as Those who do not Work do not eat. The rule here is those who don't comply to sane rules, like throwing and breaking things for fun are being counterproductive. The person who CAN work and doesn't is also counterproductive, so action should be taken.

The children won't be running the households, but they'll have greater freedoms within the household than what the average parent gives them. If you're not hurting anyone or anything by doing something, shouldn't you be able to do it? Just like kids going to bed when they're tired or doing homework according to their schedule not the parents.

To show a kid what happens when you're hit by a car just use a model, like toy cars. Car goes fast, hits figurine. Figurine falls down meaning he gets hurt or run over resulting in death. Or you could show them roadkill if it's nearby.

Get help...now

that car thing is dumb because there will be children who wont understand

second they will be running the damn household

THey make their own choices for everything.

Around 2 in the morning I ge really tired I fall asleep......the next morning I'm still tired.

If the kid falls asleep from exhuastion they will still be tired.

Taking things away is sadistic

what do you do when they have nothing left to take away? Stop feeding them?

"clean your room or I'm taking your bed away"

My family is as close as they come

we laugh, we talk, we disscusss life and politics practicaly every day

Yet my parents are still authority figures, but I can still have a disscussion with them.

But the important part is that I respect them.

Let parents be parents

and redstar if you let them do trial and error that shit labratory scientists do.

Try until you get it right.

You can't do that with governments and peoples lives.


If you go to sleep at 4am you will wake up tired the next morning. Nobody likes that feeling, thats why most people go to bed, so when they wake up they aren't tired. If a kid has to go to school the next morning and go to bed late they won't like the feeling and will make a more rational decision. They will learn from their mistakes.

If you think taking away is unjustified than how can you support beating? I say beating is a lot worse, your inflicting pain onto someone.

It won't get to the point where there is nothing left to take away. Kids will realize that they are doing bad things and will correct themselves so they can get their confiscated toy.

As for you respecting your parents that is wonderful, everyone should respect everyone, not just because they're blood.

It's fantastic that you can have a decent discussion with your parents, but many others can't. I'm sure you know parents who won't tolerate criticism of Bush. They say things like "don't criticize our leader". "He's the leader of the free world, stop your nonsense" These are the people we have to watch out for. The people who ar intolerant, who aren't open to their kids.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:17 am on Dec. 16, 2002
And the PRESENT traditional biological family hasn't "fucked up people mentally"? In VERY LARGE NUMBERS?

:cool:


I'm not fucked up

you guys just fail to realize that families aren't as bad as you make them out to be.

What the hell are you promoting by aboloshing the family?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 5:36 am on Dec. 16, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 12:23 pm on Dec. 16, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 4:04 am on Dec. 15, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 7:15 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 2:45 am on Dec. 13, 2002
Well back to i should have written that discipline thing differently. What I should of said was I'm opposed to violent punishment, or any hitting or beating of any kind. You discipline your kid through trial and error, as long as it's not anything ludicris like playing in the street. If the kid wants to stay up until 3 then let them, let them see where it gets them. They attempt to stay up until 3, but they probaly won't make it that far. That's because, when you're tired you go to sleep. Thereis no harm done there. But lets suppose they do make it to 3am now they won't wake up early enough the next day to watch there favorite morning TV show. Thats a consequence, so now they'll start thinking before they go to bed late. As for the adults and older children, they shouldn't interfere with the kid who is sleeping too latley. Let them sink or swim on there own. Just ignore them because they thrive on making others mad. They'll eventually tire themselves out and see that they're accomplishing nothing.

Now if the kids are doing something completely ridiculous like playing in the street, you take different measures. You have to shown them what the consequences are, you shown them the danger. Kids get scared easily, you tell them what to do in order to be safe while crossing the street. They'll get it.

I must have been a rare breed of child, so to speak.
I was scared to cross the street, and I had a reason to because it's a real danger. By the time I was five my parents trusted me while crossing the street. I followed the rules of logic and reason. I Looked to see if any cards were coming, I didn't just walk blindly across the street because I knew better. I just must have been a rare case, not meant sarcastically.

You definetly have good points, but I still think kids will get it through there own mistakes, and understand it better that way rather than dictated restrictions, in most cases that is. I don't want kids to ask "What happens if I stick a knife in my ear", and than let them try it. You have to show them certain dangers at all expenses to insure their saftey.

..................Let me also add this, when I was young I had logic and reasoning skills, they were probaly better than most kids my age. I never believd in the tooth fairy or santa claus or the easter bunny. I even remember a conversation I had with my parents when I was 4 telling them to stop the lies.




If it worked out for you so well then why destroy families?


What about a kid with fuckin ADD?


And if the kid is annoying the hell out of everyone and breaking things no action should be done?

Children aren't mature enough or responsible enough to run a house hold and letting them do as they please is letting them run it.

Also how are you gonna show a kid how dangerous playing in the street it?

You gonna throw them at a moving truck?


As I've said before, destroying the family as we know it creates greater equality and less double standards.

You know, i never really thought about the kid with ADD. Thats a very good point. I really don't know what to tell you.

See, I realized I came across the wrong way by saying "I'm against discipline". Like a said I'm just opposed to using violence as the answer. If a child is breaking things, you don't let them. What you have to do is take away something they like. It's as simple a rule as Those who do not Work do not eat. The rule here is those who don't comply to sane rules, like throwing and breaking things for fun are being counterproductive. The person who CAN work and doesn't is also counterproductive, so action should be taken.

The children won't be running the households, but they'll have greater freedoms within the household than what the average parent gives them. If you're not hurting anyone or anything by doing something, shouldn't you be able to do it? Just like kids going to bed when they're tired or doing homework according to their schedule not the parents.

To show a kid what happens when you're hit by a car just use a model, like toy cars. Car goes fast, hits figurine. Figurine falls down meaning he gets hurt or run over resulting in death. Or you could show them roadkill if it's nearby.

Get help...now

that car thing is dumb because there will be children who wont understand

second they will be running the damn household

THey make their own choices for everything.

Around 2 in the morning I ge really tired I fall asleep......the next morning I'm still tired.

If the kid falls asleep from exhuastion they will still be tired.

Taking things away is sadistic

what do you do when they have nothing left to take away? Stop feeding them?

"clean your room or I'm taking your bed away"

My family is as close as they come

we laugh, we talk, we disscusss life and politics practicaly every day

Yet my parents are still authority figures, but I can still have a disscussion with them.

But the important part is that I respect them.

Let parents be parents

and redstar if you let them do trial and error that shit labratory scientists do.

Try until you get it right.

You can't do that with governments and peoples lives.


If you go to sleep at 4am you will wake up tired the next morning. Nobody likes that feeling, thats why most people go to bed, so when they wake up they aren't tired. If a kid has to go to school the next morning and go to bed late they won't like the feeling and will make a more rational decision. They will learn from their mistakes.

If you think taking away is unjustified than how can you support beating? I say beating is a lot worse, your inflicting pain onto someone.

It won't get to the point where there is nothing left to take away. Kids will realize that they are doing bad things and will correct themselves so they can get their confiscated toy.

As for you respecting your parents that is wonderful, everyone should respect everyone, not just because they're blood.

It's fantastic that you can have a decent discussion with your parents, but many others can't. I'm sure you know parents who won't tolerate criticism of Bush. They say things like "don't criticize our leader". "He's the leader of the free world, stop your nonsense" These are the people we have to watch out for. The people who ar intolerant, who aren't open to their kids.


So because there are some ignorant parents my family should suffer?

Why is that?

Why do we have to end up like everyone elsejust because some families are opressive?

Why should me and my brother be seperated? my brother who has been my best friend since I can remember?

What did we do to deserve it.

Are you a parent?

have some kids, then let me steal them...see how it feels

also not all kids are smart enough to make that decision.

[redstar2000]

"I'm not fucked up"--Lardlad95.

Yet another thing we disagree on.

If you had taken the trouble to read what I WROTE, you would know that NO ONE is going to kick your door down and drag you and your brother off to an unwanted freedom from your parents. What I proposed was that kids from the age of 7 or so HAVE A REAL CHOICE about who they live with.

Your incoherent, not to say down right hysterical reaction to this even-handed idea probably has psychological explanations that I'm not competent to discover.

But "fucked up" summarizes it pretty well. :cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:33 am on Dec. 17, 2002
"I'm not fucked up"--Lardlad95.

Yet another thing we disagree on.

If you had taken the trouble to read what I WROTE, you would know that NO ONE is going to kick your door down and drag you and your brother off to an unwanted freedom from your parents. What I proposed was that kids from the age of 7 or so HAVE A REAL CHOICE about who they live with.

Your incoherent, not to say down right hysterical reaction to this even-handed idea probably has psychological explanations that I'm not competent to discover.

But "fucked up" summarizes it pretty well. :cool:

CHild: I want to live with father bill

Bill: thats a good boy (Fr. Bill proceeds tosodomize the child)

thE child should only be able to chose if

1. there is a divorce

2. the parents are abusive

3. any such circumstance where the child will be emotionaly or physically hurt

Most children aren't emotionally scarred


get over your self, you aren't liberating slaves. YOu are being irresponsible with human life.

a 7 year old can't make a choice tat is in it's best interest that is of such a great magnitude.

What if the kid wants to live with a bunch of pedophiles?

ANd I know you wont let that happen but you see my point.


FREDOM from my parents?

I love my parents more than anything on this earth.

If I was seperated from them I wouldn't be free, because I would be a slave to depression.

Not to mention if you have no real family who do you go to for love and support?

What do you have a family reunion of 300 people?

Sure the community can "love" you

but there is nothing like a mothers love.

my mom would love me if I murderd four thousand people

she wouldn't be proud of me but she would love me.

Can you say the same for your "community"?

[truthaddict11]

a child of 7 is gonna want to leave thier parents because they dont let them stay up late or eat candy after dinner. you'll end up with many kids needing different families and they will hate them too. every kid goes through a rebillious stage with thier family but because they dont like their family should they "divorce" them? NO. kids need to learn they are stuck with thier parents or guardians for life and need to grow up and listen to what they have to say. a parents active involvement in a childs life will be more benificial than a community's

[redstar2000]

truthaddict11, I certainly KNEW by the age of 8 or so that I wanted to live someplace else...and it had NOTHING to do with candy or bedtime.

How DARE you tell kids they are "stuck with their parents or guardians for life"? I hate to fall into the Lardlad95 style of debate but you REALLY DESERVE a loud FUCK YOU!

You would tell slaves they are "stuck with their masters for life?" You would tell workers they are "stuck with bosses for life"? You would tell Che that people in other countries are "stuck with U.S. imperialism for life?"

Or perhaps you'd tell abused wives that they are "stuck with their husbands for life"?

Considering the REACTIONARY views expressed on this board lately, I'm starting to actually MISS the "stalinists."

:angry:

[truthaddict11]

tell me why when you were 8 you wanted to leave your parents. and stop trying to involve the whole goddamn world into one comment please.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:28 am on Dec. 17, 2002
truthaddict11, I certainly KNEW by the age of 8 or so that I wanted to live someplace else...and it had NOTHING to do with candy or bedtime.

How DARE you tell kids they are "stuck with their parents or guardians for life"? I hate to fall into the Lardlad95 style of debate but you REALLY DESERVE a loud FUCK YOU!

You would tell slaves they are "stuck with their masters for life?" You would tell workers they are "stuck with bosses for life"? You would tell Che that people in other countries are "stuck with U.S. imperialism for life?"

Or perhaps you'd tell abused wives that they are "stuck with their husbands for life"?

Considering the REACTIONARY views expressed on this board lately, I'm starting to actually MISS the "stalinists."

:angry:


first off you have never seen my in a real debate competition, I never use profanity.

You know why I was cussing here? because as of late i have been openly attacked on everything from my age to my ideology and most of the comments aren't even rellevant. I'm mad, and I have a right to be.

Now if everyone would stop insulting me like third graders I will stop using profanity.

Don't assume that because i have talked to you in two threads that you know my "style of debate" or me as a person.

The difference beween parents and all teh groups you mentioned is one simple thing

PARENTS LOVE THEIR CHILDREN AND ARE LOOKING OUT FOR THEIR WELL BEING

a slave owner doesn
t

a boss probably wont

and abusive husband wont.

Now do you understand?

[redstar2000]

Lardlad95, I have NEVER attacked you because of your AGE and NEVER will. You should have gathered by now that I would consider such attacks just as REACTIONARY as the ideas you and truthaddict11 have put forward. AGE has nothing to do with the merits of an argument.

"Parents love their children and are looking out for their well-being."

Without EVIDENCE, you have no right to assert that; I have seen MANY cases where that was NOT TRUE. Including, I might add, YOURS.

I have already granted that you feel otherwise, and that therefore the "People's Child Police" are NOT going to kick your door down and drag you away from your crying parents. Ok???

What you & truthaddict11 will NOT grant is that OTHER kids might feel VERY DIFFERENTLY...for reasons that have nothing to do with candy or bedtimes. Your stupid infatuation with the traditional biological family FORCES you to simply ignore REALITY...even when you yourself (L95) are a VICTIM of brutality. THAT is really SICK!

What your point of view really boils down to is that kids have two choices: 1. submit to outrageous treatment or 2. run away and survive on the streets through petty theft and prostitution.

Truthaddict11, as it happens I was not physically mistreated as a child; instead I grew up watching two people who really hated each other progressively destroy themselves with their own hatred. By the age of 7 or 8, I would have JOYFULLY left that poisonous atmosphere behind...especially for the kind of collective that I proposed in this thread; a collective formed of volunteers who LIKE kids.

Do you wonder that when you people talk of "warm, happy, close families", I recoil in disgust at the reality that underlies that "Hallmark" mentality?

I do laugh, though, when people say: "Oh, you're only a communist because you're rebelling against your parents." At present, WHO ELSE do we learn from...that the world that permits OUR OWN oppression is a world that NEEDS CHANGING A LOT!

But then, since I already know you are both opposed to communist revolution, I don't imagine that you think the world really needs much changing at all.

:cool:

[truthaddict11]

and how come your parents never got a divorce? i realize that problems like that will make a child want to runaway, such as problems at home. but a kid cant just want to "divorce" thier parents without a logical reason

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:21 pm on Dec. 17, 2002
Lardlad95, I have NEVER attacked you because of your AGE and NEVER will. You should have gathered by now that I would consider such attacks just as REACTIONARY as the ideas you and truthaddict11 have put forward. AGE has nothing to do with the merits of an argument.

"Parents love their children and are looking out for their well-being."

Without EVIDENCE, you have no right to assert that; I have seen MANY cases where that was NOT TRUE. Including, I might add, YOURS.

I have already granted that you feel otherwise, and that therefore the "People's Child Police" are NOT going to kick your door down and drag you away from your crying parents. Ok???

What you & truthaddict11 will NOT grant is that OTHER kids might feel VERY DIFFERENTLY...for reasons that have nothing to do with candy or bedtimes. Your stupid infatuation with the traditional biological family FORCES you to simply ignore REALITY...even when you yourself (L95) are a VICTIM of brutality. THAT is really SICK!

What your point of view really boils down to is that kids have two choices: 1. submit to outrageous treatment or 2. run away and survive on the streets through petty theft and prostitution.

Truthaddict11, as it happens I was not physically mistreated as a child; instead I grew up watching two people who really hated each other progressively destroy themselves with their own hatred. By the age of 7 or 8, I would have JOYFULLY left that poisonous atmosphere behind...especially for the kind of collective that I proposed in this thread; a collective formed of volunteers who LIKE kids.

Do you wonder that when you people talk of "warm, happy, close families", I recoil in disgust at the reality that underlies that "Hallmark" mentality?

I do laugh, though, when people say: "Oh, you're only a communist because you're rebelling against your parents." At present, WHO ELSE do we learn from...that the world that permits OUR OWN oppression is a world that NEEDS CHANGING A LOT!

But then, since I already know you are both opposed to communist revolution, I don't imagine that you think the world really needs much changing at all.

:cool:


I didn't say you attaced my age, I said it was attacked I meant through out Che lives

I doubt anyone can love me more than my mother and me and my father are close now.

by using me as an example you are proving my point.

I HAD a bad childhood, my family is close now.

Also I have talked to few children who dislike their parents

most kids I know love their families.

You don't know my family, you didn't watch me grow up...please dont use me as an example unless you know me on a personal level.

Other children MIGHT feel different? You don't even know this. You said might. That doesn't prove it.

You have some weird fantasy world where you save children form their "evil parents"

Just because your parents hated each other doesn't mean they all do.

You are using your fucked up life to screw up others.

You seem extremely bitter.

Ever consider that everyone wasn't as fucked up as your life?


GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD THEERE ARE FAMILIES THAT AREN"T DISFUCNTIONAL

you say we wont accept things neither will you.

My parens love each other, my parents love me.

My family doesn't hate each other.

But then again according to you everyone hates everyone else.

and answer this, will the community love me as much as my mother could?

my mother would love me no matter what I did, she may not be proud but she would love me. So I could never feel totally alone.

Can you say the same for the community?

[truthaddict11]

redstar, ask the whole goddamn community if they will support your "communist revolution" instead of pointing the finger at me and Lardlad. also as far as i am concerned the community already plays a role in a childs life. ever hear of Teachers? Mentors? and other members of the community? i was abused by my mom but i still love her.

try this too about democratic socialism
The Extension Of Democracy From Politics To The Economy

Socialists believe that in order for political democracy to work well in a post-industrial society, it must be complemented by economic democracy. Socialists feel that unless at least "the commanding heights of the economy" are socially owned and democratically controlled, those corporations will use their enormous political and economic clout to circumvent and block political democracy. Accordingly, Socialists support such institutions as consumer cooperatives, workers' collectives and worker/consumer participation in the management of governmentally-owned industry, as steps toward a society in which political democracy is reinforced and strengthened by economic democracy. Socialists are also strong supporters of democratic planning in the economy and government.


also explain how i am reactionary.

this seemed pretty reactionary from you
"truthaddict11, I certainly KNEW by the age of 8 or so that I wanted to live someplace else...and it had NOTHING to do with candy or bedtime.

How DARE you tell kids they are "stuck with their parents or guardians for life"? I hate to fall into the Lardlad95 style of debate but you REALLY DESERVE a loud FUCK YOU!

You would tell slaves they are "stuck with their masters for life?" You would tell workers they are "stuck with bosses for life"? You would tell Che that people in other countries are "stuck with U.S. imperialism for life?"

Or perhaps you'd tell abused wives that they are "stuck with their husbands for life"?

Considering the REACTIONARY views expressed on this board lately, I'm starting to actually MISS the "stalinists." "

[redstar2000]

"ask the whole goddamn community if they will support your 'communist revolution'..."

And then WHAT? If they all say no, just shut up? :cheesy:

Fine, truthaddict11, you love your abuser; Lardlad95 loves his abuser. Let's all have a BIG LOVE FEST with our respective abusers. Great idea!!! After the drugs wear off, maybe we can return to REALITY.

As far as your platform goes, the Socialist Party USA has been the "left" tail of the Democratic Party since the 1940's. Anyone who would take that ancient rhetoric seriously NOW would probably buy stock in Enron. It is FAKE...not intended EVER to be implemented. WHY do you think so many members of the SPUSA are leaving to join the Greens; they are SICK AND TIRED of supporting Democrats who are, in fact, CONSERVATIVES.

And, truthaddict11, my parents finally did divorce...when I was 18!

Yes, Lardlad95, I AM "extremely bitter" about many things; unlike you and truthaddict11, I HATE the world of oppression in ALL of its aspects. Do I have a "fantasy" of rescuing abused children? Actually, my "fantasy" is one of giving them a REAL chance to rescue THEMSELVES---sort of like my "fantasy" of giving the working class a real chance to emancipate itself.

To you guys, all real change is "fantasy".

Lardlad95 says I am using "my fucked up life" to screw up others? And HOW am I able to perform such a miraculous deed? What mysterious powers am I supposed to possess that enable me to "screw up others" over the internet on a message board? Am I sending out evil rays over the planet: "kids, hate your parents."?

Don't you two guys have any REAL arguments to bring to this discussion? What have you offered in recent pages? That you "love" your abusers, I will grant. That you are UTTERLY TERRIFIED of giving kids the FREEDOM to choose who they will live with and under what circumstances--yes, I understand that. That you firmly believe that "kids are stuck with their parents for life"--yes, I understand that's your position. That you think I am OUTRAGEOUS for even suggesting that your views might be mistaken--yes, I understand you both are really PISSED.

See, if your position had any real strength in reality, you wouldn't get so mad. You'd figure that since "most parents love their kids" and "most kids love their parents", that any efforts to set up alternatives would be trivial. Most kids would "want" to stay with their parents. If you REALLY had any confidence in that, you would have shrugged off MY remarks six pages ago.

Behind all the bluster and outraged rhetoric and assertions of parental "love", the worm of DOUBT is chewing away at both of you. The worm is saying: "if your parents love you and want what's best for you, WHY did they abuse you?"

You're not really mad at me; you're both mad at "the worm".

Listen to the "worm of doubt" for it speaks truth. :cool:

[truthaddict11]

My mom had FUCKING BI POLAR DISORDER! i learned to forgive her wrong doings ok!


(Edited by truthaddict11 at 6:23 am on Dec. 19, 2002)

[timbaly]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 6:55 am on Dec. 17, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 5:36 am on Dec. 16, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 12:23 pm on Dec. 16, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 4:04 am on Dec. 15, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 7:15 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 2:45 am on Dec. 13, 2002
Well back to i should have written that discipline thing differently. What I should of said was I'm opposed to violent punishment, or any hitting or beating of any kind. You discipline your kid through trial and error, as long as it's not anything ludicris like playing in the street. If the kid wants to stay up until 3 then let them, let them see where it gets them. They attempt to stay up until 3, but they probaly won't make it that far. That's because, when you're tired you go to sleep. Thereis no harm done there. But lets suppose they do make it to 3am now they won't wake up early enough the next day to watch there favorite morning TV show. Thats a consequence, so now they'll start thinking before they go to bed late. As for the adults and older children, they shouldn't interfere with the kid who is sleeping too latley. Let them sink or swim on there own. Just ignore them because they thrive on making others mad. They'll eventually tire themselves out and see that they're accomplishing nothing.

Now if the kids are doing something completely ridiculous like playing in the street, you take different measures. You have to shown them what the consequences are, you shown them the danger. Kids get scared easily, you tell them what to do in order to be safe while crossing the street. They'll get it.

I must have been a rare breed of child, so to speak.
I was scared to cross the street, and I had a reason to because it's a real danger. By the time I was five my parents trusted me while crossing the street. I followed the rules of logic and reason. I Looked to see if any cards were coming, I didn't just walk blindly across the street because I knew better. I just must have been a rare case, not meant sarcastically.

You definetly have good points, but I still think kids will get it through there own mistakes, and understand it better that way rather than dictated restrictions, in most cases that is. I don't want kids to ask "What happens if I stick a knife in my ear", and than let them try it. You have to show them certain dangers at all expenses to insure their saftey.

..................Let me also add this, when I was young I had logic and reasoning skills, they were probaly better than most kids my age. I never believd in the tooth fairy or santa claus or the easter bunny. I even remember a conversation I had with my parents when I was 4 telling them to stop the lies.




If it worked out for you so well then why destroy families?


What about a kid with fuckin ADD?


And if the kid is annoying the hell out of everyone and breaking things no action should be done?

Children aren't mature enough or responsible enough to run a house hold and letting them do as they please is letting them run it.

Also how are you gonna show a kid how dangerous playing in the street it?

You gonna throw them at a moving truck?


As I've said before, destroying the family as we know it creates greater equality and less double standards.

You know, i never really thought about the kid with ADD. Thats a very good point. I really don't know what to tell you.

See, I realized I came across the wrong way by saying "I'm against discipline". Like a said I'm just opposed to using violence as the answer. If a child is breaking things, you don't let them. What you have to do is take away something they like. It's as simple a rule as Those who do not Work do not eat. The rule here is those who don't comply to sane rules, like throwing and breaking things for fun are being counterproductive. The person who CAN work and doesn't is also counterproductive, so action should be taken.

The children won't be running the households, but they'll have greater freedoms within the household than what the average parent gives them. If you're not hurting anyone or anything by doing something, shouldn't you be able to do it? Just like kids going to bed when they're tired or doing homework according to their schedule not the parents.

To show a kid what happens when you're hit by a car just use a model, like toy cars. Car goes fast, hits figurine. Figurine falls down meaning he gets hurt or run over resulting in death. Or you could show them roadkill if it's nearby.

Get help...now

that car thing is dumb because there will be children who wont understand

second they will be running the damn household

THey make their own choices for everything.

Around 2 in the morning I ge really tired I fall asleep......the next morning I'm still tired.

If the kid falls asleep from exhuastion they will still be tired.

Taking things away is sadistic

what do you do when they have nothing left to take away? Stop feeding them?

"clean your room or I'm taking your bed away"

My family is as close as they come

we laugh, we talk, we disscusss life and politics practicaly every day

Yet my parents are still authority figures, but I can still have a disscussion with them.

But the important part is that I respect them.

Let parents be parents

and redstar if you let them do trial and error that shit labratory scientists do.

Try until you get it right.

You can't do that with governments and peoples lives.


If you go to sleep at 4am you will wake up tired the next morning. Nobody likes that feeling, thats why most people go to bed, so when they wake up they aren't tired. If a kid has to go to school the next morning and go to bed late they won't like the feeling and will make a more rational decision. They will learn from their mistakes.

If you think taking away is unjustified than how can you support beating? I say beating is a lot worse, your inflicting pain onto someone.

It won't get to the point where there is nothing left to take away. Kids will realize that they are doing bad things and will correct themselves so they can get their confiscated toy.

As for you respecting your parents that is wonderful, everyone should respect everyone, not just because they're blood.

It's fantastic that you can have a decent discussion with your parents, but many others can't. I'm sure you know parents who won't tolerate criticism of Bush. They say things like "don't criticize our leader". "He's the leader of the free world, stop your nonsense" These are the people we have to watch out for. The people who ar intolerant, who aren't open to their kids.


So because there are some ignorant parents my family should suffer?

Why is that?

Why do we have to end up like everyone elsejust because some families are opressive?

Why should me and my brother be seperated? my brother who has been my best friend since I can remember?

What did we do to deserve it.

Are you a parent?

have some kids, then let me steal them...see how it feels

also not all kids are smart enough to make that decision.



How would you be suffering? You are creating a greater good. If you could help stop the opression and age discrimination of children you won't be suffering.

If the splitting up of your family could help children why wouldn't you do it? You'll be contributing to a knew unortodox method, but it does root out the problems with our traditional system. It's not like your family will each be sent to a different corner of the earth, you would still know your biological parents, we can't brainwash you.

As for what you did to deserve it.......nothing. However if a system could be made to get rid of abuse, wouldn't you have liked to be in it. Wouldn't you have rather lived without your abusive childhood. Do you think that everyone would be abusive in the roatation system? The system is more of a pact mentality, if one adult abused a child the whole community would know, kids wouldn't be reluctant to come out with the truth like today, since they aren't stuck with abusive people. The community would have to give some kind of orientation to those abusive people to ensure the safety of all the community.

No I am not a parent, I'm currently under the rule of my parents. I'm a minor and will be for 4 or 5 years. If I'm not mistaken, you aren't a parent either, correct? If I do have kids, I'll be sure to give them to you voluntarily, if you want them.

It's true that some kids can't make decisions for themselves today, but if people work with them and help them out they'll be able to. I just can't see that I as a 5 year old was so much smarter than everyone else, I could make decisions.

Now back to playing in the street. How can you say kids don't grasp death? They're all afraid of it, I think they realize it's bad and they know they don't want to be dead. Besides would you let a 2 year old play outside unsupervised? I don't think you would, so even though a 2 year old can't grasp death you shouldn't even give them a chance to be anywhwere near a street. Now I'm sure that violently beating kids isn't the only way to get them to understand the dangers of cars, aren't you? I uunderstood the danger so I was scared to walk alone in the street at 4 and I had a reason to be.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:04 pm on Dec. 18, 2002
"ask the whole goddamn community if they will support your 'communist revolution'..."

And then WHAT? If they all say no, just shut up? :cheesy:

Fine, truthaddict11, you love your abuser; Lardlad95 loves his abuser. Let's all have a BIG LOVE FEST with our respective abusers. Great idea!!! After the drugs wear off, maybe we can return to REALITY.

As far as your platform goes, the Socialist Party USA has been the "left" tail of the Democratic Party since the 1940's. Anyone who would take that ancient rhetoric seriously NOW would probably buy stock in Enron. It is FAKE...not intended EVER to be implemented. WHY do you think so many members of the SPUSA are leaving to join the Greens; they are SICK AND TIRED of supporting Democrats who are, in fact, CONSERVATIVES.

And, truthaddict11, my parents finally did divorce...when I was 18!

Yes, Lardlad95, I AM "extremely bitter" about many things; unlike you and truthaddict11, I HATE the world of oppression in ALL of its aspects. Do I have a "fantasy" of rescuing abused children? Actually, my "fantasy" is one of giving them a REAL chance to rescue THEMSELVES---sort of like my "fantasy" of giving the working class a real chance to emancipate itself.

To you guys, all real change is "fantasy".

Lardlad95 says I am using "my fucked up life" to screw up others? And HOW am I able to perform such a miraculous deed? What mysterious powers am I supposed to possess that enable me to "screw up others" over the internet on a message board? Am I sending out evil rays over the planet: "kids, hate your parents."?

Don't you two guys have any REAL arguments to bring to this discussion? What have you offered in recent pages? That you "love" your abusers, I will grant. That you are UTTERLY TERRIFIED of giving kids the FREEDOM to choose who they will live with and under what circumstances--yes, I understand that. That you firmly believe that "kids are stuck with their parents for life"--yes, I understand that's your position. That you think I am OUTRAGEOUS for even suggesting that your views might be mistaken--yes, I understand you both are really PISSED.

See, if your position had any real strength in reality, you wouldn't get so mad. You'd figure that since "most parents love their kids" and "most kids love their parents", that any efforts to set up alternatives would be trivial. Most kids would "want" to stay with their parents. If you REALLY had any confidence in that, you would have shrugged off MY remarks six pages ago.

Behind all the bluster and outraged rhetoric and assertions of parental "love", the worm of DOUBT is chewing away at both of you. The worm is saying: "if your parents love you and want what's best for you, WHY did they abuse you?"

You're not really mad at me; you're both mad at "the worm".

Listen to the "worm of doubt" for it speaks truth. :cool:


First of all don't bullshit about us not bringing real arguements, you haven't answerened anything in my posts except saying that

1. I wont be dragged away from my parents

2. I should hate my parents because my dad had an alcohol problem

guess what no one is perfect, my dad conquered his demons I can respect that? You can't?

People change man...stop being so pessimistic

Why haven't i shrugged off your arguements? Because you haven't answered any of mine, we are argueing.

You can't face reality. If more children hated there parents then why aren't more children rnning away from home?

Why aren't more children cursing their parents behind their backs?

It can't be because they feel abused, otherwise they would feel supported by fellow abussed children and come forward...

Also let me rephrase: YOu are using your fucked up childhood as an excuse to want to fuck up others.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 3:10 am on Dec. 19, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 6:55 am on Dec. 17, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 5:36 am on Dec. 16, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 12:23 pm on Dec. 16, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 4:04 am on Dec. 15, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 7:15 am on Dec. 14, 2002

Quote: from timbaly on 2:45 am on Dec. 13, 2002
Well back to i should have written that discipline thing differently. What I should of said was I'm opposed to violent punishment, or any hitting or beating of any kind. You discipline your kid through trial and error, as long as it's not anything ludicris like playing in the street. If the kid wants to stay up until 3 then let them, let them see where it gets them. They attempt to stay up until 3, but they probaly won't make it that far. That's because, when you're tired you go to sleep. Thereis no harm done there. But lets suppose they do make it to 3am now they won't wake up early enough the next day to watch there favorite morning TV show. Thats a consequence, so now they'll start thinking before they go to bed late. As for the adults and older children, they shouldn't interfere with the kid who is sleeping too latley. Let them sink or swim on there own. Just ignore them because they thrive on making others mad. They'll eventually tire themselves out and see that they're accomplishing nothing.

Now if the kids are doing something completely ridiculous like playing in the street, you take different measures. You have to shown them what the consequences are, you shown them the danger. Kids get scared easily, you tell them what to do in order to be safe while crossing the street. They'll get it.

I must have been a rare breed of child, so to speak.
I was scared to cross the street, and I had a reason to because it's a real danger. By the time I was five my parents trusted me while crossing the street. I followed the rules of logic and reason. I Looked to see if any cards were coming, I didn't just walk blindly across the street because I knew better. I just must have been a rare case, not meant sarcastically.

You definetly have good points, but I still think kids will get it through there own mistakes, and understand it better that way rather than dictated restrictions, in most cases that is. I don't want kids to ask "What happens if I stick a knife in my ear", and than let them try it. You have to show them certain dangers at all expenses to insure their saftey.

..................Let me also add this, when I was young I had logic and reasoning skills, they were probaly better than most kids my age. I never believd in the tooth fairy or santa claus or the easter bunny. I even remember a conversation I had with my parents when I was 4 telling them to stop the lies.




If it worked out for you so well then why destroy families?


What about a kid with fuckin ADD?


And if the kid is annoying the hell out of everyone and breaking things no action should be done?

Children aren't mature enough or responsible enough to run a house hold and letting them do as they please is letting them run it.

Also how are you gonna show a kid how dangerous playing in the street it?

You gonna throw them at a moving truck?


As I've said before, destroying the family as we know it creates greater equality and less double standards.

You know, i never really thought about the kid with ADD. Thats a very good point. I really don't know what to tell you.

See, I realized I came across the wrong way by saying "I'm against discipline". Like a said I'm just opposed to using violence as the answer. If a child is breaking things, you don't let them. What you have to do is take away something they like. It's as simple a rule as Those who do not Work do not eat. The rule here is those who don't comply to sane rules, like throwing and breaking things for fun are being counterproductive. The person who CAN work and doesn't is also counterproductive, so action should be taken.

The children won't be running the households, but they'll have greater freedoms within the household than what the average parent gives them. If you're not hurting anyone or anything by doing something, shouldn't you be able to do it? Just like kids going to bed when they're tired or doing homework according to their schedule not the parents.

To show a kid what happens when you're hit by a car just use a model, like toy cars. Car goes fast, hits figurine. Figurine falls down meaning he gets hurt or run over resulting in death. Or you could show them roadkill if it's nearby.

Get help...now

that car thing is dumb because there will be children who wont understand

second they will be running the damn household

THey make their own choices for everything.

Around 2 in the morning I ge really tired I fall asleep......the next morning I'm still tired.

If the kid falls asleep from exhuastion they will still be tired.

Taking things away is sadistic

what do you do when they have nothing left to take away? Stop feeding them?

"clean your room or I'm taking your bed away"

My family is as close as they come

we laugh, we talk, we disscusss life and politics practicaly every day

Yet my parents are still authority figures, but I can still have a disscussion with them.

But the important part is that I respect them.

Let parents be parents

and redstar if you let them do trial and error that shit labratory scientists do.

Try until you get it right.

You can't do that with governments and peoples lives.


If you go to sleep at 4am you will wake up tired the next morning. Nobody likes that feeling, thats why most people go to bed, so when they wake up they aren't tired. If a kid has to go to school the next morning and go to bed late they won't like the feeling and will make a more rational decision. They will learn from their mistakes.

If you think taking away is unjustified than how can you support beating? I say beating is a lot worse, your inflicting pain onto someone.

It won't get to the point where there is nothing left to take away. Kids will realize that they are doing bad things and will correct themselves so they can get their confiscated toy.

As for you respecting your parents that is wonderful, everyone should respect everyone, not just because they're blood.

It's fantastic that you can have a decent discussion with your parents, but many others can't. I'm sure you know parents who won't tolerate criticism of Bush. They say things like "don't criticize our leader". "He's the leader of the free world, stop your nonsense" These are the people we have to watch out for. The people who ar intolerant, who aren't open to their kids.


So because there are some ignorant parents my family should suffer?

Why is that?

Why do we have to end up like everyone elsejust because some families are opressive?

Why should me and my brother be seperated? my brother who has been my best friend since I can remember?

What did we do to deserve it.

Are you a parent?

have some kids, then let me steal them...see how it feels

also not all kids are smart enough to make that decision.



How would you be suffering? You are creating a greater good. If you could help stop the opression and age discrimination of children you won't be suffering.

If the splitting up of your family could help children why wouldn't you do it? You'll be contributing to a knew unortodox method, but it does root out the problems with our traditional system. It's not like your family will each be sent to a different corner of the earth, you would still know your biological parents, we can't brainwash you.

As for what you did to deserve it.......nothing. However if a system could be made to get rid of abuse, wouldn't you have liked to be in it. Wouldn't you have rather lived without your abusive childhood. Do you think that everyone would be abusive in the roatation system? The system is more of a pact mentality, if one adult abused a child the whole community would know, kids wouldn't be reluctant to come out with the truth like today, since they aren't stuck with abusive people. The community would have to give some kind of orientation to those abusive people to ensure the safety of all the community.

No I am not a parent, I'm currently under the rule of my parents. I'm a minor and will be for 4 or 5 years. If I'm not mistaken, you aren't a parent either, correct? If I do have kids, I'll be sure to give them to you voluntarily, if you want them.

It's true that some kids can't make decisions for themselves today, but if people work with them and help them out they'll be able to. I just can't see that I as a 5 year old was so much smarter than everyone else, I could make decisions.

Now back to playing in the street. How can you say kids don't grasp death? They're all afraid of it, I think they realize it's bad and they know they don't want to be dead. Besides would you let a 2 year old play outside unsupervised? I don't think you would, so even though a 2 year old can't grasp death you shouldn't even give them a chance to be anywhwere near a street. Now I'm sure that violently beating kids isn't the only way to get them to understand the dangers of cars, aren't you? I uunderstood the danger so I was scared to walk alone in the street at 4 and I had a reason to be.


I understand you want to help the abused children of the world.

and everything you want to solve is admirable however it would only make sense to do this for children that really are mistreated.

if it were mandatory then you are disrupting families for no reason.

I believe strongly that if a child is mistreated that they should be placed with another caretaker

but rotating children for no reason is unnecassary

The playing in teh road was just an example I'm sure most of the children wont be dumb enough to do it for real
however discipline is necassary.

I don't advocate beating a child senseless

However a two year old is relatively impossible to reason with they just can't understand everything

up to an age where they can comprehend physical discipline is necassary.


AND Timbaly you giving away your children? WHen you have a child you will want to protect it and care for it...you wont want some stranger taking it from you...YOU BROUGHT THAT CHILD INTO THE WORLD....NOT ME

This applies to Redstar also.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:04 pm on Dec. 18, 2002


Behind all the bluster and outraged rhetoric and assertions of parental "love", the worm of DOUBT is chewing away at both of you. The worm is saying: "if your parents love you and want what's best for you, WHY did they abuse you?"

You're not really mad at me; you're both mad at "the worm".

Listen to the "worm of doubt" for it speaks truth. :cool:


My mother never abused me......so where is this worm now?

I have no doubt in my mind that my mother loves me

I have no doubt in my mind that my father loves me.

IF he didnt then he would have left long ago...but he's still here

THere is something that he stayed for...and with out a doubt I'm positive it is me and my siblings

[redstar2000]

"Why aren't more kids running away from home?"

Many do...and many more probably would were it not for the fact that they have been made aware of what awaits a teenager on the streets by the media. When I lived in San Francisco, I used to see the teenage boys hanging out at the corner of Geary & Larkin...waiting for customers. NOT a good life.

Your other point: I am using my fucked-up childhood as "an excuse to want to fuck up others"? I don't even understand what you MEAN by that? Does that mean that I have a deep urge to fuck up others and need some kind of excuse for it? Am I the DEVIL?

And you still haven't explained how what I write on a message board could "fuck up" ANYBODY. If what I say is "bullshit", then NO ONE will listen, right?

Or do you fear that people DO listen when someone comes along and tells them they have a RIGHT to be FREE? I can certainly understand your desire to "shoot the messenger"...but it's TOO LATE. When parents lost the legal right to put their kids to death for disobedience (see the Old Testament for the gory details), the first crack in parental authority was made...and it's been downhill for you reactionaries ever since. You can scream your heads off at ME...it won't do you any good at all.

Communist revolution will ABOLISH parental property rights over children...and if you can't stand that idea, get your ass over on the other side of the barracades where you belong.

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:06 pm on Dec. 19, 2002
"Why aren't more kids running away from home?"

Many do...and many more probably would were it not for the fact that they have been made aware of what awaits a teenager on the streets by the media. When I lived in San Francisco, I used to see the teenage boys hanging out at the corner of Geary & Larkin...waiting for customers. NOT a good life.

Your other point: I am using my fucked-up childhood as "an excuse to want to fuck up others"? I don't even understand what you MEAN by that? Does that mean that I have a deep urge to fuck up others and need some kind of excuse for it? Am I the DEVIL?

And you still haven't explained how what I write on a message board could "fuck up" ANYBODY. If what I say is "bullshit", then NO ONE will listen, right?

Or do you fear that people DO listen when someone comes along and tells them they have a RIGHT to be FREE? I can certainly understand your desire to "shoot the messenger"...but it's TOO LATE. When parents lost the legal right to put their kids to death for disobedience (see the Old Testament for the gory details), the first crack in parental authority was made...and it's been downhill for you reactionaries ever since. You can scream your heads off at ME...it won't do you any good at all.

Communist revolution will ABOLISH parental property rights over children...and if you can't stand that idea, get your ass over on the other side of the barracades where you belong.

:cool:

Property rights? What property rights. My parents don't own me.

They raise me. i'm not yet ready to live on my own. When I have enough education and when I have learned everything they need to teach me then I'm ready.

My dad taught me how to be more of a man than anyone in the government could.

Why? Because the government is sterile, heartless, and cold.

A government can't get attached.

And when you let the authorities raise a child love is practically no-existent

You have still failed ot answer wether or not the state will love me as much as my mother.

Your program is a waste of effort and money.

Not only does it fail to fully develop children, you also are wasting government resources.

When parents raise kids they use their own money. By collectively raising and switching you waste funds. Unless you plan for these kids to have two books and one change of clothing then you must realize that constantly using labor to move belongings is a waste of money.

it's unreasonable.

From The Communist Manifesto Pg. 62.: "The Bourgeoisie has torn away teh sentimental veil and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation."

Marx states that the Bourgeoisie has destroyed the family? Wher does he state that it was wrong to begin with?

Marx was against the family that the bouergeoisie developep, not family as a whole.

Your unrealistic aproach to family life is comical.

1. you depict the family as some horrible creature that deterierates society

Society is more prosperous than ever, guess where peoople were raised...in families

2. You propose a plan that is financially draining and unnecassary

It has been proven that most Socialistic economies deterierate within their first year, if they stay afloat then things will take off.

Your program wont go on to help the economy stay afloat.

Also there are around 28,730,937 people in the US

there are 450,000 runaways...that is roughly 0.15% of the population that are runaways...what a great large number.

I don't care what the media says anyone who fears for their life will runaway. If you don't you are a damn moron.

Finally what I meant was that you are usin your messed up childhood to say why this program is right.

but undoubtedly it's wrong. lets be realistic, we shouldn't abolish the family we should make sure that less an less families are abusive.

And the fact is the majority aren't.

[redstar2000]

What a muddle!

"My parents don't own me"--actually, in law, they pretty much do. They can't sell you to someone else (they used to be able to do that), but the government has to "show cause" before a judge before you can be "taken away" from them.

"The government is sterile, heartless, and cold." That certainly describes the one we have now. And in the future...

"Will the state love me as much as my mother?" Actually, that's a meaningless question since the "state" is just an abstraction. Would a collective of volunteers set up for the purpose of raising kids--volunteers whose most important qualification for membership would be that they genuinely liked kids--"love" you as much as your mother? Probably not; but they might like you and respect you a great deal more.

"It wastes government money." That's pathetic. Is there anything MORE important to spend resources on than the welfare of children?

"It's unreasonable." No, it's quite reasonable.

Marx was neither "for" nor "against" the family, either in the abstract or in the case of the family under capitalism. What Marx OBSERVED is that the traditional pre-capitalist family was dissolving in the reality of capitalist relations...in which ALL relationships become commodity relationships. The acid has eaten much deeper since Marx's day...to the point where the whole idea of the traditional biological family is legitimately questionable.

"Society is more prosperous than ever [because] people are raised in families"--a good quote for the Junior Chamber of Commerce; I am NOT impressed.

"Your ideas will undermine the early years of socialist economies"--highly dubious and unsupported by evidence. Socialists economies are shaky in their first years because of the strain of reorganizing productive relations...a shift of 1% of the GDP towards the welfare of children isn't going to make a meaningful difference. (I'm GUESSING about that number, of course, but Lardlad95's whole argument about costs is a GUESS.)

So, there are 450,000 runaways...I assume that's an ANNUAL TOTAL from the U.S. So what are you saying here, Lardlad95? That it's "ok" that 450,000 kids hit the streets every year and peddle their asses to survive? That they "should" have stayed home and submitted to abuse? Or do you now ADMIT that the need for the alternative I suggested is JUSTIFIED?

Yes, I AM using my own childhood as a starting point in my reasoning; I KNEW from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE before I ever read a word of Marx that the "family" was a pile of shit. Had the alternative I have proposed in this thread existed, I would have grabbed it in a New York minute.

But that doesn't discredit my arguments a nanometer; it turned out my personal experience WAS NOT unique and, hey, NOT MY FAULT. I can't even begin to tell you how GOOD it felt to learn that! To know that behind my personal misery was a SYSTEM that creates misery as one of its natural byproducts...that was a LIBERATING experience.

Being a nice guy, it's an experience that I encourage others to enjoy. :cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:01 am on Dec. 20, 2002
What a muddle!

"My parents don't own me"--actually, in law, they pretty much do. They can't sell you to someone else (they used to be able to do that), but the government has to "show cause" before a judge before you can be "taken away" from them.

"The government is sterile, heartless, and cold." That certainly describes the one we have now. And in the future...

"Will the state love me as much as my mother?" Actually, that's a meaningless question since the "state" is just an abstraction. Would a collective of volunteers set up for the purpose of raising kids--volunteers whose most important qualification for membership would be that they genuinely liked kids--"love" you as much as your mother? Probably not; but they might like you and respect you a great deal more.

"It wastes government money." That's pathetic. Is there anything MORE important to spend resources on than the welfare of children?

"It's unreasonable." No, it's quite reasonable.

Marx was neither "for" nor "against" the family, either in the abstract or in the case of the family under capitalism. What Marx OBSERVED is that the traditional pre-capitalist family was dissolving in the reality of capitalist relations...in which ALL relationships become commodity relationships. The acid has eaten much deeper since Marx's day...to the point where the whole idea of the traditional biological family is legitimately questionable.

"Society is more prosperous than ever [because] people are raised in families"--a good quote for the Junior Chamber of Commerce; I am NOT impressed.

"Your ideas will undermine the early years of socialist economies"--highly dubious and unsupported by evidence. Socialists economies are shaky in their first years because of the strain of reorganizing productive relations...a shift of 1% of the GDP towards the welfare of children isn't going to make a meaningful difference. (I'm GUESSING about that number, of course, but Lardlad95's whole argument about costs is a GUESS.)

So, there are 450,000 runaways...I assume that's an ANNUAL TOTAL from the U.S. So what are you saying here, Lardlad95? That it's "ok" that 450,000 kids hit the streets every year and peddle their asses to survive? That they "should" have stayed home and submitted to abuse? Or do you now ADMIT that the need for the alternative I suggested is JUSTIFIED?

Yes, I AM using my own childhood as a starting point in my reasoning; I KNEW from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE before I ever read a word of Marx that the "family" was a pile of shit. Had the alternative I have proposed in this thread existed, I would have grabbed it in a New York minute.

But that doesn't discredit my arguments a nanometer; it turned out my personal experience WAS NOT unique and, hey, NOT MY FAULT. I can't even begin to tell you how GOOD it felt to learn that! To know that behind my personal misery was a SYSTEM that creates misery as one of its natural byproducts...that was a LIBERATING experience.

Being a nice guy, it's an experience that I encourage others to enjoy. :cool:

But your opinion of the family is simply that, an opinion. How can you be 100% sure that everyone else haes and despises their parents?

Also did you read the last part of my statement?

"but undoubtedly it's wrong. lets be realistic, we shouldn't abolish the family we should make sure that less an less families are abusive.

And the fact is the majority aren't."

I said we should work at making less families abusive...obviously I don't think it's okay that those children are running away.



but why is is necassary to disrupt a system that most are fine with for a minority? We should help the minority, not disrupt the majority.


"? Or do you now ADMIT that the need for the alternative I suggested is JUSTIFIED"

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHA. Please tell me you aren't serious.

Your damn right I have to show just cause of why my parents are unfit to raise me.

Thats a better system then you just assuming they can't.

Not to mention by stating that my parent's have private property of me and that through communism you will abolish private property and collectivise raising you have just ruduced humans to nothing more than property.

My parents respect my mind, they respect me as an individual. THey don't treat me like furniture.

not to mention they love me. Everyone deserves to have love in their life. Without love a human can only feel depressed and I see where you get your extra cynicistic qualities from, yuou never experienced love from ammother, however I have. Just because I was lucky and ytou weren't doesn't mean that we should all be stripped away from love just because it was absent in your life.

Does that mean we should put balls and chains on all runners so that they wont be faster than us? Should we put muzzles on singers so they can't sing better than the rest of us?


""It wastes government money." That's pathetic. Is there anything MORE important to spend resources on than the welfare of children?"


BUT YOU DON"T CARE ABOUT CHILDREN> YOU DON"T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT US> YOU EVEN STATED YOURSELF THAT THE RAISERS WONT LOVE US. WHAT YOU COULD IGVE LESS THAN A DAMN ABOUT US> WE ARE PROPERTY TO YOU.

That 1% would be wasted moving children every month. Spend it helping someone who really needs help, like a crack addict, or those runaways.

The point is that no matter howmuch it is you will be wasting money.


Finally: Your situation wasn't unique. Your situation happens to lots of children (of course your situation doesn't happen to more children) It wasn't your fault that your mom abused you.

But you know what is your fault? NOT GOING TO THE FUCKING AUTHORITIES.

I can understand not going at age three...but when you were competent enough to do so go to the fucking authorities. If you say she abuses you then they can't turn you away.

STOP PLAYING A VICTIM BECAUSE YOU ARE TO LAZY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

It's not mine or anyone elses responsibility to take charge of your life.

IF your program existed you wouldn't have taken adavantage of it, you are to lazy to even take advantage of the POLICE (whos number isn't that hard to remember) who would ahve helped you no matter what.

You think just cuz you are a communist they were just gonna stop helping you?

Don't come up with ideas that hurt more than they help just because you can't remember 9-1-1

I suggest you grow up, get married, and have children. If you think that giving your child away is such a good idea then go ahead. Because if you still feel this way then you aren't fit to be a parent.

[redstar2000]

Lardlad95, if "the majority of families are not abusive", then WHAT are you GRIPING about? In trying to set up a system for kids who don't want to live with their parents or other relatives, I will be throwing a party that NO ONE WANTS TO ATTEND.

But you really know better than that, don't you? 450,000 kids in the U.S. are willing to hit the streets every year, not because they've read redstar2000 and decided that he's right, but because REALITY has shown them that the family is shit. Think about that number for a second; it's more PEOPLE than live in the city where I live.

"We should make sure that less families are abusive"--and how is THAT to be accomplished? A cop in every kitchen? A weekly survey asking every kid in the country: hey, were you abused this week?

Why should we disrupt a system that "most" are fine with? Well, hell, let's close all the hospitals...MOST people aren't sick.

Under capitalism, Lardlad95, you ARE property and so am I and so is EVERYONE who doesn't have capital. (To be technically precise here: we are our labor power under capitalism and we must sell it--that is, ourselves--in order to survive.)

And it is capitalist LAW that confers parental rights to the possession of their children, thus reducing them to a kind of property...NOT ME. (It used to be that husbands had similar rights over their wives...somehow we've largely managed to get by WITHOUT THAT.)

Once more, you raise the issue of "being stripped away from the love of your parents" and ONCE MORE I remind you that the alternative I propose is VOLUNTARY; how many times do I have to say it? If you LIKE your parents and WANT to stay with them, it's OK! NO ONE will MAKE you LEAVE or TAKE YOU AWAY FROM THEM!

So WHAT IS your GRIPE? That I propose that kids who don't like their parents have a RIGHT to a safe and nurturing alternative to life on the streets? If that's what's bothering you, then that's just TOUGH SHIT...because it's going to happen!

As to my personal qualities (laziness, irresponsibility, etc.), I will just consider that more of your standard style of argument: personal abuse.

As to your sentimental rubbish about "love", may I suggest a good career choice for you: writing "poetry" for the Hallmark Greeting Card Company. You would do much better there than in left politics. :cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:02 pm on Dec. 20, 2002
Lardlad95, if "the majority of families are not abusive", then WHAT are you GRIPING about? In trying to set up a system for kids who don't want to live with their parents or other relatives, I will be throwing a party that NO ONE WANTS TO ATTEND.

But you really know better than that, don't you? 450,000 kids in the U.S. are willing to hit the streets every year, not because they've read redstar2000 and decided that he's right, but because REALITY has shown them that the family is shit. Think about that number for a second; it's more PEOPLE than live in the city where I live.

"We should make sure that less families are abusive"--and how is THAT to be accomplished? A cop in every kitchen? A weekly survey asking every kid in the country: hey, were you abused this week?

Why should we disrupt a system that "most" are fine with? Well, hell, let's close all the hospitals...MOST people aren't sick.

Under capitalism, Lardlad95, you ARE property and so am I and so is EVERYONE who doesn't have capital. (To be technically precise here: we are our labor power under capitalism and we must sell it--that is, ourselves--in order to survive.)

And it is capitalist LAW that confers parental rights to the possession of their children, thus reducing them to a kind of property...NOT ME. (It used to be that husbands had similar rights over their wives...somehow we've largely managed to get by WITHOUT THAT.)

Once more, you raise the issue of "being stripped away from the love of your parents" and ONCE MORE I remind you that the alternative I propose is VOLUNTARY; how many times do I have to say it? If you LIKE your parents and WANT to stay with them, it's OK! NO ONE will MAKE you LEAVE or TAKE YOU AWAY FROM THEM!

So WHAT IS your GRIPE? That I propose that kids who don't like their parents have a RIGHT to a safe and nurturing alternative to life on the streets? If that's what's bothering you, then that's just TOUGH SHIT...because it's going to happen!

As to my personal qualities (laziness, irresponsibility, etc.), I will just consider that more of your standard style of argument: personal abuse.

As to your sentimental rubbish about "love", may I suggest a good career choice for you: writing "poetry" for the Hallmark Greeting Card Company. You would do much better there than in left politics. :cool:

"As to your sentimental rubbish about "love", may I suggest a good career choice for you: writing "poetry" for the Hallmark Greeting Card Company. You would do much better there than in left politics. "

And you say that I use personal abuse? Way to be a hypocrite.

Also I have no problem with you saying it's volunteer, fine if it's that bad ok let the kids do it. However you didn't repeadetly tell me it was volunteer.

You talked about abolishing the family...the family as an instituiton...ie all families.

i have no problem with it being volunteer. However rotating them is still moronic.

Just move them to a better family. Rotating them is still unecessary. Move them to a foster family...like they do with abused children already.

Also you will notice that possesion does not constitute what you are assuming is. THey don't have the right to force you into slave labor so stop worrying.

The difference is that if we didn't use your system no one would be any more hurt than they are now..if we closed hospitals people would die, a great deal of people. We ahve survived without you for years..i think we can manage once you die.

"So WHAT IS your GRIPE? That I propose that kids who don't like their parents have a RIGHT to a safe and nurturing alternative to life on the streets? If that's what's bothering you, then that's just TOUGH SHIT...because it's going to happen!"


Nuturing? You even said it yourself that the people wont love you....are you vulcan and devoid of human emotion?

It's going to happen? Seriously? When?You are stuck in teh illusion that you will be the next lenin aren't you?

QUestion about me calling you lazy...are you capable of dialing 9-1-1? Are you capable of speaking?

THen you could have called the cops simple as that. I am not justifyin what ahppened to you.

But you need to quit complaining and take control of your life instead of acting like it was hopeless.

how are you gonna fight in a revolution if you cna't even call te cops?

Not to mention you say my style of debate uses personal attacks?

Well your style must include getitng pissed of and avoiding people's statements.

[redstar2000]

"I am stuck in the illusion that I will be the next Lenin"--more personal abuse...since I have repeatedly made the point on this board that I an NOT a Leninist.

"Am I vulcan and devoid of human emotion?" Are YOU out of your mind?

Put kids in foster families like they do now? Have you ever even SPOKEN to a kid who has actually been "placed" in one of those shitholes? I have actually known two young women who, as 13-year-old girls, were "placed" in foster homes...one was raped by her "new daddy" and the other went running down the street at midnight in her bed clothes to escape her would-be rapist. If I'm "vulcan", just what planet are you from?

And you certainly have a fixation of "calling the cops", don't you?

<ring>

"Police Department, 7th Precinct"

"Hi, I'm 7 years old and my parents fight all the time and it makes me feel really rotten. Please come and get me out of this shithole."

"Tough shit, kid, you're stuck with your parents for the rest of your life."

<click>

Good IDEA, Lardlad95, I WONDER why I didn't think of that? Must be my incurable "laziness"!

On the "abolition of the family"---

1. The family will no longer be a legal entity recognized and upheld in law. Instead, it will be a voluntary association, freely entered in to and freely dissolved by the persons involved.

2. Any person who has reached the age of 7 shall be free to leave such an association upon request.

3. Persons between the age of 7 and 13, if they choose to leave such an association, shall be "raised" by voluntary communes set up specifically for the purpose of raising kids...and may leave one such commune and join another upon their request.

4. Persons reaching the age of 13 may be furnished independent housing on the same basis as all other citizens upon their request.

5. The physical and/or sexual abuse of persons under the age of 13 shall be a class A felony...SERIOUS prison time.

I believe those measures would do nicely. People who were really happy in the bosom of their "warm and loving families" could stay in them without any interference from the state at all. People who were NOT happy could freely leave. People who physically and/or sexually abused young children would find themselves head-down in a barrel of shit...where they belong!

And, not to overlook your FUNNIEST question: "how are you going to fight in a revolution if you can't even call the cops?" Only someone with YOUR politics would link those two concepts TOGETHER! :cheesy:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:29 pm on Dec. 20, 2002
"I am stuck in the illusion that I will be the next Lenin"--more personal abuse...since I have repeatedly made the point on this board that I an NOT a Leninist.

"Am I vulcan and devoid of human emotion?" Are YOU out of your mind?

Put kids in foster families like they do now? Have you ever even SPOKEN to a kid who has actually been "placed" in one of those shitholes? I have actually known two young women who, as 13-year-old girls, were "placed" in foster homes...one was raped by her "new daddy" and the other went running down the street at midnight in her bed clothes to escape her would-be rapist. If I'm "vulcan", just what planet are you from?

And you certainly have a fixation of "calling the cops", don't you?

<ring>

"Police Department, 7th Precinct"

"Hi, I'm 7 years old and my parents fight all the time and it makes me feel really rotten. Please come and get me out of this shithole."

"Tough shit, kid, you're stuck with your parents for the rest of your life."

<click>

Good IDEA, Lardlad95, I WONDER why I didn't think of that? Must be my incurable "laziness"!

On the "abolition of the family"---

1. The family will no longer be a legal entity recognized and upheld in law. Instead, it will be a voluntary association, freely entered in to and freely dissolved by the persons involved.

2. Any person who has reached the age of 7 shall be free to leave such an association upon request.

3. Persons between the age of 7 and 13, if they choose to leave such an association, shall be "raised" by voluntary communes set up specifically for the purpose of raising kids...and may leave one such commune and join another upon their request.

4. Persons reaching the age of 13 may be furnished independent housing on the same basis as all other citizens upon their request.

5. The physical and/or sexual abuse of persons under the age of 13 shall be a class A felony...SERIOUS prison time.

I believe those measures would do nicely. People who were really happy in the bosom of their "warm and loving families" could stay in them without any interference from the state at all. People who were NOT happy could freely leave. People who physically and/or sexually abused young children would find themselves head-down in a barrel of shit...where they belong!

And, not to overlook your FUNNIEST question: "how are you going to fight in a revolution if you can't even call the cops?" Only someone with YOUR politics would link those two concepts TOGETHER! :cheesy:



First off I would like to praise you on one quality which you are the reginging champ of

You have an amazing knack for missing the meaning in people's statements.

I meant how are you going to fight in a revolution if you are to lazy to dial 9-1-1 or to "opressed" by your parents to do so. You gotta be stronger than that man.

And how did I abuse you by saying that you think you will be the next Lenin?

1. I didn't know you didn't like lenin

2. Lenin was a leader in the revolution, you want to start a revolution.....get where I'm going with this?

I never called you a lenist

Not to mention how cna you guarentee that the same raping thing wont happen in your communes? Please tell me how are you going to guarauntee it?

don't tell me that they will be screened because they same thing happens in foster families.

You have no guarunatee..you aren't solving that problem you are exapanding it.

And that fake converstation you made up is just so....fake.

The cops can't allow you to remain with a family that you feel neglected or abused in.

Stop acting like everyone is out to get you. Not everyone in society is inherently evil.....get out..meet people....get a life....do something but stop making everyone out to be so damn evil.

You think just cuz these people are cappies they automaticaly hate you? Most people wont even know you are a commie and most people probably wont care past asking you why.

Either way the cops will help you. Are you afraid to caall the cops? Why?

YOur plan is fine...except for that whole 13 year olds living alone....besides that I think it's a nice idea....there can and will be problems. And for the most part I think it should only help children who NEED it. but aslong as it's voluntary. I doubt at age 7 children would opt to leaving...would they be able to go back?

And I seriously think you should rethink that 13 year old thing. Puberty isnt the time to be unsupervise?

RedStar...I want to be extremeley serious here

I used to be mad at you...now I just feel sorry for you.

You are obviously a bitter person who can't trust anyone or anything.

You have never experienced love and that doesn't allow you to see that love does exist in the world.

You seem extremely scared that everything will ultimately disapoint you...hence the whole cop thing.

I seriously suggest you getting help....this isn't an attack or personal abuse

but I really think you need therapy...I can understand that you feel alone and extremely hurt. Please TrY AND FIND SOMEONE TO TALK TO.

When I was depressed for a good 4 years I had no one to talk to...I thought I was alone but my family suppoted me especially my brother and my mother. They were there for me.

if you have no family to help you (are you an only child?) then please find a really good friend, a teacher, a counsoler, a psychiatrist, someone anyone oone. Find a religious leader even if you don't belive in God.

I just would really hate to see you remain so joyless for the rest of your life.

Again I am not trying to attack you...I just really think you would benefeit from getting someone to talk to.

[redstar2000]

"Do I want to start a revolution?" Individuals don't "start" revolutions, classes do. Would I like to be a "revolutionary celebrity"? Definitely NOT. Would I like people to find my arguments so convincing that they would act on them and even improve them? Yeah, I'd like that...I'd feel like I'd made a real contribution.

Would it be possible for kids to be sexually abused in the kind of child-raising communes I propose? Yes, but in practical terms it would be MUCH more difficult. There would be half-a-dozen adults around, not just one or two. There would probably be several older kids around as well. It COULD still happen--nothing is perfect--but I think it would be MUCH rarer.

Could kids who moved into a commune change their minds and return to their parents? I don't see why not. The only exception to this would be in the case where the parent had been tried and convicted of physical and/or sexual abuse...but I doubt if a kid would WANT to go back to that kind of "home" anyway.

"The cops can't allow you to remain in a family where you feel neglected or abused."--Lardlad95, they do it EVERY DAY. Remember those 450,000 runaways; what do the cops do for them?

"Puberty isn't the time to be unsupervised."--why is that? Are you afraid that the kids might <whisper> have sex? Guess what, LL95, they "do it" NOW.

"Stop acting like everyone is out to get you." Ok. :cheesy:

"Not everyone in society is inherently evil." Yes, that's true. :cheesy:

"get out...meet people...get a life" Ok. :cheesy:

"I really think you need therapy"--been there, done that. :cheesy:

"I used to be mad at you...now I just feel sorry for you." The feeling is mutual.

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:28 pm on Dec. 21, 2002
"Do I want to start a revolution?" Individuals don't "start" revolutions, classes do. Would I like to be a "revolutionary celebrity"? Definitely NOT. Would I like people to find my arguments so convincing that they would act on them and even improve them? Yeah, I'd like that...I'd feel like I'd made a real contribution.

Would it be possible for kids to be sexually abused in the kind of child-raising communes I propose? Yes, but in practical terms it would be MUCH more difficult. There would be half-a-dozen adults around, not just one or two. There would probably be several older kids around as well. It COULD still happen--nothing is perfect--but I think it would be MUCH rarer.

Could kids who moved into a commune change their minds and return to their parents? I don't see why not. The only exception to this would be in the case where the parent had been tried and convicted of physical and/or sexual abuse...but I doubt if a kid would WANT to go back to that kind of "home" anyway.

"The cops can't allow you to remain in a family where you feel neglected or abused."--Lardlad95, they do it EVERY DAY. Remember those 450,000 runaways; what do the cops do for them?

"Puberty isn't the time to be unsupervised."--why is that? Are you afraid that the kids might <whisper> have sex? Guess what, LL95, they "do it" NOW.

"Stop acting like everyone is out to get you." Ok. :cheesy:

"Not everyone in society is inherently evil." Yes, that's true. :cheesy:

"get out...meet people...get a life" Ok. :cheesy:

"I really think you need therapy"--been there, done that. :cheesy:

"I used to be mad at you...now I just feel sorry for you." The feeling is mutual.

:cool:





you see...you have a problem you automatically attack when I want to help you....why? Stop putting on the faccade like this is one big joke.

In churches there are lots of adults around....how then do those boys get molested?

those kids wondering the streets...they didn't call teh cops...they ran away...can you see the difference.

You can't just expect someone to just help you for no reason...you have to ask.

if those people on welfare never applied...are we just suppose to assume that they need it?

not to mention alot of those children don't trust the police...much like you.

and finally 13 year olds are generally irresponsible, not to mentionthe sudden changes in emotion that can result due to hormone changes.

teenagers are generally unstable.

Not to mention I doubt if no one is telling them to go to school or to clean that they will.

13 year olds usually aren't that responsible.

You aren't petter pan and this isn't never never land children in the real world can't live by themselves and hope to be sucessful.

I'm sure some could but the majority couldn't.

FInally:
you see...you have a problem you automatically attack when I want to help you....why? Stop putting on the faccade like this is one big joke.

I think you are taking this arguement far too seriously. I don't dislike you...but you need to face reality and stop acting like I"m trying to attack you.

You say that a 13 year old can live alone but you are older than 13 and you can't even try and solve your problem.

[redstar2000]

Once again, Lardlad95, you seem to INSIST on cramming people into a box...even when they don't fit. MOST 13-year-olds probably would NOT want to live alone...but SOME would. You admit that. But you won't ALLOW that.

"They won't clean their apartments or go to school." HOW, in the absence of any real evidence, can you PRESUME that will be the case? People in REAL LIFE have different standards of cleanliness; one person's "lived in" apartment is another person's "pigsty". And, no matter what the social system, we are never ALL going to be like Martha Stewart!

"I'm not Peter Pan and this isn't Never Never Land". Funny you should bring that up; it was one of my favorite movies when I was young. The only thing I couldn't understand is why the kids left. Make of that what you will. :cheesy:

"a lot of those [runaway] children don't trust the police"--very true. It is the police who will haul their asses back to their abusive families.

Trust the police? Why not trust the President? Or the Pope? What makes you think ANY "authority" is trustworthy? What is their collective TRACK RECORD? Have they EVER shown that they are anything BESIDES BASTARDS?

"In churches there are lots of adults around; how then did the boys get molested?"--well, yes and no. I'm not an authority on church matters (as I'm sure you've guessed), but in the case of the Catholic Church, the priest is often alone with altar boys prior to and after dawn masses...which are usually sparsely attended. And WHO would have the NERVE to suggest that a PRIEST couldn't keep his hands off little boys' penises?

Curiously enough, it is capitalist legality that has come to the "rescue" of the kids...not by PREVENTING abuse but by making the church PAY compensation through LAWSUITS. The Catholic Church never gave a damn whether priests molested children and neither did the police or any other public authroity; but some lawyers saw a chance to "make a buck" and the lid was blown off. NOW the church HAS to stop the molesting BECAUSE otherwise they'll have to PAWN that new $200,000,000 cathedral they just built in Los Angeles to pay the legal judgments against them.

"I think you are taking this argument far too seriously"--it obviously IS serious; it is NOT a matter of personalities.

One way to look at things: people NEED to be guided, restrained, channeled, harnessed, or otherwise controlled by one or several kinds of authority or otherwise they will "run wild".

The other way: people who are NOT free are not yet really people...it is freedom that makes us TRULY HUMAN.

Some folks are so badly brainwashed that the first option has already been chosen for them...and they can't even IMAGINE that the second choice exists.

Others, somehow, MAKE that second choice...I did.

Without intending any personal hostility towards you, Lardlad95, it seems to me that you REALLY DO view communist society as "Never Never Land" and real human freedom as "an impossible dream." And THAT is very sad.

But time does funny things to people. If you live long enough to see a real revolutionary period (like the 1960s only MUCH bigger) and can smell it and taste it and feel it...well, then we'll see how you do. Personally, I think that hunger to be free is in EVERYONE...though dormant in most. From time to time, it awakens, stretches...and the world changes.

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:55 pm on Dec. 21, 2002
Once again, Lardlad95, you seem to INSIST on cramming people into a box...even when they don't fit. MOST 13-year-olds probably would NOT want to live alone...but SOME would. You admit that. But you won't ALLOW that.

"They won't clean their apartments or go to school." HOW, in the absence of any real evidence, can you PRESUME that will be the case? People in REAL LIFE have different standards of cleanliness; one person's "lived in" apartment is another person's "pigsty". And, no matter what the social system, we are never ALL going to be like Martha Stewart!

"I'm not Peter Pan and this isn't Never Never Land". Funny you should bring that up; it was one of my favorite movies when I was young. The only thing I couldn't understand is why the kids left. Make of that what you will. :cheesy:

"a lot of those [runaway] children don't trust the police"--very true. It is the police who will haul their asses back to their abusive families.

Trust the police? Why not trust the President? Or the Pope? What makes you think ANY "authority" is trustworthy? What is their collective TRACK RECORD? Have they EVER shown that they are anything BESIDES BASTARDS?

"In churches there are lots of adults around; how then did the boys get molested?"--well, yes and no. I'm not an authority on church matters (as I'm sure you've guessed), but in the case of the Catholic Church, the priest is often alone with altar boys prior to and after dawn masses...which are usually sparsely attended. And WHO would have the NERVE to suggest that a PRIEST couldn't keep his hands off little boys' penises?

Curiously enough, it is capitalist legality that has come to the "rescue" of the kids...not by PREVENTING abuse but by making the church PAY compensation through LAWSUITS. The Catholic Church never gave a damn whether priests molested children and neither did the police or any other public authroity; but some lawyers saw a chance to "make a buck" and the lid was blown off. NOW the church HAS to stop the molesting BECAUSE otherwise they'll have to PAWN that new $200,000,000 cathedral they just built in Los Angeles to pay the legal judgments against them.

"I think you are taking this argument far too seriously"--it obviously IS serious; it is NOT a matter of personalities.

One way to look at things: people NEED to be guided, restrained, channeled, harnessed, or otherwise controlled by one or several kinds of authority or otherwise they will "run wild".

The other way: people who are NOT free are not yet really people...it is freedom that makes us TRULY HUMAN.

Some folks are so badly brainwashed that the first option has already been chosen for them...and they can't even IMAGINE that the second choice exists.

Others, somehow, MAKE that second choice...I did.

Without intending any personal hostility towards you, Lardlad95, it seems to me that you REALLY DO view communist society as "Never Never Land" and real human freedom as "an impossible dream." And THAT is very sad.

But time does funny things to people. If you live long enough to see a real revolutionary period (like the 1960s only MUCH bigger) and can smell it and taste it and feel it...well, then we'll see how you do. Personally, I think that hunger to be free is in EVERYONE...though dormant in most. From time to time, it awakens, stretches...and the world changes.

:cool:

I'm not trying to make people "martha stewart" but I'm telling you this.

Alot of kdis wouldn't go to school if no one told them to;. I sure as hell wouldn't

The difference is that I have a thirst to learn on my own. If I could i would spend a great deal of time at libraries reading.

Alot of kids wouldn't go to school...but they also wouldn't try to learn. THey would stay at their houses all damn day. You've just destroyed productivity.

You have two options...you can trust the police slightly and make an attempt to better your life or you can gripe and just let shit happen.

I admit I don't trust the police all that much. However my aunt is a police officer if you were in her city and you came to her I am positive that she would help you.

not everyone is out to get you. THey wont drag you back to your abusive parents.

You call me clsoed minded for not accepting your utopian society but you cant even imagine that maybe people want to help you if you just tried.

YOu have some good arguements about child raising

however your police arguements are nothing short of inner distrust and superstition. How do you know theyu wont help if you don't make a REAL attempt.

And I tell you this, my Aunt isn't a "Bastard" I know police officers can be awful...but that doesn't mean that they wont or can't help you. You are so quick to generalize.

You can't claim that everyone of a certain group is exactley the same, racists do that, sexists do that. You are closing your self out to people who you could end up liking.


How can you be sure though that those raisers wont be alone with those boys or girls somee time in teh day? You can't watch them 24 hours a day.

I'm not brainwashed I see your option as legitamate and did i or did I not say that I was fine with it as long as it was voluntary?

And finally don't preach to me about seeing a true revolutionary movement and shit like that. I'm not a moron I don't exactley love how the US does things.

DOn't act like I love being a black man who is followed every fucking where by cops and by people at stores that I( love being consiodered a threat and that even if I try all my damn life I will never be on top.

You think I don't want freedom? Do you know what it's like to go to a church and be fuckin dirt poor and black? The rest of the members are rich white republicans?

To be stared at as we walk down an aisle? America hates me because I'm a socialist because I'm black

I'm the most dangerous thing to them an educated black man...and you know how they deal with threats like me?

By trying to keep me down.


Don't tell me I need a movement to want freemdom...

Just because my freedom doesn't include everything that you want doesn't mean that I don't want real freedom.

YOU ARE A PERSON WITH AN OPINION ON FREEDOM YOU AREN"T AN AUTHORITY ON IT.

[redstar2000]

At this point, Lardlad95, I don't even know if anyone is STILL reading this thread besides you and me.

I confess I am growing weary of it; each time I try to make socio-political points, you want to convert the discussion into a matter of my personal "redemption" at the hands of the POLICE. That is NOT going to happen, so FORGET about it.

I won't bother arguing about whether or not 13-year-olds living on their own would bother to go to school or not; we've argued that matter before...and we have such different ideas of what education IS that I see no point in repeating myself here.

I'm sure your aunt, the cop, is a very nice person...TO YOU. Her victims might express a less favorable opinion, but YOU will be deaf to their complaints.

WHY you want to go to a church is incomprehensible to me...why you would subject yourself to the humiliation of attending a church full of rich white racists simply leaves me totally dumbfounded.

I've never claimed to be an "authority" on much of anything...though I certainly do have some pretty strong opinions. Why that bothers you...in some of your posts to the point of rage...is something I don't understand, either.

But let it go. Unless someone with something interesting to say in this thread joins the discussion, I think I've said all that is necessary.

:cool:




(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:23 pm on Dec. 23, 2002)

[canikickit]

Redstar, would you agree with me if I was to say that what you are suggesting (in both this and the "Glorious Capitalist Education..etc., etc.) would result in the collapse of society, if it were to come about tomorrow?

Maybe not the collapse of society but basically, what you have suggested requires a new view of the world, one not propagated by MTV and Fox News and Britney Spears and Micheal Jackson........"This is your opinion, brought to you be the good people of Coca Cola." - all that crap.

I think this is what is "missing" (for want of a better word) from your arguments.

[redstar2000]

canikickit, the things I've suggested are BASED on a very different kind of society than we have now...namely, communism.

But there ARE some trends in late capitalist society that point in the direction that I suggest.

Item: the "bonds" of the traditional biological family are growing weaker--in spite of considerable propaganda from both fundamentalist religions and bourgeois social science trying desparately to shore up a collapsing structure. If memory doesn't betray me, the MAJORITY of children born in Sweden today are born to unmarried women. In the U.S., about six out of every ten marriages end in divorce. And so on.

Item: there now IS a kind of early "children's rights" current in legal theory. I've only seen a few examples and it's certainly VERY limited...but it's THERE. The idea that children have "certain inalienable rights" even against the wishes of their biological parents is still quite weak, but...

Item: the tide of public opinion seems to be clearly turning against the idea of physical violence against small children. A number of E.U. countries now explicitly prohibit "spanking". Even in the U.S.--laggard as always when it comes to human rights--prosecutions of parental violence and even convictions are beginning to occur.

In the area of what I called "freedom to learn", the internet is clearly a dagger at the throat of all forms of traditional education. How is traditional "authority" to stand in the face of factual refutation available at the click of a mouse? (talk about the mouse that ROARED!)

When a child's only source of knowledge about the world was a parent, a clergyman, or a teacher, it was easy enough to maintain all kinds of really disgusting and oppressive forms of traditional authority. Now it's beginning to get a little tougher for the bastards...and it will get even tougher as time passes.

From the standpoint of a defender of traditional values, society is already "collapsing". From a revolutionary standpoint, that is a process to be welcomed, encouraged, and applauded.

Ever since the middle ages, each revolutionary period has been MORE radical than the ones that preceeded it. As difficult as it may be to believe, even I may look a little "conservative" when the next uprising comes...because it will be REALLY SOMETHING!

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:13 pm on Dec. 22, 2002
At this point, Lardlad95, I don't even know if anyone is STILL reading this thread besides you and me.

I confess I am growing weary of it; each time I try to make socio-political points, you want to convert the discussion into a matter of my personal "redemption" at the hands of the POLICE. That is NOT going to happen, so FORGET about it.

I won't bother arguing about whether or not 13-year-olds living on their own would bother to go to school or not; we've argued that matter before...and we have such different ideas of what education IS that I see no point in repeating myself here.

I'm sure your aunt, the cop, is a very nice person...TO YOU. Her victims might express a less favorable opinion, but YOU will be deaf to their complaints.

WHY you want to go to a church is incomprehensible to me...why you would subject yourself to the humiliation of attending a church full of rich white racists simply leaves me totally dumbfounded.

I've never claimed to be an "authority" on much of anything...though I certainly do have some pretty strong opinions. Why that bothers you...in some of your posts to the point of rage...is something I don't understand, either.

But let it go. Unless someone with something interesting to say in this thread joins the discussion, I think I've said all that is necessary.

:cool:




(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:23 pm on Dec. 23, 2002)


Or you've avoided everything that needs to be said.

my aunts "victims" are crackheads so I doubt alot of them are sober or well enough to remember the arrest.

And while i don't advocate incarciration for drug addicts I doubt she beats them to bloody pulps.

And I am pretty sure you don't know what I would turn a deaf ear to. Guess what you don't know me...I am very very against incarciration for drug addicts...but then again youm just want to assume shit about me.

Hey I'm just trying to help you.

You complain about shit but you are unwilling to seek help...don't you see this as a problem? Don't play a victim man.

My understanding of education is that in teh west it is despised by most children

In the east it is valued higher by the youth.

IN Africa, Europe, Asia it may be easier for children to want to learn and if they had the educational resources that Americans do they would be over whelmed with joy.

However my education plans surround only people in my country which take education for granted...you can't go from crawling to to running in a day...you have to learn to walk.

If school was abolished and learning was opitonal people would abuse this and just simply not learn. they would squander their youth.

When american youth appreciates education then possibly those plans can go into effect, until then we have to ease into it.

You must realize that not everyone would just automatically except your ideas and play into it exactley like you want them to.

Not everyone wants to read, not everyone wants to work...and judging from the intellegence level of the UNited States I would say that it is the majority.

While the parishoners of the church were racist fucks GOD got me through the toughest time in my life.

The priest Father Celinei helped out my family a great deal, he even got my father a job. So I wouldn't be so quick to judge religion as a whole.

If I had been an atheist during that time I would have killed myself...and while I'm sure you would have liked it to play out that way my life has improved dramaticaly since then.

People are evil...not religion.

I'm not angry at your opinion...I was angry at teh fact that you slipped in personal attacks on me while denouncing me for doing so.

I was angry at your hipocrisy. And in fact I wasn't even that angry...you will know when i"m angry.

You have a right to your opiniooon, I just happen to disagree.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:19 pm on Dec. 23, 2002
canikickit, the things I've suggested are BASED on a very different kind of society than we have now...namely, communism.

But there ARE some trends in late capitalist society that point in the direction that I suggest.

Item: the "bonds" of the traditional biological family are growing weaker--in spite of considerable propaganda from both fundamentalist religions and bourgeois social science trying desparately to shore up a collapsing structure. If memory doesn't betray me, the MAJORITY of children born in Sweden today are born to unmarried women. In the U.S., about six out of every ten marriages end in divorce. And so on.

Item: there now IS a kind of early "children's rights" current in legal theory. I've only seen a few examples and it's certainly VERY limited...but it's THERE. The idea that children have "certain inalienable rights" even against the wishes of their biological parents is still quite weak, but...

Item: the tide of public opinion seems to be clearly turning against the idea of physical violence against small children. A number of E.U. countries now explicitly prohibit "spanking". Even in the U.S.--laggard as always when it comes to human rights--prosecutions of parental violence and even convictions are beginning to occur.

In the area of what I called "freedom to learn", the internet is clearly a dagger at the throat of all forms of traditional education. How is traditional "authority" to stand in the face of factual refutation available at the click of a mouse? (talk about the mouse that ROARED!)

When a child's only source of knowledge about the world was a parent, a clergyman, or a teacher, it was easy enough to maintain all kinds of really disgusting and oppressive forms of traditional authority. Now it's beginning to get a little tougher for the bastards...and it will get even tougher as time passes.

From the standpoint of a defender of traditional values, society is already "collapsing". From a revolutionary standpoint, that is a process to be welcomed, encouraged, and applauded.

Ever since the middle ages, each revolutionary period has been MORE radical than the ones that preceeded it. As difficult as it may be to believe, even I may look a little "conservative" when the next uprising comes...because it will be REALLY SOMETHING!

:cool:



Society is collapsing? Hardly, it is evolving. It is changing. Society Collapsing would result in choas. What you have suggested proves that nothing stays the same.

i can find few errors with what you said but the point at which you are proving isn't so.

You sated in our arguement that Women are no longer owned by their husbands...very true.

To the people of the days in which this became more and more true they musthave veiwed as the traditions of old society collapsing yet society didn't.

The collective concioueness is always changing much like perception.

Thus society isn't collapsing it is evolving.


Also When you speak of a childs sources for education no longer being authority figures what type of education did you mean?

The authority figure was never the only form of a childs education.

At the risk of sounding corny life is the ultimate educater. A parent can't exactley teach street smarts

Not to mention the fact that there have been resources to learn with for hundreds of years.

Thefact that it is all digital now doesn't mean that suddenly the parent clergy and teacher have become obsolete.

Ever heard of books? Libraries have existed since the days of the Assyrian empire.

The child did not require the parent to learn though having one didn't exactley hurt.

The click of the mouse and the internet are just a library with a new coat of paint.

Society has yet to fall, it has evolved.

[redstar2000]

"People are evil, not religion"--Lardlad95

Religion is evil, not people.--Redstar2000

And which way did YOU vote?

:cool:

[Lysenko]

Hah! I have not had time to read the whole thread however i will say that any true marxist would be against family. Unfortunatly, D Day and other so called marxists here have no idea what the doctrine is. They are lost causes. I heard terrible things about this site. I guess i know why now.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:47 pm on Dec. 23, 2002
"People are evil, not religion"--Lardlad95

Religion is evil, not people.--Redstar2000

And which way did YOU vote?

:cool:


well according to you there is no God and people created him and religion....so if religion is evil and people created it how can people who aren't evil create something that is?

and to Lysenko.....do you know D Day on a personal level? Where you directly there with him when he read Marx? Lenin? Moa? Che? or any other marxist literature? Then how can you say he has no idea what it is.

Marxists includes a wide variety of ideologies. You don't have to follow all of a belief systems to be a marxist.

You don't have to be against contraception to be catholic

you don't have to be a capitalist to be American

you don't have to be a sqaure to be a rectangle.

You don't have to go to church to believe in God

you don't have to be black to play basketball

you don't have to be white to play hockey.

I think you see where I'm going with this.

[Lysenko]

Oh no, myself and D Day have debated before. Or at least attempted. It is true that one doesnt have to be american to be a capitalist. but

One has to care about humanity to be a communist
one has to but humanity before themselves to be a communist.

D Day's rantings on family show he is not a communist, and can barely pass for a guevarraist.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Lysenko on 5:38 am on Dec. 24, 2002
Oh no, myself and D Day have debated before. Or at least attempted. It is true that one doesnt have to be american to be a capitalist. but

One has to care about humanity to be a communist
one has to but humanity before themselves to be a communist.

D Day's rantings on family show he is not a communist, and can barely pass for a guevarraist.


Who says the family necassarily go against helping humanity?

I feel I am a good judge of this for two reasons

1. I have lived in an abusive family

2. I have lived in a very loving, open, and intellegent family in which individual thought was encouraged

So I can see it's dangers and it's potential especially since both have come form the same family...luckily the latter still is holding true for me currently

[Lysenko]

Why take chances. What is the purpose? If one calls himself a Marxist, he must agree that family is counterproductive. If you disagree you are not a marxist, it is that simple.

Who cares if some families are nurturing and useful for parenting, many are not.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Lysenko on 5:56 pm on Dec. 24, 2002
Why take chances. What is the purpose? If one calls himself a Marxist, he must agree that family is counterproductive. If you disagree you are not a marxist, it is that simple.

Who cares if some families are nurturing and useful for parenting, many are not.

USA=Richest family on earth

US raising situation=families

families=prodcutive

I know this isn't exactley the most complex example but if you want to go into production the US is the richest

I don't agree with how the US does things but facts are facts.

More families are nuturing than not

[Lysenko]

Yes, then why not have all families nurturing? Why not have it so there is no way a family can be unhealthy to the child. Collectivization is the key. No more one kid born rich and another born to dead beat dads.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Lysenko on 10:21 pm on Dec. 24, 2002
Yes, then why not have all families nurturing? Why not have it so there is no way a family can be unhealthy to the child. Collectivization is the key. No more one kid born rich and another born to dead beat dads.

But you run the risk of depriving children of love not to mention if you have looked at orphanges they aren't all that great....

[Lysenko]

You aren't depriving them of love, you are giving them all equal love and nurture.

An orphanage wouldnt exist. Everyone would be nurtured the same way. Once again, there would be no distinction between "bastard" children and those born by wed couples.

[Umoja]

If women (Or men) were paid to take care of Children, like in Cuba, a lot less of the problems would happen. Cuba seems to have one of the best child raising system, but I think raising Children in communes is about as bad as raising them in a Church. An entire generations mind can be filled with propaganda and before we totally move beyond one of humanities most natural features we must look at the consequences of it, because it could have bad effects down the road.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Lysenko on 11:31 pm on Dec. 24, 2002
You aren't depriving them of love, you are giving them all equal love and nurture.

An orphanage wouldnt exist. Everyone would be nurtured the same way. Once again, there would be no distinction between "bastard" children and those born by wed couples.


by bringing up the orphanage I meant colelctive raising

I don't think that a person who is paid to raise a child will love them as much as a person who does it out of love.

My mom is losing money by raising me...yet I'm not out on the streets

[redstar2000]

Umoja, on what grounds do you assume that we communists will fill a whole generation's minds with "propaganda"?

Only those who are enemies of communism (mainly capitalists but also those who are addicted to superstition) would regard communist ideas as "propaganda".

I thought you were sympathetic to communism...

:cool:

[timbaly]

How could communes be as bad as the church? The Church has a one track mind, one point of veiw, narrow minded, not open to you. If children are raised collectively by a community of many different people, they would almost certainly have different opinions and points of view unlike the church. The people would be there for you, unlike the church which shys away from any real problems. All the people can't be narrowminded like the church is. Nothing can be worse than teaching blind faith, nothing at all.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:23 pm on Dec. 26, 2002
Umoja, on what grounds do you assume that we communists will fill a whole generation's minds with "propaganda"?

Only those who are enemies of communism (mainly capitalists but also those who are addicted to superstition) would regard communist ideas as "propaganda".

I thought you were sympathetic to communism...

:cool:


I believe in God....a superstition by your standards...I don't veiw it as propaganda......

hey what jsut went out teh window?m Oh yeah it's your credability

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 8:07 pm on Dec. 26, 2002
How could communes be as bad as the church? The Church has a one track mind, one point of veiw, narrow minded, not open to you. If children are raised collectively by a community of many different people, they would almost certainly have different opinions and points of view unlike the church. The people would be there for you, unlike the church which shys away from any real problems. All the people can't be narrowminded like the church is. Nothing can be worse than teaching blind faith, nothing at all.


theologians don't teach blind faith, priests, rabbis, rev. do

anyway

WHen I meant as bad as a church I meant that their would be a high chance of pedophillia

As long as a child gets all sides to a story it's cool.....that includes a religious sides.

If Redstar had it his way there would be little Maos running all over the place

[Umoja]

Propaganda to could be spread into the communes in a very 1984ish style, to ensure loyalty towards the government is abosolute, all the children could grow up learning the wonders of their government to such an extent that they will never be able to lose their rose colored mirrorshades.

[redstar2000]

"little maos running all over the place"--a charming picture. ;)

Umoja, the whole point of communist society is to enable individuals to flourish as they can NEVER do under capitalism. You've surely seen enough of my posts to realize that I would be AGAINST "blind faith" in ANYTHING!

I would regard it as child abuse to fail to teach kids to be critical in their thinking, to fail to teach them to use their minds.

It seems to me you ought to know that. :cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:50 pm on Dec. 27, 2002
"little maos running all over the place"--a charming picture. ;)

Umoja, the whole point of communist society is to enable individuals to flourish as they can NEVER do under capitalism. You've surely seen enough of my posts to realize that I would be AGAINST "blind faith" in ANYTHING!

I would regard it as child abuse to fail to teach kids to be critical in their thinking, to fail to teach them to use their minds.

It seems to me you ought to know that. :cool:

Yet you would deny them a religious point of veiw?

No one said that they had to be engrained with religion

but if they aren't giving them that option than they can't looka t everything objectively.

You need all point of veiw.

Did you every hear the story from the vedas in which three blind men were told to feel a different part of an elephant and say what the animal was like?

1. felt the leg and said it was like a great tree

2. felt teh trunk and said it was like a sbake

3. another touched it's side and said it was like a wall


all three got it wrong because they didn't get the whole picture

this is how your children will end up.

[redstar2000]

LL95, no one ever has "the whole picture"--but why waste brain cells with nonsense? Do you fill up your hard drive with spam?

I think it sufficient to teach children that some unfortunate folks "believe" in things that don't exist...ghosts, vampires, devils, witches and gods. One should be patient with "believers", as one would be considerate of someone missing an eye or a leg. But one should not believe a word "believers" say, any more than one would put out one's own eye or cut off one's own leg out of misplaced courtesy to the eyeless or legless. :cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:33 pm on Dec. 27, 2002
LL95, no one ever has "the whole picture"--but why waste brain cells with nonsense? Do you fill up your hard drive with spam?

I think it sufficient to teach children that some unfortunate folks "believe" in things that don't exist...ghosts, vampires, devils, witches and gods. One should be patient with "believers", as one would be considerate of someone missing an eye or a leg. But one should not believe a word "believers" say, any more than one would put out one's own eye or cut off one's own leg out of misplaced courtesy to the eyeless or legless. :cool:

I believe in god...the Sky is blue?

So according to you when i said the sky is blue I was lying me ass off?


You said your self that children should be taught to be objective

if you treat society like a caste system with the "believers" on teh bottom like out casts you know what you are doing?

You are creating prejudice...why not just pass out hoods and burning crosses to the kids

hell tell all the boys that it's ok to beat women because they are below them

All you are doing is promoting prejudice

[redstar2000]

When a "god-believer" says that the sky is blue...better check for yourself; it's at least highly probable that the weather is gray and overcast.

Yes, I'm teaching "prejudice"--just as kids should be taught to be prejudiced against racists, against sexists, etc., they should also be prejudiced against those who believe in imaginary entities.

Why? Because just as we have learned that racism "as an idea" is horseshit and just as we have learned that sexism "as an idea" is horseshit, we will have also learned that religion "as an idea" is horseshit.

People SHOULD be prejudiced against horseshit ideas!

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:27 pm on Dec. 28, 2002
When a "god-believer" says that the sky is blue...better check for yourself; it's at least highly probable that the weather is gray and overcast.

Yes, I'm teaching "prejudice"--just as kids should be taught to be prejudiced against racists, against sexists, etc., they should also be prejudiced against those who believe in imaginary entities.

Why? Because just as we have learned that racism "as an idea" is horseshit and just as we have learned that sexism "as an idea" is horseshit, we will have also learned that religion "as an idea" is horseshit.

People SHOULD be prejudiced against horseshit ideas!

:cool:

How can you call an idea horse shit if you can't disprove it

we can prove that races aren't superior than others

we can prove that men aren't superior to women

but you can't disprove religion.

It's a decision that the children should make dor themselves.


If the debate is deadlocked then people should decide for themselves

neither of us can give enough evidence to prove our case.

So the children should make up their own minds.

[timbaly]

If children are to make up their own minds they can not be drugged at a young age. They must be introduced to the concept of religion when they are mentaly ready to understand it. If you bring a four year old to church and they ask why they have to go, an adult who is a believer wouldn't be able to explain why they believe in god to a kid that young. Therefore parents say just believe, it's good for you. When they are ready to understand religion they are already drugged into the fear god mentality and most likely would go on and follow blindly like most of the sheep in present time. Only when they have proven to be analytical thinkers should they be permitted to attend church or temple or any other worship place.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from timbaly on 2:47 am on Dec. 31, 2002
If children are to make up their own minds they can not be drugged at a young age. They must be introduced to the concept of religion when they are mentaly ready to understand it. If you bring a four year old to church and they ask why they have to go, an adult who is a believer wouldn't be able to explain why they believe in god to a kid that young. Therefore parents say just believe, it's good for you. When they are ready to understand religion they are already drugged into the fear god mentality and most likely would go on and follow blindly like most of the sheep in present time. Only when they have proven to be analytical thinkers should they be permitted to attend church or temple or any other worship place.

OK I agree but remember

when they see a person go to a church an atheist also shouldn't say

"Because they are foolish believers they believe in a GOD that doesn't even exist...aren't they stupid?"

and dn't say they wont says that because I can reffer you to many of Redstar's posts

[redstar2000]

LL95, I wouldn't say "aren't they stupid" any more than I'd say "look how funny that cripple walks". I know we disagree, but I'm NOT an insensitive barbarian. :cheesy:

I WOULD explain to a small child, 4-6, that there are people whose minds don't work quite the way they should...they believe in and even see things that don't exist. I would continue by saying that they may be otherwise perfectly normal people...except you can't trust anything they might say. It is something like a missing leg or a missing eye...an unfortunate handicap.

By 8 or 10, I'd get them a really good book on the history of torture and murder in the name of religion...with very realistic pictures. I'd explain that this is the kind of thing that used to happen when god-believers had real power to hurt people...but now we don't let them do that any more. (That book doesn't exist yet...but we would have it written.)

By 13 or 14, if they wanted to read scholarly works on religion, I'd have no problem with that...there are a LOT of good ones. They could even read the "Bible" if they wanted to...but a scholarly version, like the Anchor Bible...only with more critical footnotes and explanations.

I think THAT would do it. :cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:48 am on Dec. 31, 2002
LL95, I wouldn't say "aren't they stupid" any more than I'd say "look how funny that cripple walks". I know we disagree, but I'm NOT an insensitive barbarian. :cheesy:

I WOULD explain to a small child, 4-6, that there are people whose minds don't work quite the way they should...they believe in and even see things that don't exist. I would continue by saying that they may be otherwise perfectly normal people...except you can't trust anything they might say. It is something like a missing leg or a missing eye...an unfortunate handicap.

By 8 or 10, I'd get them a really good book on the history of torture and murder in the name of religion...with very realistic pictures. I'd explain that this is the kind of thing that used to happen when god-believers had real power to hurt people...but now we don't let them do that any more. (That book doesn't exist yet...but we would have it written.)

By 13 or 14, if they wanted to read scholarly works on religion, I'd have no problem with that...there are a LOT of good ones. They could even read the "Bible" if they wanted to...but a scholarly version, like the Anchor Bible...only with more critical footnotes and explanations.

I think THAT would do it. :cool:

you are doing the same thing you don't want the religious people to do.

You are forcing beliefs on people.

Your being a hypocrite.

[redstar2000]

Hypocrite? How so? Force? In what way?

Telling kids the truth about things, in as much detail as they can grasp, seems to me to be a GOOD idea.

Of course, we'd be depriving the churches of a fresh crop of suckers...but that is what we are SUPPOSED to do.

Tell me, LL95, are you one of those who believe that "creationism" and evolution should be taught in schools on an "equal" basis...where the two ideas are just put forward in a neutral voice, as if they were genuinely equivalent?

If you DON'T think that, then I don't see how you can disagree with my approach on religion. But if you DO think creationism is just as valid as evolution, then I can see your objection to my approach on religion...but that doesn't make me hypocritical or guilty of using force.

It makes me guilty of not playing "fair" with bad ideas. And to that charge, I agree, I'm guilty! I'd be ASHAMED not to be. :cool:

[Conghaileach]

Many versions of the Communist Manifesto in libraries (especially in the US) have introductions which are highly critical of the book.

I'm sure that you would be opposed to this, but you'd have no problem doing the same to the Bible.

I'm not a religious person, but a person has the right to choose what path they may follow freely, without any of the biases that you'd like to implement.

[redstar2000]

Well, CiaranB, there's critical and there's "critical", as I'm sure you know.

I would, in fact, have NO objection to a genuinely critical edition of the Communist Manifesto...extensively footnoted with the sources for its various ideas, explaining the terminology in use in the 1840s, etc.

Likewise, an updated version of the Anchor Bible which would include the results of modern critical scholarship would be welcome.

The fact that some American editions of the Manifesto have introductions written by anti-communists is unfortunate but hardly devastating. The "criticism" of anti-communists is usually so shallow that it defeats its own purposes...so I don't worry too much about it.

Much more worrying is something a librarian told me a few years ago. Right-wingers and religious fundamentalists will check out a left or atheist book, destroy it, pay the fine...knowing that the library has such meagre resources that the "offensive" book is unlikely to be replaced. She went on to say that many leftist and atheist books are now ONLY available from university libraries...which means you have to pay a fee to borrow them (inter-library loan program, $1.00 per book). Of course, unless you KNOW what you're looking for, you'll never find out these books even exist.

Such is how things are done in "the land of the free".

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:15 am on Jan. 1, 2003
Hypocrite? How so? Force? In what way?

Telling kids the truth about things, in as much detail as they can grasp, seems to me to be a GOOD idea.

Of course, we'd be depriving the churches of a fresh crop of suckers...but that is what we are SUPPOSED to do.

Tell me, LL95, are you one of those who believe that "creationism" and evolution should be taught in schools on an "equal" basis...where the two ideas are just put forward in a neutral voice, as if they were genuinely equivalent?

If you DON'T think that, then I don't see how you can disagree with my approach on religion. But if you DO think creationism is just as valid as evolution, then I can see your objection to my approach on religion...but that doesn't make me hypocritical or guilty of using force.

It makes me guilty of not playing "fair" with bad ideas. And to that charge, I agree, I'm guilty! I'd be ASHAMED not to be. :cool:


So you apluade yor own hypocrisy?

You have become everything you have said you hate....

You've become just like the religious people shoving ideas down people's throats.

So you can no longer be mad at those parents who ingrain religion into their children

you are them they are you


I apologizebut I wont be able to post much my ocmputer is fucked up and I can only log in during a post then it wont be logged in anymore