what do you think of corporal punishment?

[careyprice31]

I was reading

http://www.childadvocate.org

and i even signed their guestbook.

I find it outrageous that children are now the only group of people who you can legally hit.

I am against spanking.

what do you think of it?

I think it is discrimination and a violation of human rights.

[careyprice31]

Made this topic in discrimination section but then I had forgotten i wanted to ask everybody what they thought, OIl'ers and , well, everyone here.

so i make this topic here so oi'ers can respond as well.

what do you think of corporal punishment?
I was reading

http://www.childadvocate.org (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.childadvocate.org)

and i even signed their guestbook.

I find it outrageous that children are now the only group of people who you can legally hit.

I am against spanking.

what do you think of it?

I think it is discrimination and a violation of human rights.

[pusher robot]

I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I don't like the thought of corporal punishment. But then again, I can not come up with any good reason why corporal punishment is really any worse than other, i.e., psychological punishment. So I must conclude that logically, I simply don't like the idea of punishment. But that is obviously false, since I often recognize situations that clearly call for punishment.

In short, I don't like corporal punishment, but I don't have any good reasons why.

[Forward Union]

Well.
If someone raped loads of kids (as an extreme example). I actually would not object to them being executed. I'd find it very difficult to care. Now I know whenever these issues come up we get the "Hang the peado brigade" but it is a serious thing. Would any of you actually cry if a mass-rapist peadophile got hanged? Do you get upset when you see pictures of mussolini hanging from a lampost? no!

So I do think it should be an option for the most serious of crimes. But, within capitalism I absolutely fucking oppose the death sentence, for no other reason than I don't recognise the state as having the right to kill.

But I do recognise the soverign will of peoples assemblies, and democratically decided laws, to place death as a penalty for certain crimes. For things like rape, peadophilia, murder, slavery... that said the emphasis should be on rehabilitation, and confinement for safety reasons, not on execution. Anyone sentenced to life imprisonment should have the right to the death sentence at request aswell.

Whoops misunderstood thread. Ok Corporal punishment. No I don't think you can beat sence into rational animals.

[careyprice31]

Well.
If someone raped loads of kids (as an extreme example). I actually would not object to them being executed. I'd find it very difficult to care. Now I know whenever these issues come up we get the "Hang the peado brigade" but it is a serious thing. Would any of you actually cry if a mass-rapist peadophile got hanged? Do you get upset when you see pictures of mussolini hanging from a lampost? no!

So I do think it should be an option for the most serious of crimes. But, within capitalism I absolutely fucking oppose the death sentence, for no other reason than I don't recognise the state as having the right to kill.

But I do recognise the soverign will of peoples assemblies, and democratically decided laws, to place death as a penalty for certain crimes. For things like rape, peadophilia, murder, slavery... that said the emphasis should be on rehabilitation, and confinement for safety reasons, not on execution. Anyone sentenced to life imprisonment should have the right to the death sentence at request aswell.

Whoops misunderstood thread. Ok Corporal punishment. No I don't think you can beat sence into rational animals.

I think you must have misread or something.

I said corporal punishment (spanking children as a means of disciplining them)

not capital punishment (the death penalty)

I can see where people confuse the two though. They almost sound alike.

[Holden Caulfield]

it is wrong but im not totally against it, my mum would hit me not very often at all and i usally deserved it, she didnt do it hard or out of annoyance or fustration but as a deterrance,

what do you think about paedophillia svet? i remember you said to (on a very random few posts about me trying to swoon Rosa) me if i was 50 and Rosa was 18 it would be okay for me to freely make suggestive comments? where does free love for adults stop and child abuse of impressionable youths start?

sorry to pull this off subject

[Mujer Libre]

You might be interested to know that we've recently had a discussion on this that became quite heated. See the upper links in the "similar threads" section of this page.

Personally I think hitting children is outrageous, and that it's often a sign of lazy parenting, where a parent simply wants a child to obey without question rather than to learn anything. It also creates an unhealthy relationship of fear and power between parent/carer and child which is just so developmentally unhealthy.

I cited a report in the other thread that looked at the negative aspects of corporal punishment on children.

[Luís Henrique]

It's bad pedagogy, at best. At worst, it can be criminal.

Luís Henrique

[Sentinel]

Svetlana is correct here, corporal punishment is wrong. It's both despicable and counterproductive.

Appealing to the childrens rationality, and making sure they understand why they are wrong, why the behavior is rationally unintelligent etc, learns them to function socially.

Attempting to beat them into subordination, on the other hand, teaches them that you don't have to be right as long as you're strong. So if you want that kind of adults in your society, then corporal punishment is the way to go. :rolleyes:

Children are not the property of their parents -- the society is to interfere whenever physical child abuse takes place.

See this previous Learning forum discussion on the subject:

Corporal Punishment (spanking) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/corporal-punishment-spankng-t69251/index.html?t=69251&highlight=SPANKING)

[Mujer Libre]

Threads merged.

[Vanguard1917]

I find it outrageous that children are now the only group of people who you can legally hit.

So the bourgeois state should be permitted to tell working class parents how they can and cannot raise their children? Because that is what you are effectively saying if you're calling for legal powers against corporal punishment by parents.

Personally, i can see how a smack on the backside once in a while can be a good way to teach a child to, say, not to run into traffic ever again or to not throw infantile tantrums in public. Children often do not know right from wrong. They have to be taught - by adults.

But my personal opinions are besides the point. I'm not in a position to sermonize people about what kind of parents they should be - and nor is anybody else.

[Mujer Libre]

So the bourgeois state should be permitted to tell working class parents how they can and cannot raise their children? Because that is what you are effectively saying if you're calling for legal powers against corporal punishment by parents.

Personally, i can see how a smack on the backside once in a while can be a good way to teach a child to, say, not to run into traffic ever again or to not throw infantile tantrums in public. Children often do not know right from wrong. They have to be taught - by adults.

But my personal opinions are besides the point. I'm not in a position to sermonize people about what kind of parents they should be - and nor is anybody else.
I know this was brought up in the other thread- but exactly the same arguments were made about how women were treated in the past.

Go back through your post and replace the word "child" with "woman" and you can see how ludicrous your ideas are.

[Vanguard1917]

Women aren't children - they are adults.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm in agreement here. For the most part no one should ever hit a child. If a child does something wrong he/she should be corrected and the best way to do that is by just explaining the facts of the situation to the child--as best as the child can understand. Most children aren't interested in doing "wrong" they are often just under a misunderstanding, or make a mistake. I have two kids (14 and 11) and I have never hit them.

The ONLY exception I could see here is maybe something like this: if a 2 yo get fixated by a burner on a stove--maybe a slight wack to teach him that they can get seriously hurt by a burner.

On the other hand I certainly don't want the state to TELL me how I should behave as a parent. We have enough laws.

[Mujer Libre]

Women aren't children - they are adults.
At what point does a child miraculously become capable of reason, or become an adult? I think children are much more reasonable than you're giving them credit for.

Also, women were thought of much in the same way as you're thinking of children, as being incapable of making even the simplest decisions.

[Sentinel]

So the bourgeois state should be permitted to tell working class parents how they can and cannot raise their children?

The society should be. It is unfortunate that the society is run by the bourgeoisie atm, but it does mean that we have to rely to them in order to ensure the weak are protected from the violence of the strong.

Also, are you against the bourgeois state interfering agaisnt any kind of violence? It makes no difference if the victim is a minor.


Personally, i can see how a smack on the backside once in a while can be a good way to teach a child to, say, not to run into traffic ever again or to not throw infantile tantrums in public. Children often do not know right from wrong. They have to be taught - by adults.

Children do not know the right from wrong so they must be taught, yes. But hitting them is counterproductive, as it teaches that physical superiority justifies a point. Moreover, it's entirely unnecessary as it's perfectly possible to stress a point without resorting to violence.


I'm not in a position to sermonize people about what kind of parents they should be - and nor is anybody else.

In other words, you are effectively of the opinion that parents 'own' their children, then? That they are property? Not so progressive.

[Vanguard1917]

On the other hand I certainly don't want the state to TELL me how I should behave as a parent. We have enough laws.


Strange when 'leftists' find themselves supporting further policing of working class life and rightists find themselves opposing it.

Actually, it's not really that strange at all. 'Leftists' are among the most enthusiastic supporters of further bourgeois state interference into the everyday lives of working class people.

[Vanguard1917]

The society should be. It is unfortunate that the society is run by the bourgeoisie atm, but it does mean that we have to rely to them in order to ensure the weak are protected from the violence of the strong.


In a class-divided society, there can be no talk of 'society' in the abstract. In a capitalist society, if you support 'social intervention' into the homes of working people, you support greater bourgeois state policing of the homes of working people.



Also, are you against the bourgeois state interfering agaisnt any kind of violence? It makes no difference if the victim is a minor.



Primarily, i oppose the violence which is performed by the state. I oppose the bourgeoisie's police force, its army, and all its prisons. These things should be abolished - not given further powers over us.



In other words, you are effectively of the opinion that parents 'own' their children, then? That they are property? Not so progressive.


They don't own their children; but they should be free to raise their children free from the interference of the bourgeois state.

[Bud Struggle]

Also, women were thought of much in the same way as you're thinking of children, as being incapable of making even the simplest decisions.

I have no problem with spanking a woman--just so long as the the woman in question is properly undressed for the occasion. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

In a class-divided society, there can be no talk of 'society' in the abstract. In a capitalist society, if you support 'social intervention' into the homes of working people, you support greater bourgeois state policing of the homes of working people.

Well said. And believe me there certainly will be different de facto "rules" for what a rich person does with their kid and a poor person.



Primarily, i oppose the violence which is performed by the state. I oppose the bourgeoisie's police force, its army, and all its prisons. These things should be abolished - not given further powers over us.

There unfortunately are real life "bad guys" that need to be kept under wraps.


They don't own their children; but they should be free to raise their children free from the interference of the bourgeois state.

I agree here, too.

[Sentinel]

In a class-divided society, there can be no talk of 'society' in the abstract. In a capitalist society, if you support 'social intervention' into the homes of working people, you support greater bourgeois state policing of the homes of working people.


A man should in other words be allowed to beat his kids after a bad day at work. One day he might go too far and kill the whole fucking bunch -- because we aren't to support the state interfering. Your position is just fucking absurd -- as it is, the bourgeois state with it's policing is the only force which can stop this from happening. Unless you provide an alternative, you can't just oppose it.


Primarily, i oppose the violence which is performed by the state. I oppose the bourgeoisie's police force, its army, and all its prisons. These things should be abolished - not given further powers over us.

I understand that, but you are avoiding my question. Is the bourgeois state allowed to stop any kind of violence? To go in when a worker is beating his wife? Or when a working class guy starts attacking random people in the streets?


They don't own their children; but they should be free to raise their children free from the interference of the bourgeois state.

What does this de facto mean? That they can do whatever they please -- the children are effectively the property of their parents.

***

Like I said, it is unfortunate that the society is controlled by the bourgeois state -- because this makes it the authority we have to rely on to stop domestic violence and otherwise interfere in our lives to maintain an environment safe from violence.

This is just one more reason to be a revolutionary.

[TC]

I don't really have a lot to add here at the moment, I just want to say that I think Mujer Libre and Sentinel's posts have been extremely good.

[apathy maybe]

I don't really have a lot to add here at the moment, I just want to say that I think Mujer Libre and Sentinel's posts have been extremely good.

Yes, and that Vanguard1817 is not any kind of revolutionary as far as I can tell.

Children aren't the property of their parents, everyone agrees yes?

Ok, so why should parents have the right to do what they want with their children? Parents should not be allowed to rape their children (I think we all agree...), parents should not be allowed to hit their children simply because they had a bad day at work (we should all agree ...), but some people think that parents should be allowed to hit their children when they are "naughty".

So, if a parent rapes their child, should the state get involved? What if the parent then goes next door and rapes the next-door child? What about if they rape an adult in the house? When should the state step in?


Anyway, there was a thread over at Slashdot on the topic a little bit back (starts http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=467114&cid=22560460 ), someone said,

Forget the "child abuse" label. Hitting someone is assault, whether the person you're hitting is an adult or a child, and regardless of whether the child is yours or someone else's. It should be treated as such.

Somewhere in there I made the comment,

As for hitting them to get the point across...
What point? That they shouldn't watch porn? Why shouldn't they watch porn? Because it is sinful? What is sin and why is it bad? Because the bible said so? Why should I pay any heed to a book that is full of contradictions? Because you told me to and you will hit me if I don't... Great way to get your point across Dad.

Basically, parents should not be allowed to raise their children as they want (as well as physical violence, I also oppose religious indoctrination and similar psychological abuse).
As a society we oppose violence, and we should oppose violence against all members of society, especially those who cannot defend themselves (i.e. the young). (Self-defence is a different matter, and is the only "escape clause" in the previous sentence.)

[AlleyKat]

I support parents being allowed to spank their children (on the bum, arms or anywhere else non-harmfull). Children need to learn that there are consequences for "wrong" actions and these days it's hard to say "Go to your room" (where there are usually video games, books, comics, etc...) or something ridiculous like a "corner chair".

Furthermore on the topic of corporal punishment (caning perhaps), I find myself supporting it in civil society aswell, vandals and seeing my grandfather having to clean the shit off his fence every Friday comes to mind. Although, most of my Green/Liberal mates will probably be against me on this.

[apathy maybe]

What, pray, are "wrong" actions? Is looking at porn or masturbation "wrong"?

Why is it wrong?

Why should parents be able to assault children simply because they cannot explain why looking at porn or masturbating is wrong?

What about sticking things in power points? Is that "wrong"? No, it's just dangerous. So you explain why it is dangerous. And if they don't believe you, then find some photos on the Internet to demonstrate what happens if you stick things in power points!

(Or, alternatively, if you live on a farm, get them to touch an electric fence. Explain that sticking things in power points hurts a shit load more then touching an electric fence. Believe me, it isn't something people do for pleasure.)

[AlleyKat]

What, pray, are "wrong" actions? Is looking at porn or masturbation "wrong"?

Why is it wrong?

Stealing, starting fights, etc... you're just trying to be awkward if you really don't know what I refer to when a child is "bad".


Why should parents be able to assault children simply because they cannot explain why looking at porn or masturbating is wrong?

I never said masturbation or looking at porn was "wrong", parents should only be allowed to hit their children when their children violate just moral rules. For example when I was young I was a sodding violent little **** and my parents used the belt on me. I respect them for doing that because they were only protecting my siblings and themselves.


What about sticking things in power points? Is that "wrong"? No, it's just dangerous. So you explain why it is dangerous.

Well... yeah.

[apathy maybe]

Stealing, starting fights, etc... you're just trying to be awkward if you really don't know what I refer to when a child is "bad".
Yeah, I'm being "awkward", because I don't want you to go around beating people!.
What different people thing is "bad", or "wrong" varies. I might think that porn or masturbation is fine, and that parents who beat their children over such things are fucking scum! But other people might disagree, and say that masturbation causes blindness, and is a great sin! Beating a child to get them to stop is perfectly acceptable to save their immortal soul.

You see, I don't have a problem with stealing from mega-corps, so saying "stealing" isn't exactly a universal either. As for starting fights, violence is wrong yes? So we're going to beat you until you learn that beating other people is wrong! (Sorta like fucking for virginity, except not nearly as fun or as useful.)


I never said masturbation or looking at porn was "wrong", parents should only be allowed to hit their children when their children violate just moral rules. For example when I was young I was a sodding violent little **** and my parents used the belt on me. I respect them for doing that because they were only protecting my siblings and themselves.
OK, parents should be allowed to beat their children when their children violate "just moral rules". It just so happens that I think that, only if they follow my "just moral rules. Because otherwise they might start beating their children for watching porn, which I think is not OK at all...

Or maybe, how about this, by my moral code (which is a just one of course, and you can't tell me differently because that would be imposing your morals (which are unjust) on me), it is immoral to eat on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday. It is immoral to drink any liquid other then plain water on Sunday or Thursday (including soup), and watching porn is compulsory on Tuesdays.

And if you don't follow my "just moral code", I'm going to come around to your house and beat the shit out of you (I don't have children, so I'm going to impose my morals on you instead, I don't see the difference).

OK, but you are talking about children! And you do see a difference! OK, well, I'll have a child and beat the shit out of them for talking back (a much more likely scenario). Children should be seen and not heard. And they talk without being spoken to, a walloping is coming!

So, fuck off with your "just moral code" bullshit. Hitting children is domestic assault.

[careyprice31]

"it is wrong but im not totally against it, my mum would hit me not very often at all and i usally deserved it, she didnt do it hard or out of annoyance or fustration but as a deterrance,

what do you think about paedophillia svet? i remember you said to (on a very random few posts about me trying to swoon Rosa) me if i was 50 and Rosa was 18 it would be okay for me to freely make suggestive comments? where does free love for adults stop and child abuse of impressionable youths start? "

It really wouldnt be pedophile because a person of 18 is a grown man/woman and not a child. At least in my opinion.

And when i was growing up I was ferquently hit. No I wASNT A friggin angel, but the result was that for my childhood and my teenage years I feared my father. And I dont even remember what I did to deserve the beatings. I just remember being hit and the fear. The fear and being hit is the worst. And it certainly never made me a better person. All it taught me was hate and fear.

[Holden Caulfield]

And when i was growing up I was ferquently hit. No I wASNT A friggin angel, but the result was that for my childhood and my teenage years I feared my father. And I dont even remember what I did to deserve the beatings. I just remember being hit and the fear. The fear and being hit is the worst. And it certainly never made me a better person. All it taught me was hate and fear.

this is a different matter entirely, i wasn't beaten, excessive hitting is wrong totally, and if it is agressive and out of fustration then it is down to lazy parenting,

but to hit a kid on the backside when they have just been stopped from running into a road or grabbing their arm and holding it tightly when they are about to pick things up in a shop is acceptable to me,

it is basic classical conditioning,

im sorry if you had a bad experience with spanking as a child but you cannot generalise your experience of excessive spanking with (what i presume is the majority experience) of it as a deterrant,

as for someones replace the child with woman: this is stupid and shock tactics, cognitive development and pyschological studies show that the mind and concepts of the mind develop with age so a woman is a less ego-centric, a more self aware and self governed, and a more concious being entirely

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

I think this problem of parents hurting their kids will be solved in communism by the dissolution of the family. Having a family causes so many problems in society.

[AlleyKat]

Yeah, I'm being "awkward", because I don't want you to go around beating people!.
What different people thing is "bad", or "wrong" varies. I might think that porn or masturbation is fine, and that parents who beat their children over such things are fucking scum! But other people might disagree, and say that masturbation causes blindness, and is a great sin! Beating a child to get them to stop is perfectly acceptable to save their immortal soul.


For christs sake dude, stop referring to basket case religious-right families and using the term "beat" when I, myself merely support spanking/belting on non-harmful areas of the body.


OK, parents should be allowed to beat their children when their children violate "just moral rules". It just so happens that I think that, only if they follow my "just moral rules. Because otherwise they might start beating their children for watching porn, which I think is not OK at all...

Or maybe, how about this, by my moral code (which is a just one of course, and you can't tell me differently because that would be imposing your morals (which are unjust) on me), it is immoral to eat on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday. It is immoral to drink any liquid other then plain water on Sunday or Thursday (including soup), and watching porn is compulsory on Tuesdays.

And if you don't follow my "just moral code", I'm going to come around to your house and beat the shit out of you (I don't have children, so I'm going to impose my morals on you instead, I don't see the difference).

OK, but you are talking about children! And you do see a difference! OK, well, I'll have a child and beat the shit out of them for talking back (a much more likely scenario). Children should be seen and not heard. And they talk without being spoken to, a walloping is coming!

So, fuck off with your "just moral code" bullshit. Hitting children is domestic assault.

If a family spanks their child for such a ridiculous reason, sure that should be acted upon and punished. But not all children are all cute and sweet mate, as I said, I was a right violent child and my parents belted me to protect my siblings, other children and themselves, but of coarse according to your logic I should have been told to go to my room or some shit, which infact my parents did as a first punishment and I just smashed my walls in anyway. I was a ****, I learned my lesson, I'm better for it.

[Holden Caulfield]

I think this problem of parents hurting their kids will be solved in communism by the dissolution of the family. Having a family causes so many problems in society.

and solves many, like how we learn to interact and form relationships, how we progess with 'scaffolding' from parents, to name but two,

i strongly disagree with dissalution of the family, 'blurring of family lines' or interest and greater community i do agree with but i cannot see the value in dissalution of the family

[LudicrousCommunistDancer]

I don't see why you can only learn how to form relationships if you have a family. In communism, children will be taken care of by the whole community, and kids will have more happiness without annoying siblings and parents who tell them what to do all the time.

I'm not sure what scaffolding with parents means.

[Holden Caulfield]

its just a process of learning that requires close help by an adult on most things, like when a parent plays with a child the child takes what it knows and uses what the adult says and puts the two together and learns by this,

psychological research shows that children without siblings are far more egocentric as they do not learn sharing properly, at play group or in a communal group you dont share you feel good, in a family you dont dont share these people are with you day in and day out and you learn that sharing is benaficial to all,

families are the best unit to learn in, yes so are communities but communities comprised from families, annoying siblings teach us to tolerate annoying people in real life, take away the family and put in a group situation there will still be annoying people,

[Kropotesta]

I find it hard to believe that the family until will disolve. Of course communities will grow closer but I can't see people giving up their children to the community.

[Dejavu]

Parents should have free reign to discipline their children within reason. A smack on the tush here and there is necessary at times. The same holds not just for responsible biological parents ( you know, the ones that actually love their kids) but for guardians as well.
If a parent cannot take care of their children they should give the child up for adoption. There are plenty of families that want to adopt a child and some actually succeed in getting through the state apparatus.
Furthermore, if a biological parent gives up their children I believe they lose all rights to parenthood. The social services doesn't always see it that way. There are many cases where children are yanked from their adoptive family and returned to the biological parent when the biological parent had an epiphany and promises to be more responsible. The state tends to side with biological parents even though they have less to offer the kid than the adoptive family especially when the biological parent(s) gave up the kid in the first place.

[Holden Caulfield]

a tory MP said that parents who live off benafits and have loads of kids should be steralized,

[Dimentio]

So the bourgeois state should be permitted to tell working class parents how they can and cannot raise their children? Because that is what you are effectively saying if you're calling for legal powers against corporal punishment by parents.

Personally, i can see how a smack on the backside once in a while can be a good way to teach a child to, say, not to run into traffic ever again or to not throw infantile tantrums in public. Children often do not know right from wrong. They have to be taught - by adults.

But my personal opinions are besides the point. I'm not in a position to sermonize people about what kind of parents they should be - and nor is anybody else.

But the same thing could be said about all progressive laws.

[Dejavu]

a tory MP said that parents who live off benafits and have loads of kids should be steralized,

Of course thats insane. That wont address the core issue. SOMETHING creates the incentive for single mothers (typically) to not marry and have more children they can claim under their care.

I don't know the specifics about the U.K. but if it has a giant welfare sector like the U.S. then I can draw on some conceptual (and empirical after words) truths about the welfare problem in the U.K. like in the U.S.

Here in the U.S. incentives are actually created for typically young mothers, many alarmingly African American and Hispanic, to A. not marry , B. not work or find jobs where wages are very low, and C. have more children to claim under their care.

A single mom on welfare receives the most subsidies and checks from the government when they fulfill these primary requirements. 1. unmarried , 2. no work or very low income, 3. more children for tax exemption and extra money per child. The money received in total is by no means enough to live in a life of bliss but its actually enough to get by and have some change left over. ( My friend is a free lance economist and did a lot of research on this.) If we look at the primary reasons of poverty they are children that grow up in very weak family structures which often times lack a father figure and their mothers are usually caught up attending to all the children and its easy for a child to stray from a weak family base and join gangs. The cycle goes on and on creating more poverty.
Ironically the social programs engineered to fight poverty create more of it. Welfare gives the greatest payout when you're a single mom, not married, and have many children. The incentives are perverse and of course the single mom is going to want to take as much as possible from the government( really taxpayers) to support her because life can be tough.


I'm not trying to be heartless especially since my mom and I were on our own for a while, we didn't take welfare but we lived by very limited means. I'm just suggesting there is a better way to fight poverty and it begins with a strong family.

[Holden Caulfield]

just to clarity i wasnt agreeing or any such thing with the sterilization thing,
i was just adding new dimention to the debate,

[Vanguard1917]

I understand that, but you are avoiding my question. Is the bourgeois state allowed to stop any kind of violence? To go in when a worker is beating his wife? Or when a working class guy starts attacking random people in the streets?


My position is very clear: i think that the bourgeoise's police force should be abolished. Until that happens, i think that the less police powers the better. Marxists have very little sympathy for laws which increase police presence in our communities, in our streets and in our homes.



Yes, and that Vanguard1817 is not any kind of revolutionary as far as I can tell.



Strange 'revolutionary' you are who invites the bourgeois state's repressive authorities into the homes of the working class.


But the same thing could be said about all progressive laws.

In what way?

[Red Lobster]

A true socialist state would make parental training mandatory. Teaching of religion would be forbidden since this is psychological abuse. Teaching of capitalism and individualism must also be forbidden. The children will learn to become part of the greater good and think of the collective before themselves. A real socialist state would forbid dangerous ideas from infiltrating the youth and hold the parents responsible and subject to discipline if children start espousing these nonsense ideas. Furthermore mandatory health training and fitness should be instituted making a young and vital youth and mandatory socialist education would be closely monitored as to make sure dangerous ideas are kept out. All communists should give KimJung of DPRK much praise as he is one of our heroes. No socialist should tolerate individualism as this a counter ideology by the bourgeoisie.

[Bud Struggle]

A true socialist state would make parental training mandatory. Teaching of religion would be forbidden since this is psychological abuse. Teaching of capitalism and individualism must also be forbidden. The children will learn to become part of the greater good and think of the collective before themselves. A real socialist state would forbid dangerous ideas from infiltrating the youth and hold the parents responsible and subject to discipline if children start espousing these nonsense ideas. Furthermore mandatory health training and fitness should be instituted making a young and vital youth and mandatory socialist education would be closely monitored as to make sure dangerous ideas are kept out. All communists should give KimJung of DPRK much praise as he is one of our heroes. No socialist should tolerate individualism as this a counter ideology by the bourgeoisie.

Indoctrination camps for the young! Can't wait for the 1984 lifestyle.

Are you guys freakin' serious? :rolleyes: Sometimes I can't tell if people really mean stuff like this or are just kidding around.

[Dimentio]

Indoctrination camps for the young! Can't wait for the 1984 lifestyle.

Are you guys freakin' serious? :rolleyes: Sometimes I can't tell if people really mean stuff like this or are just kidding around.

I actually think Red Lobster is ironic.

[Bud Struggle]

Thank you.

[Forward Union]

I have no problem with spanking a woman--just so long as the the woman in question is properly undressed for the occasion. :lol:

So she doesn't have to consent? just be naked?

[Bud Struggle]

So she doesn't have to consent? just be naked?

As my brother once said--I never knew I was so handsome, till I made a million dollars. :lol:

[Mujer Libre]

As my brother once said--I never knew I was so handsome, till I made a million dollars. :lol:
Wow, so you condone child abuse and are a sexist turd. Congratulations...:rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Wow, so you condone child abuse and are a sexist turd. Congratulations...:rolleyes:

I made clear above, I don't condone hitting kids. As for being a sexist turd--guilty as charged. :D

[careyprice31]

Wow, so you condone child abuse and are a sexist turd. Congratulations...:rolleyes:

"So she doesn't have to consent? just be naked?"



I think Tom was just kidding, folks.