anarchist views on paedophillia

hm that's weird i thought the "franklin cover-up" story was a hoax (according to wikipedia) and the kind of thing you read about at sites like "jesus is savior dot com"
(http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20 ... _abuse.htm)


yeah and tell us more about the military's "human meat"

 

You're right, Derek.

But I thought that answer, irrational and impossible as it is, was the proper and correct response to the original question.

This being the internetz, anything less direct could easily be misunderstood.

I was wrong in saying I thought that was the appropriate action, rather than the appropriate response to the question.

I do, however, feel that my personal knowledge of institutionalized pedophilia in the US is germane to the topic. When it is institutionalized or part of the socialization process, it is not a personal choice or preference and cannot be dealt with as such. The only way to deal with institutionalized pedophilia, institutionalized racism, or any other institutionalized evil, is to smash the state and destroy the institution.

 

lunatic, here's what Wikipedia says:

It does not say it is a hoax. Faith and trust in Wikipedia, grand juries, or trial juries, is no more justified than relying on a religious website. If you notice that the wiki page is semi-protected, and that it has been edited 17 times, you'll see that there is some controversy, more of which can be found on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank ... llegations As for the grand jury, having to rely solely upon what the DA tells them, a grand jury will, as the saying goes, "indict a ham sandwich," or, conversely, refuse to indict a self-confessed mass murderer. And as the Innocence Project has proven, trial juries are also prone to mistakes. The bias of the article is obvious in that it states that two people were indicted for perjury instead of telling the whole story, as is posted on the talk page, that "...two victims recanted and two who refused to recant were charged with perjury but charges were dropped against one after the other was sentenced to 15 years. The victim appealed but it was rejected on the grounds that her lawyer did not object to the hearsay evidence used to convict her..." In other words, the victim was convicted of perjury on the basis of inadmissible hearsay evidence that her attorney failed to object to.

You might also want to check out the Wiki page about the author of The Franklin Cover-up, John DeCamp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_DeCamp A former aide to then CIA Director William Colby, four term Nebraska state senator (Republican), and practicing attorney--doesn't sound to me like your average conspiracy theorist.

I'd recommend the film, if you happen to be in the UK or someplace without the strict censorship we're subjected to here in the US. But the book is available even here. Due to the UK's libel laws, anyone libeled by the film could easily have gotten a fortune by suing, but apparently nobody has even tried.

As for the military's human meat, what I said was, "young meat," the term used in the shops where I worked to refer to children being offered for sexual use by adults. Everyone in the military is potential human meat, in the sense of being expendable cannon fodder.

 

Ok ok guys, I am gonna settle this shit once & for all.....
I'm gonna call Hakim Bey & ask him his thoughts on this matter!!!

 

You'd probably get the same answer from a Catholic priest. All patriarchal religions make hierarchy and inequality a sacrament. If there can be anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-individualists, and anarcho-patriarchs, I'm sure there are some anarcho-fascists around too. I haven't read this whole board yet, but there's probably a topic somewhere that says, "Hi! I'm new here, I'm an anarchist, and I believe that people should be able to have as much private property (including human property) and and power over others as they can get, that government is necessary to ensure these freedoms, and I just wanted to ask what this site thinks of anarcho-oligarchs and anarcho-authoritarians."

 

Paedophilia is pretty obviously disgusting and wrong, I think that raises the question of whether people can be born inherently disgusting? Is it the case that they're just born doomed to be a piece of shit? I like to hope not. I don't like deeming someone scum for the way they're born. Maybe something is just triggered at some point or there are some environmental factors as well.

Either way I reckon they should be encouraged to get help, whatever that be. Those who act on it thought are quite damaging and that can't be denied. I may put a bullet in one myself if I ever stumble upon that happening.

Also fuck market anarchism. The history of the modern market is the exploitation of others and the destruction of the environment above all. Our world is suphocating in concrete so people can slip some extra dollars in their pocket. Not to say that entrepeneurs are necessarily evil though. Sometimes you have to get your hustle on. Local exchange is cool but market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are just right wing crock in my opinion.

 

in ressponsne to bent sorry it was an ass-holeish thing to say

 

well im gunna throw my two cents in here. Personally, whilst id like to make it clear that i do not condone it whatsoever and paedophilia is disgusting, i think it should prehaps be treated in the same respect as a mental illness. Surely It isnt something that some one can control, same as people have foot and other fetishes right? What can be helped, however, is the actual physical act (rape or child molestation etc.) which is inexcusable.

I once read somewhere that what you are exposed to as a child affects your sexual preferences as you age. wether this is true or not i cant say, but supposing it were, prehaps that would shed some light on the mentality behind it?

sorry, im not very articulate at expressing my views but i hope what im trying to say is getting across

 

Apology accepted

 

There's a few threads that I hope to god don't show up publically on a google search, this is one of them.

 

HAHA so true J.C. so true!

 

So the young man who ogles an 18 year old woman has perfectly natural, healthy sexual impulses, like we all do.

But when that same young man ogles a girl of 17 years, 11 months and 29 days, HE IS A SICK FUCK WHO NEEDS TO HAVE HIS DICK CUT OFF AND SHOT!!! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH HIM OMG THAT'S SO SICK!!!! POWER IMBALANCE/DOMINANCE SEXISM ETC, KILL ALL PEDOS

 

Now you are splitting hairs, depending on who's laws you are under it may be perfectly legal and acceptable, but when a young man or woman decides that an undeveloped mind of a young teen or preteen or younger is a viable sexual partner there is definitely a problem.

 

That, sir, is not a hair I am splitting. That is the central issue. Ageism.

When in grade 7, I had this gym teacher. She was fine. I had a crush on her. Would it have been, in retrospect, a good idea for me to have had a relationship with her? No, probably not. Were it my call to make, should I have been able to do it? As per convention, society, etc., children have no rights. Are children considered "humans"? Should children be afforded "human rights"? Do human rights include the right to decide who we do or do not have sex with?

At what age do children magically transform from incapable morons who can't and shouldn't decide what should happen to them, into rational, responsible people who can and should be able to decide for themselves? Some states have said 12, some states have said 14, some states have said 16, 18, 19, 20, 21. What happens at this magical moment when they turn the state-recommended age? MAGICAL FAIRIES TEACH THEM ABOUT THE BIRDS AND THE BEES? No, it's just ASSUMED that by some arbitrary age, kids have figured out about sex. Or drinking. Or conscription. Or voting. Or emancipation. Or gambling. Etc

So we, as older people, get to say YOUNG PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT THEY DO OR DO NOT DO WITH THEIR BODIES. We justify it by saying OMG CHILD RAPISTS!! We empasize the issue of "OMG WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" at the expense of "people whom I may consider to be children are in fact human beings who deserve the same human rights as I do".

 

I don't think "human rights" apply to perverts looking for a 16 year old to shag. You do realize that at a certain age, the teenage years to name it properly, one is more gullible and that older men (more often than not they'll be male) will take advantage of younger girls. If you consider it unfair that high-school girls can't have sex with adults, then I suggest you spend more time with both to realize that there is a power relation between both groups. A critique of ageism on this issue clearly benefits old perverts trying to take a peek under high-school girls' skirts and it has nothing to do with good, liberated sexuality.

 

i am so fucking sick of pedophiles using leftist/anarchist boards as refuges online. i dunno if they're trolling for punk boys, or think that people who advocate against laws and rulers will take their side, but it's just fucking sickening.

it doesn't take a ruling class or a legal system to have a sense of right and wrong, and fucking children is just disgusting.

 

why don't they just stay with the sparts?

 

Forget old perverts. Forget sexual predators. Forget adults with sexual preferences different from your own.

Please, thru a time machine telephone, tell my 12 year old self (who happens to be very smart for his age!) why he should not be allowed to nail his hot gym teacher?

12 year old me: Ok, so you guys are saying, FOR MY OWN GOOD, that I'm incapable for thinking for myself, and thus making my own decisions. Who the fuck put you in charge of deciding what *I* can or cannot do? What makes you so much more smart/responsible/capable than me? I've done all my homework and chores, I run a lemonade stand and I'm good with money, and I volunteer at the SPCA. YOU'RE TELLING ME that I don't have the same rights that the 50 year old alcoholic hobo sleeping in a cardboard box does? Because you know, since he's old, he's capable of making the right choices, and he's responsible.

 

that brings up another, thoroughly frightening thought: if an under 18 kid were to rape an adult, then turn around and try to charge the adult with statutory, isn't it scarily possible that the kid would succeed in court?

 

I dont know about anyone else my age but i have complete control over what i do with my body.