| Theory |
|
People Are Not Property -- Part 2 June 15, 2003 by RedStar2000 |
I am surprised to be returning to this subject so soon, but it seems to be one that will not go away.
Whether it's female reproductive freedom or inter-generational sex or adolescent sexuality, there seems to be an endless supply of neo-puritanical idiots who want to control people's lives "for their own good".
It does not matter, really, if their motives are religious or secular. To create a climate of fear and then feed upon it...that is the common factor in these psychological tapeworms.
If you'll forgive my vulgarity, we need to shit them out of the left for once and for all!
========================================
quote:
...the woman loses her choice once she starts to abuse it
A woman has the choice whether to have sex or not. The purpose of sex is to procreate. If a baby is made from the process that is explicitly designed for that purpose, a woman must remain accountable for that action. Her choice was made when she had sex. To have an abortion is a cop out, and is murder.
Who said male supremacy was dead?
This is the sort of anti-woman, fuck-witted and utterly barbaric bullshit that makes communists cringe and feminists scream in rage!
It totally ignores every aspect of social and class reality and raises procreation to the status of divine imperative.
Those who would punish women for being female are purely and simply enemies of communist revolution!
-------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 15, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
Ok, your position is that women who have abortions will not be punished at all; it is the doctor who performs the abortion whose life is forfeit.
So your logic suggests that a woman may have as many abortions as she wishes for reasons serious or trivial as long as she can find a doctor willing to risk her/his life to perform the procedure.
That will come at a rather high price, will it not, assuming it can be found at all.
And your response, at least if you're still pretending to be logical is: well, she can always do it to herself without worrying about any legal penalties. Just be sure and sterilize that coathanger first. (!)
And how much surgery have you performed on yourself lately? Or do you suggest that men are "above" that sort of dirty female business?
quote:
Unfortunately it is women who are burdened with this life-bearing process; that however is irrelevant to the context of this argument.
That's right up there with Bill Clinton--"I feel your pain"--not to mention Jimmy Carter--"life is unfair."
The "burden of the life-bearing process" is central to "the context of this argument"...if you are a woman.
What kind of crackpot "logic" is it that ignores perhaps the most crucial question that a woman faces? Or dismisses it as "trivial", like a swimming pool or a bigger dummyvision set?
That's an easy one to answer; it's the logic of one who says hey, it ain't my problem, babe.
Or, perhaps, if you don't like getting pregnant, why did you choose to be female?
And then there's Get thee to a nunnery (meaning take a vow of permanent celibacy).
You take refuge behind the fact that in a capitalist system, there is naturally a good deal of money to be made in providing abortions on demand.
It is a feeble shelter. Women have been attempting to control their own fertility for as long as written history exists; there are extant Egyptian recipes for drinks that promise to induce abortion that are 5,000 years old...somewhat predating the rise of capitalism, wouldn't you agree?
Women controlling their own fertility. What a simple idea; what an admirable idea. Women should not have to be "prisoners" of their biology. How could anyone be against that?
Would you believe that some people find it "sickening"? Would you like to speculate on why they do; what lies at the heart of such an attitude?
It won't be "pretty".
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 16, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
The idea that one [who] opposes abortion is a woman hater is very inflamatory. I suggest you consider not saying that ever again.
It is meant to be "inflamatory" because it is true.
To punish a woman who has an abortion in any way is to punish her for being female. That's woman-hating in my book. Therefore I will say it and keep saying it.
I note that your "arguments" have all the staying power of water in a desert...whenever they are challenged, they melt into the sand and you take up some new argument in their place.
First it's pregnant women who seek out and have abortions who are "murderers". No, it's the doctors who perform abortions who are "murderers". What next, the companies that make the surgical instruments? How about the taxi driver who drove her to the clinic?
I already know your response: I didn't say that.
All of this evident refusal to see where the logic of your position--"abortion is murder"--leads you to...suggests that the price of consistency is much higher than you want to pay.
Quit dicking around and face up to it: if "abortion is murder", then somebody gets the needle of death or life imprisonment without parole...those are the established penalties for murder in the first degree in the United States.
If you try to weasel and suggest a lesser penalty, then you have destroyed your own basic premise. Is abortion "manslaughter"? Or "criminal recklessness"? Maybe you'd like to just give the woman in question a stern talking to...with plenty of finger wagging.
Your comparison of re-criminalized abortion with other crimes is truly precious. Murder and theft, to use your best examples, are clearly threats to all people...we justifiably prohibit those activites because they threaten the security of all.
But how does it threaten my security or yours if women control their own fertility? Where is the social justification for your prohibition? What is the threat to you if women who don't wish to carry a pregnancy to term for any reason have an abortion? And whatever that "threat" might be, is it really of such a magnitude that you can actually feel righteous in demanding that "somebody" should be executed or suffer life-long imprisonment in order to stop it?
Your version of ad hominum attacks, though far weaker than mine, yields some interesting hints.
You said I was a "femi-nazi in disguise". The only other person that I've ever heard use that word--femi-nazi--is Rush Limbaugh, the barbaric right-wing nutball who does talk-radio in the U.S. Perhaps you should start listening to Dr. Dean Edell instead; his mind is actually in the current century.
And what do "we femi-nazis" want? "A fourth reich of male submission through forced eugenics."
Getting close to the bone here? If women can control their own fertility, "what will they want next?" "Male submission???" Alarm bells ringing? You know, I'm starting to get a glimpse of what you perceive the real "threat" of abortion to be...and it has nothing to do with capitalism (that's just smoke out of your ass to try and make your views "respectable" on a left message board).
I hesitate, in fact, to explore what is really motivating your fear and hatred of women. I'm not a trained professional in those matters.
But communism is something that I do know a good deal about...far more than you. If abortion is "re-criminalized" in the U.S., it will not be ruling class women who will suffer; they will go to Canada or Europe and have their abortions without consequence. No, it will be poor and working class women who will suffer...thanks to folks like you! Even a beginner at Marxism knows that class comes first in any analysis...it is poor and working class women for whom "reproductive rights" are most vital.
Misogynists are not communists.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 19, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
A punishment which I believe suitable would be similiar to the OLD abortion laws. which was something like five years in prison, minimum.
A remarkably "light" sentence for "murder", don't you think? Particularly "murder" of the "most vulnerable"...your words.
But then you did say minimum, didn't you? What was the old maximum, I wonder...as I wonder what it would be if you were on the jury?
quote:
"to punish a woman for having an abortion is to punish her for being female". really. I know you're not going to bother even trying to explain how this can be, so just pretend I'm not asking.
What part of the word female don't you understand? As you may remember, only females can become pregnant, therefore only females can undergo abortions, therefore to punish a woman for having an abortion is to punish her for being female.
quote:
Abortion is similarly a threat to ALL people. Or did you forget that you too were once housed in your mothers womb? It is sad that at the phase of a person's life when a person is MOST vulnerable, MOST in need of legal protection a person is granted ZERO protection. Abortion effects ALL people much MORE than ANY OTHER CRIME.
An utterly nonsensical statement! In the absence of time-travel (!!!), abortion cannot "threaten" a single living human being.
quote:
For the record, femi-nazi's are accused for being such not because of the bizarre theory you have stated. It is based on the use of abortion to create a "perfect" race of "perfect" children who are "wanted" and "cared" for. Nothing less than middle "class" is permitted. Children raised in "poverty" are seen as being better off being aborted. The similarities between the nazi's as eugenics loving, master race freaks are there. It has nothing to do with hating women, but hating nazi's and hating their mentality, modes and methods.
What kind of a nutball argument is this? Honestly, has anyone ever heard of anything so loony?
This is what happens when you become dazzled by formal logic and forget the point of rational argument...to start with verifiable facts and reach a reasonable conclusion.
You are ever ready to shout "fallacy" this and "fallacy" that while conveniently overlooking that logic is like a verbal computer: garbage in, garbage out!
Take out the trash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 20, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Only 5% of rapes are the classic jumped on out of a bush by a mad pervert situation. The other 95% are done by people she knows. Less than 1% of rapes result in pregnancy so rape babies really shouldn't be considered.
Putting aside the minor consideration of "numbers originating in someone's rectal orifice", please explain to me why being raped by someone you know is somehow "not as bad" as being raped by a stranger? And then explain why it is ok to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term simply because she knew the scumbag who raped her?
quote:
Do you support the murder of innocent children? No, I'm assuming not, so why support abortion, just because the child is still in utero doesn't make it any less of a human being, does it?
Well, yes, actually it does. Certainly during the first three or four months of pregnancy, you're talking about an organism with the brain of a goldfish. Perhaps by seven or eight months, when the fetus could survive outside the woman's body, you'd have a point in speaking of a child. Otherwise, it's meaningless to speak of something as human when it completely lacks the distinguishing characteristic of humans...an unusually large brain.
quote:
Abortion is murder. How can killing a baby ever be justified?
1. Because the pregnant woman is physically and/or psychologically unfit for pregnancy.
2. Because the pregnant woman lacks the economic and/or social resources to raise a child.
3. Because the fetus suffers a severe genetic defect.
There may be other reasons as well...but those are good for starters.
One good question deserves another, and you know what it is: if "abortion is murder", what penalty are you prepared to inflict on the woman who has one? Death? Life imprisonment without parole?
How much are you prepared to punish women for the "crime" of being female?
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 21, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
If a woman wants to choose she can get her tubes tied (which is reversable). Or else use contraceptions.
As I understand it, contraceptive surgery on a woman is rather more elaborate (and expensive!) than on a man...and is more difficult to reverse.
And, it must be repeated for the thousandth time, regular contraceptives sometimes fail. What then?
quote:
I think that abortion should be illegal (for a variety of reasons including drawing a line of the santury of Human life at conception.
I think the word you want there is sanctity--"the quality or state of being holy or sacred."
That's an "argument" from superstition, of course, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration. I could just as easily say "It's my sacred duty to kill you." Why? "Oh, God told me to."
No.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 23, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
The [abortion] rate is also due to our hedonistic society. Communism is very anti-hedonistic. Under Communism people will have more idealism. They won't be focused on "having a good time".
Ah, nostalgia for the "good old days", when communist boys and girls made love to their tractors.
News Update: In 21st century communism, people will have an even better time than they have now.
The old puritanical version of 20th century communism is as dead as the dinosaurs...well, perhaps I exaggerate a little. We have a few on this board; but they're young enough to learn better.
In the advanced capitalist countries, the places where real communist revolution is feasible, an old-style puritanical communist movement would have about as much chance of gaining significant support as a party that proposed the restoration of feudalism.
It ain't gonna happen.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 24, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I can see only two situations that justify the prohibition of what would otherwise be mutually consensual sex...
1. People who have reached puberty should not be permitted to have sex with people who haven't.
2. People in positions of authority should not be permitted to have sex with anyone subject to their authority.
Violations of these prohibitions should not be punished with prison time...house arrest would be more appropriate.
The hysteria in some quarters about "inter-generational" sex is, in my view, just more neo-puritanical horseshit.
And the legal concept of "minor" as applied to adolescents is simply outrageous and contemptable.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Live on May 21, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
The "rule of 18" is illegitimate on its face and as applied.
For the government or some other public agency to protect us against risks that we would have no way of knowing of in advance (tainted food, for example) is one thing. To attempt to protect us against "risks we are willing to assume" is a very different thing...for which I cannot imagine a legitimate, rational excuse.
We could prohibit skiing, for example, because "some people are going to get hurt". Or any one of thousands of activities. "Getting hurt" is part of being alive. It is one of the ways we learn about the world.
It is illegitimate as applied, of course, because it is applied sporadically and inconsistently. People who are presently prosecuted for "unlawful carnal knowledge of a juvenile" are simply unlucky. The vast majority of such relationships never come to the attention of the authorities and consequently go unpunished. It is rather like the laws against possession of marijuana in the U.S.---most people never get caught.
If you personally think it's a "bad idea" for someone who is 13 to be romantically involved with someone who is 38, by all means advocate that to anyone who will listen.
But you do not have the right to call in the police to enforce that opinion. That is an unwarranted inteference in the personal affairs of other people...in their right to decide who they will love.
It also represents, I think, a view of sex that is...well, archaic. Insofar as class society still considers women and children to be property, there remains the idea in the back of many people's minds that "unlawful use of my property" (sex with my daughter/son/wife) is an outrage not to be tolerated.
Surely communists should know better.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 21, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Someone entering puberty is just going to discover sex and be unable to control their urges if they are allowed to do it.
Where is it written that we must necessarily "control" our "urges"? Would you control your "urge" to try a new food, listen to some new music, read a new book, visit a new place? Sex is one of the things that people enjoy and to suggest that they have some "obligation" to refrain from that pleasure is absurd.
To suggest that the police be called in is monstrous!
quote:
As to sex with children aged up to 16, yes they may choose to have sex with someone thinking no one will get hurt, but they may be wrong. Children of those ages are simply often not equipped to make those decisions and therefore they should be protected by the law, those older should realise this and be punished for having sex with person of this age range.
How does one become "equipped" to make decisions that will never do any harm? I'm a "little bit older" than 16, yet I would not dream of asserting that I could never do inadvertent harm. I think the idea of "protecting people" from risks they choose to engage in is tyrannical. Where is the social benefit of filling prisons with people who fucked without permission? And worse, possibly enjoyed it???
quote:
And the same for sexual relationship between two people in this age range that they should be prohibited since they are often unaware of the damage it can cause. It is reasonable to expect people to wait until they are older.
Damage? Damage? What damage?
"It is reasonable to expect people to wait until they are older". I guess so, if the cops are peeking into every bedroom in the country. Otherwise, where is the "reasonableness"???
It still surprises and disappoints me that people who are opposed to the prevailing social order will nevertheless repeat its social dogmas without recalling that anything said by current "authority" is deeply suspect.
Our rulers say nothing without a reason...and that reason has nothing to do with our welfare.
Wise up.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 22, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
People who have such lust for children...
Before things get completely out of hand, let's clarify exactly what we are speaking of here.
1. "Consensual" sexual activity between people who have reached or passed puberty--"adults"--and people who have not reached puberty--"children". We agree that this should be prohibited. You suggest prison time for the adults who engage in this behavior; I think something like house arrest is more appropriate.
2. Consensual sexual activity between people over the age of 18 (or some other arbitrary figure)--"older adults"--and people who have reached puberty but not yet the age of 18 (or whatever that arbitrary figure is)--"younger adults".
You wish to legally prohibit this activity and imprison any "older adult" who is convicted of it; I think it should be completely legal.
3. Consensual sexual activity between two people, both of whom have reached or passed puberty but have not yet reached the age of 18 (or some other arbitrary figure).
You would allow this to be legal but "culturally disapproved of". I would see no reason for any cultural disapproval of either No. 2 or No. 3 above.
These distinctions have to be made to close off any opening for the neo-puritans amongst us; they will start screaming about "sex with children" when what they really want is to crush adolescent sexuality...an aim so reprehensible that they are rarely willing to state it openly.
Now to the arguments...
quote:
I mean harm in the sense that they will cause them and other mental anguish for the very obvious reasons i.e. a child will lose their virginity, will become confused as to their own love for others and sexual desires, feel abused, etc.
I can see those objections applying to No. 1 above. I don't see them as applicable to No. 2 and No. 3...except insofar as this applies to all of us; it's part of the "human condition" to lose our virginity, be confused about love, and feel abused. It happens to every one of us. The argument that it is somehow "more harmful" at 13 than at 33 does not seem to have any justification; in fact, one could easily argue that the proverbial "resilience of youth" makes healthy recovery from emotional stress more likely.
quote:
Damage such as sex becomes meaningless after it has been experienced so young...
An odd assertion and one without any justification that I've ever heard of. The whole idea that sex has some "cosmic meaning" is really just pre-capitalist superstition, anyway.
It is simply a way for people to "connect" with each other to a greater or lesser extent. Most people learn in time that sex is "best" when it comes with emotional involvement with your partner; but that part is not compulsory.
quote:
Yes, well I'm not a hippie, I'm a Marxist-Leninist, or in your opinion you would say I have distorted the views of Marx and possibly Lenin and am nothing more than a fascist or some other such dispicable political viewpoint.
Well, I'm not a "hippie" either (whatever that word is supposed to mean in this context). And certainly I have never referred to you as a "fascist".
I do think that the Maoist variant of Leninism is extraordinarily puritanical...and that you've unfortunately absorbed that as part of your ideological heritage. I think you should question that. What were the material conditions that gave rise to puritanism in China? (Hint: patriarchal society, overpopulation, lack of inexpensive and reliable birth-control, etc., etc., etc.)
Marx himself, by the way, did have a puritanical strain to his thought...he lived, after all, in the age of Queen Victoria.
You don't have that excuse.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 23, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Well, you can live that way if you want, but I wouldn't want you near my girlfriend if thats how you are.
How can I put this in a diplomatic way?
People are not property. You can't own them once and for all.
People will stay with you or not as they wish. Just as you will stay with people or not as you wish.
There is no "external standard" that really governs human relationships; no place to plant your feet firmly on the ground and say "this is mine, now and forever."
Capitalism itself has broken down or is breaking down all of the traditional attempts to "lock in" or, often, "lock up" human relationships. As time rolls on, people will connect and disconnect at their pleasure and for no other reason at all.
As Marx said, "All that is solid melts into air."
He was right. (Again!)
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 24, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Like everything in society, relationships need rules and conventions to make them work.
That's a tough one to disagree with flat out...but I wonder? What kinds of "rules" and "conventions" would be likely in a classless society? Would people still be hung up on exclusivity the way they are now? Would people think of mate selection as a form of status enhancement, the way that many do now? Would people regard rejection as a "crushing blow" to their self-esteem, the way that many people do now?
You understand, I don't claim to be able to answer such questions. What bothers me about your positions is that you regard them as "self-evident" and "natural" when in reality they are "social constructs"--things made by people that can always be replaced by better things made by people.
If you sincerely wish to be a revolutionary, it's not enough to memorize some formulas and phrases...the first duty of a revolutionary is to critically question every aspect of the social order s/he proposes to overthrow.
I daresay there will be customs and even something like "laws" in a classless society...but it's impossible for me to imagine that they would not be very different from what we know now. When you consider the magnitude of the changes we propose to make in the economic relations of society, can you think for a second that those changes won't be reflected throughout all of our social intercourse?
When capitalism's Titanic sinks beneath the waves, there's not much chance of saving the deck chairs...and no point that I can see to even trying.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 26, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What I thought we were talking about is someone who is an adult having sex with young kids which is wrong no matter how it happens. It is not a "social construct" to say that, it is simply wrong.
To demonstrate that human customs are not social constructs, you would have to show that they are universal, or so close to that as would make no difference.
The prohibition of murder within the group does seem to have that characteristic...every human society without exception thinks that murder is "wrong" and "evil". But even in this most "clear-cut" example, there are some surprising variations. Consider the legal concept of the "crime of passion", for example...a "social construct" if there ever was one.
And then, every human society devotes considerable energy to the aquisition, preparation, and consumption of food...we have no choice in the matter; we must eat in order to live.
But the ways in which we accomplish this necessity are obviously different...they are "social constructs."
Humans, being sociable hairless primates, gather in groups to mate and raise their young. The ways in which we do this are again quite variable...the customs, rules, and institutions surrounding this biological necessity are obviously "social constructs" -- things made by people for a purpose.
Things are not "just wrong" because you personally dislike them...when you are defending or attacking a custom, you are defending or attacking something that was made by people and can be strengthened or demolished by people based on rational discourse, not emotional reflexes that were programmed into you during your childhood.
Your feelings are just yours; you are perfectly free to conduct your own behavior in accordance with those feelings. If you think that something is "just wrong", then you don't do it...and don't even associate yourself with people who feel otherwise.
But when you enter into the public discussion of whether or not a particular social construct should be strengthened or demolished, the feeling that it's "just wrong" is insufficient. Your "feeling" is itself a social construct; in a different society you would have possibly had a different "feeling".
quote:
And if you're talking sex between two 8 year olds, well isn't there something inherently wrong with that too?
I suppose it's rare, but I'd be greatly surprised if there were not kids of that age who were curious enough to try. Of course, America's neo-puritans like to pretend that no one under the age of 18 (!) has any sexual feelings or even knows what such things are. Should we really even consider deferring to the judgments of these living fossils?
"Inherently wrong?" On what grounds?
quote:
So, having sex with an 8 year old, isn't molestation if the 8 year old "consents"?
Much of this kind of controversy does indeed turn on the nature of "consent" or even "informed consent". And it's a thorny problem because we humans are often of two minds on a proposed action; we say to ourselves "I want to and I don't want to". If we go ahead and do it, have we truly "consented"?
And do we really "know" exactly what we are consenting to? When I was eight, I was interested in baseball and science; a sexual overture towards me from an older kid or an adult would have puzzled and probably repulsed me.
But I didn't know anything; I was "protected" from any sort of sexual knowledge in accordance with the customs of that era. Suppose I had known and understood something of what human sexuality is really about...and suppose an attractive older person had "hit on me". I can't really say how I would have reacted...but who knows? Maybe it would have been great fun (kids like fun, you will recall), maybe not.
Or maybe it would have been no big deal...just one of the crazy things kids do while they're growing up.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 26, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Let me ask you RedStar, straight up, do you believe that a 30 year old guy sticking his dick in an 8 year old, consensual or not, is OK? In any circumstance at all, is there any way you would think that might be OK?
No, of course not.
But do you believe that there are very many eight-year-old females who "want" vaginal intercourse with a 30-year-old guy? I would think that would be an extraordinarily rare occurance.
This is the "social construct" that I proposed in an earlier post to this thread:
1. You may not have "consensual" sex with anyone who has not reached puberty if you have reached puberty.
2. You may not have "consensual" sex with anyone that you have any kind of authority over.
Now, as to penalties. As long as there was no violence or threat of violence involved, I think some sort of house arrest would be most appropriate. These people are sick, not "evil". The reason they are attracted to pre-pubescent children is that they are afraid of intimate relations with adults (who can hurt you).
Indeed, if their activities were confined to masturbation over cartoon kiddies on the internet, who would notice or care? (You know the answer to that one.)
Naturally, such people would not be allowed to have employment that would give them any kind of authority over pre-pubescent children, as they would certainly abuse that authority if they had the chance.
Otherwise, what's the fuss?
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 26, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Several studies have shown that it's not a matter of "if" pedophiles will strike, it's a matter of "when" they will strike.
Several studies? Why didn't you cite them? And the methodology must have been fascinating.
As always, I wonder if it is even possible to get a research grant any more unless you can promise the results will scare the hell out of the peons?
The studies you did cite suggest pedophilia may have, in some cases, neurological causes. I have no problems with that...they're still sick by any reasonable definition...and still harmless as long as they have no opportunity to "seduce" the prepubscent from positions of authority.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 27, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
It strikes me that there is something very odd about your approach to this whole question.
Do you honestly fear that there are "large numbers" of child molesters "out there" preying on pre-pubescent children and getting away with it?
And "more large numbers", presumably, awaiting their moment to "strike"?
Like "terrorists", is there a child molester under a bed near you? Is that your message?
I will certainly look at any studies that you choose to cite in defense of such a claim, but I tell you plainly my skepticism is at its highest setting when people purport to warn me of "great dangers" that can only be overcome with more police, more arrests, more trials, and more prisons.
I've heard it all before.
---------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 28, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------
I am astounded that you would offer the United States Department of Justice as a credible source for anything.
If those professional liars told me it was raining outside, I'd leave my umbrella at home. Good grief!
Where did you get your degrees, divinity school? There are 14-year-old kids on this board that understand that the government lies! How come you don't?
(The National Institute of Mental Health is another federal agency; undoubtedly their track record is superior to the DOJ...but even then I'd want some opinions from people who don't depend on a federal grant to do their "research" and come up with the "right" conclusions.)
It's really all about scaring people, isn't it? You think that's ok..."if these are the tactics that will get society to open its eyes to the issue."
It's interesting that you dismissed my earlier remarks along those lines as "silly"...and then proceed to illustrate their validity with exemplary fidelity.
Scaring people "in a good cause" is "ok, if it works."
You are not the only one, of course, to practice deliberate disinformation "for people's own good". Among the things we are supposed to be scared of: global warming, serial killers, second-hand cigarette smoke, "satanic cults", cell phone radiation, "poisoned" building syndrome, date rapists, all illegal drugs, genetically-engineered foods, paedophiles, illegal immigrants, and, of course, "terrorists".
The message is fear and the "remedy" is fascism.
The technical term for people who succumb to this hysteria: suckers.
And, as a side issue, it is rather sad that so many "scientists" have prostituted themselves in service to the fear racket...trying anything they can to get that next grant.
Which leads to another point. I've noticed that some people who find themselves alienated from the central propositions of capitalist society appear to be overly-concerned, in my opinion, with establishing the fact that they are "still"...what?...still "decent", still "normal", still somehow "in tune" with some of the accepted values of the social order they oppose.
When the idiocies of "racial science" were fashionable during the first quarter of the 20th century, there were many leftists who argued quite seriously that "socialism would improve the (white) race."
Or you might look at some of the posts on this board, where you can find ringing denunciations of "terrorism" that will match anything said by Bush & Company, the point being not to understand "terrorism" but to appear normal; i.e., outraged.
I suggest that you have fallen victim to this syndrome. Although you are technically a traitor to the social system of your country (as am I), you still want to share in the outrage and anger directed towards a despised minority...and you're willing to spread the "information" supplied by the infamous U.S. Department of Justice to do it.
That's a shame.
---------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 30, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------
Your question about government motives for lying is a thorny one, I will concede. We are not privy to their real deliberations nor have we the gift to see inside their heads. Sometimes, the rationale for lying is fairly straightforward; e.g., Iraq. Other times, there is probably a convergence of people with different agendas that would be served by more or less identical actions.
Why assert that there are "500,000" paedophiles in America, each with "more than 100" victims?
Fundamentalist religious zealots, an increasingly important constituency in American mainstream politics, are appalled at what they perceive to be rampant sexual "immorality" in America, especially among the young. Their agenda is to suppress adolescent sexuality altogether, as well as all female reproductive rights. By conflating real paedophilia (sex between post-pubescents and pre-pubescents) with "pseudo-paedophilia" (sex between people over some arbitrary age and people under some arbitrary age), they can create an "epidemic construct" that will buttress any and every draconian form of legal repression that their fertile little brains can imagine.
A 20-year-old guy with a 14-year-old girlfriend is not a paedophile...but if you can make him one in the public eye, that's a victory for the "Lord".
Likewise, some 50-year-old guy masturbating to a video of teen-age gay males having sex is not watching "child pornography"...but if you can make the label stick anyway, that's another victory for the "Lord".
Ok, that's one factor. A supporting factor is that we have a huge "law enforcement" establishment in the United States with direct material incentives to increase penalties for every existing "crime" and invent new "crimes" to ensure their continued growth and prosperity. The role of the California prison guards "union" is very instructive in this regard...they provided significant financing for the odious California "three-strike" law. Every new prison that California builds means new, well-paying jobs for people that would otherwise find day-labor to be intellectually too demanding...I'm talking thugs here.
I think this attitude is dominant in "law enforcement" from top to bottom: the more "crimes" there "are", the more "criminals" there "are", the better for us.
The "war on paedophilia" will never be the money-maker that the "war on drugs" is...but that's no reason not to soak it for all it's worth, right?
So that's another "converging agenda". Still another is the fact that employment in the sciences, especially the social sciences, is fiercely competitive these days. It is beyond rational belief that some scientists, when called upon by the government to "give us a number" (and I have seen that phrase actually used) will not yield to temptation to give a "suitable" number. All you have to do is take a small sample and start multiplying...and behold! You have an "official estimate". And since the labor and resources necessary to arrive at a true approximation are burdensome (who would finance the research? NAMBLA???), the "estimate" passes for "truth".
And finally there are those who happily dwell in the olympian heights of the ruling class...and who believe it is extraordinarily useful to rule a population paralyzed by fear. They don't give a rat's ass about paedophilia or drugs or crime or even terrorism...as long as the public is whipped hither and yon by fear of this or that, our rulers can feel safe.
These are the hypothetical explanations I would offer for the "epidemic" of paedophilia. But there are probably other factors that I've overlooked. Perhaps in a few decades when there are other "hysterias du jour", it will be possible to gain access to some documentation that would verify one or more of my suggested explanations.
In the meantime, I look forward to reading Culture of Fear.
You should too.
-------------------------------------------------------
First Posted at Che-Lives on June 4, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
I find myself almost at a loss for words to reply to you...mostly, I don't even grasp what you're attempting to say.
I "assume", for example, that you have "respect" for the Department of Justice because you yourself cited them as an "authoritative" source. If you don't respect them, why ever would you give their figures the time of day? I certainly don't "respect them"--I've already said that they were, in my view, professional liars.
Do you now agree with that assessment or do you still disagree?
I would not use words like "bourgeoisie" and "proletarian" in public propaganda; but on a left message board, their meanings are understood and I use them or not as mood dictates.
I can sympathize with your desire for "sources" -- there is a lot of "information" on the internet but not all that much information, if you take my meaning. Still, to repeat, this is a message board, not a professional journal. Very few people sit at their keyboards with a stack of journals beside them to justify every point they make.
I don't expect you to accept my hypotheses based on their logical coherence alone--that is, how well they explain what is otherwise inexplicable.
But I can't help but note that you seem remarkably uncritical in a Marxist sense of "sources"...apparently regarding them as "out there" like the scoreboard in right center field.
That's just wrong.
Has it really never occurred to you to question any so-called "authoritative sources"? I recall that you were upset about my reference to socialists in the first-quarter of the 20th century accepting and trying to use "racial science" as an "argument" for socialism.
But all they did, really, is what you are doing now. They uncritically accepted the "authoritative sources" of their era...even though they should have known better. Why? Because they already knew that the "authoritative sources" were wrong about capitalism...so they had every reason to be sceptical of anything that those "authoritative sources" might say that would have any bearing on human social relationships...such as "race".
I really don't know what else to tell you, guy. You didn't really respond to any of my actual points except for a repeated demand for "sources"...as if the authorities would actually go to the trouble of investigating my hypotheses. If it enlivens your existence to imagine hundreds of thousands of dirty old men groping small childen by the millions...well, what can I possibly say to that?
It starts to get like arguing with somebody who claims to have been abducted by aliens and anally probed.
Senseless.
-------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on June 5, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
quote:
...to think that any and all information produced by them is a lie is so completely juvenile it gives me quite a laugh.
I didn't say that, of course, but if it makes you feel better to laugh at your own wit, who am I to deny a man the simpler pleasures of life?
quote:
The only one that really cares about your opinion is you.
I have some small reason to believe you're wrong about that...but what difference does it make? What can anyone do but speak what s/he is convinced is true and let the chips fall where they may?
quote:
Try using facts in their place, it's a whole new universe.
But my challenge to you is not based on what the Department of Justice says (is that what you call "facts"?)...but whether or not the DOJ is to be believed?
The "Gospels" say that "Jesus rose from the dead"...that's a fact, they really do say that.
But are they to be believed?
-------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on June 5, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
========================================= |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| What "education" consists of now is on the same ethical level as teaching a cat to be afraid of mice...it is an abomination!
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
Duplicate entry '1152058125' for key 1 | |
