"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> >>I think my position is quite clear: no matter
> >>what means a society has for dealing with harm, those means should only
> >>be invoked when harm is demonstrated, not on the basis of status. In
> >>some cases a strong certainty of harm may be obvious: anal penetration
> >>of a two-year-old by an adult man will certainly cause harm and injury.
>
>
> > So should *that* be illegal,
>
> No. You just don't get it. I don't think ANYTHING should be illegal,
> because I don't think there should be LAWS enforced by the STATE.
>
> Is that clear enough for you?
==============
Yep, any thing perverted enough is fair game, right?



>
> Rat
> <snip>
>

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Yeah it was funny.
>
>
> You may think so, but it is NOT funny-- it is an example
> of the kind of sexist, homophobic comment that escalates
> into vicious prejudice in older children, teasing, beatings,
> harassment, and perhaps death. "***" has become a slur
> among youngsters because sexist, homophobic crap like
> jonnie's "joke" are tolerated by people like you.

No, that's not why. *** has become a slur because
queers overplayed their hand, and made themselves into
caricatures.

I think it's the funniest development I've seen in
years. I first began noticing this use of "***" a few
years ago, and it was obvious that it had been going on
for a lot of years before that.

Your solution, of course, is hate speech LAWS.

You massive PHONY.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Yeah it was funny.
>
> You may think so, but it is NOT funny-- it is an example
> of the kind of sexist, homophobic comment that escalates
> into vicious prejudice in older children, teasing, beatings,
> harassment, and perhaps death. "***" has become a slur
> among youngsters because sexist, homophobic crap like
> jonnie's "joke" are tolerated by people like you. I just
> hope none of your children turn out to be ***.
===============
Hey, maybe you could make it a 'hate crime'. Bet you'd support that, hey
rattie?


>
> Rat
>

rick etter wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Yeah it was funny.
>>
>>You may think so, but it is NOT funny-- it is an example
>>of the kind of sexist, homophobic comment that escalates
>>into vicious prejudice in older children, teasing, beatings,
>>harassment, and perhaps death. "***" has become a slur
>>among youngsters because sexist, homophobic crap like
>>jonnie's "joke" are tolerated by people like you. I just
>>hope none of your children turn out to be ***.
>
> ===============
> Hey, maybe you could make it a 'hate crime'. Bet you'd support that, hey
> rattie?

Yes, she would. She wouldn't want to call it a "law"
that made it a "crime", but the effect would be the same.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> >>I think my position is quite clear: no matter
> >>what means a society has for dealing with harm, those means should only
> >>be invoked when harm is demonstrated, not on the basis of status. In
> >>some cases a strong certainty of harm may be obvious: anal penetration
> >>of a two-year-old by an adult man will certainly cause harm and injury.
>
>
> > So should *that* be illegal,
>
> No. You just don't get it. I don't think ANYTHING should be illegal,
> because I don't think there should be LAWS enforced by the STATE.

So you think we should sit around and wait until we think something bad has
happened, then form possees of vigilantes to hunt down and string evil-doers
up? This is like the rest of your ideas, malformed and half-baked.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
> Rat & Swan wrote:

>> "***" has become a slur
>> among youngsters because sexist, homophobic crap like
>> jonnie's "joke" are tolerated by people like you.


> No, that's not why. *** has become a slur because queers overplayed
> their hand, and made themselves into caricatures.

No, jonnie -- it's because prejudice is still tolerated and reinforced
by bigoted adults like you. The term changes; the bigotry remains.

<snip>

> Your solution, of course, is hate speech LAWS.

<snip>

I have never advocated hate speech laws, or any other infringement
on freedom of speech, and you know it. I advocate tolerance even for
you, vile as you are.

Rat

rick etter wrote:

<snip>

> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message

<snip>

>>You may think so, but it is NOT funny-- it is an example
>>of the kind of sexist, homophobic comment that escalates
>>into vicious prejudice in older children, teasing, beatings,
>>harassment, and perhaps death. "***" has become a slur
>>among youngsters because sexist, homophobic crap like
>>jonnie's "joke" are tolerated by people like you. I just
>>hope none of your children turn out to be ***.

> ===============
> Hey, maybe you could make it a 'hate crime'. Bet you'd support that, hey
> rattie?

No, rick.

Rat

Dutch wrote:

<snip>

> So you think we should sit around and wait until we think something bad has
> happened, then form possees of vigilantes to hunt down and string evil-doers
> up?

No, Dutch.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
>>> "***" has become a slur
>>> among youngsters because sexist, homophobic crap like
>>> jonnie's "joke" are tolerated by people like you.
>
>
>
>> No, that's not why. *** has become a slur because queers overplayed
>> their hand, and made themselves into caricatures.
>>
>> I think it's the funniest development I've seen in years. I first
>> began noticing this use of "***" a few years ago, and it was obvious
>> that it had been going on for a lot of years before that.
>
> No, jonnie

Yes, ****drip. I have my finger on the pulse of pop
culture; you do not. You are too wrapped up in
clinging to ****witted ideologies you first encountered
nearly 40 ****ing years ago.

>
>> Your solution, of course, is hate speech LAWS.
>>
>> You massive PHONY.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> I have never advocated hate speech laws

Just as you claim not to advocate any "laws". Your
claim is a lie, nothing but the usual sophistry. You
DO advocate hate speech LAWS, you just do it in your
usual dishonest way.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> You may think so, but it is NOT funny-- it is an example
>>> of the kind of sexist, homophobic comment that escalates
>>> into vicious prejudice in older children, teasing, beatings,
>>> harassment, and perhaps death. "***" has become a slur
>>> among youngsters because sexist, homophobic crap like
>>> jonnie's "joke" are tolerated by people like you. I just
>>> hope none of your children turn out to be ***.
>
>
>> ===============
>> Hey, maybe you could make it a 'hate crime'. Bet you'd support that, hey
>> rattie?
>
>
> No, rick.

Yes, liar.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
> Rat & Swan wrote:

>>>> "***" has become a slur
>>>> among youngsters because sexist, homophobic crap like
>>>> jonnie's "joke" are tolerated by people like you.

>>> No, that's not why. *** has become a slur because queers overplayed
>>> their hand, and made themselves into caricatures.

<snip>

>> No, jonnie


> Yes,...I have my finger on the pulse of pop culture; you do
> not.

Ah, as I suspected; your nonsense about "one-upping" is another
form of projection -- you engage in it yourself, so you must attack
others, who do not, for it. Just like your fascist mindset.

You don't seem to understand the evolution of language. Things which
are disapproved, but which are not mentioned in polite society by
"vulgar" terms, acquire euphemisms. You are correct in that the ugly,
openly vicious terms you still employ, like "queer" and "faggot"
are generally no longer used in public discourse, except by a few
particularly repulsive open bigots, like you and Fred Phelps.
That is a minor bit of progress. However, as long as the underlying
prejudice remains, the alternate terms will, in time, take on the
contempt still applied to their denoted object. The original
euphemism then becomes "vulgar" in turn, and a new one takes its
place. That has happened to "***" among children's culture to some
extent. Terms like "idiot", "moron," "cretin", and terms like
"toilet" and "mortician" are other examples.

Rat
<snip>

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
>>>>> "***" has become a slur
>>>>> among youngsters because sexist, homophobic crap like
>>>>> jonnie's "joke" are tolerated by people like you.
>
>
>>>> No, that's not why. *** has become a slur because queers overplayed
>>>> their hand, and made themselves into caricatures.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> No, jonnie
>
>
>
>> Yes,...I have my finger on the pulse of pop culture; you do not.
>
>
> Ah, as I suspected; your nonsense about "one-upping" is another
> form of projection -- you engage in it yourself, so you must attack
> others, who do not, for it.

Nope. You plainly don't understand what I wrote.
Never mind; one more thing on your list won't matter.

>
> You don't seem to understand the evolution of language.

You are completely wrong, as usual. I understand the
evolution of language FAR better than you, which
wouldn't be hard, because you don't understand it AT ALL.

> [...] You are correct in that the ugly,
> openly vicious terms you still employ, like "queer" and "faggot"
> are generally no longer used in public discourse, except by a few
> particularly repulsive open bigots, like you and Fred Phelps.

Nope; how do you explain http://www.queernation.com/?
Are the people behind that webpage "particularly
repulsive open bigots"?

I reject - sneer at - the attempt by members of
political-darlings groups to grant themselves exclusive
license to use certain words. Queers call themselves
queers, *I* am going to call them queers. The End.

[snip remaining 'one-upper' bullshit and sophistry]

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > So you think we should sit around and wait until we think something bad
has
> > happened, then form possees of vigilantes to hunt down and string
evil-doers
> > up?
>
> No, Dutch.
>
> Rat

You want to do away with LAWS to deter crime, you want to do away with the
STATE, but you don't advocate vigilante justice..

I give up, what do we do about crime? Specifically what do we do to stop
sexual predators from targetting children?

Dutch wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>So you think we should sit around and wait until we think something bad
>
> has
>
>>>happened, then form possees of vigilantes to hunt down and string
>
> evil-doers
>
>>>up?
>>
>>No, Dutch.
>>
>>Rat
>
>
> You want to do away with LAWS to deter crime, you want to do away with the
> STATE, but you don't advocate vigilante justice..
>
> I give up, what do we do about crime? Specifically what do we do to stop
> sexual predators from targetting children?

She stupidly believes there is an "anarchist" -
non-state - solution to this. By definition there is
no state in anarchy, but there ARE laws, even if the
lying **** Karen doesn't want to call them that, and
there is a "state-like" entity that has all the
coercive powers of the modern state, even if the lying
shitbag Karen doesn't want to admit it. She is wrong.

Remember my earlier advice, Dutch: do NOT engage her
in a discussion of anarchism; it's part of her sleazy
strategy, just like ****WIT's never-ending circle of
deceit. Even if you spot what she's doing every step
of the way, it *still* is a time-wasting endeavor; just
a complete loss every step of the way. Her dystopian
vision could never succeed, and she knows it. The
whole thing is a smokescreen for the advancement of a
totalitarian agenda, and everyone knows it, including
the lying skank.

Rubystars wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> <snip>
>

>>>>>lot of times that the opposite sex is different down there.
>>
>>My son, currently 3 years 2 months, realized the
>>difference before he was 2 years old. He isn't blind.
>
>
> He's seen naked women?

Woman, singular: my wife/his mom (they're one and the
same); that's all among adult women, as far as I know.
She didn't and doesn't parade around the house naked;
she'd take him into the shower with her from the time
he was a little over 1 and could stand up in there on
his own, until maybe a little less than a year ago. I
thought it was time to stop before she did, but she
stopped when I suggested it. There are two neighbor
girls (sisters) up the street, one a few months older
than he is, the other about a year-and-a-half younger,
and I know he's seen them naked in the wading pool, in
their mom's presence and possibly at their house when
she has baby-sat for us.

When I went back in the 1990s to visit the family I
lived with in Switzerland back in the 1970s, they had a
granddaughter aged about 6 who still ran around in
their back yard naked. Yeah, that's the sinful,
decadent Europeans for ya! My boy's naked-al-fresco
time is strictly in the backyard now, although last
summer, he and the boy across the street thought
nothing of getting down to their skins in the front
yards as well.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

>> [...] You are correct in that the ugly,
>> openly vicious terms you still employ, like "queer" and "faggot"
>> are generally no longer used in public discourse, except by a few
>> particularly repulsive open bigots, like you and Fred Phelps.


> Nope; how do you explain http://www.queernation.com/? Are the people
> behind that webpage "particularly repulsive open bigots"?

No, they are *** -- and other -- people turning the bigots' terms
against them and reclaiming the language. Just as African-American
people sometimes call each other "******" -- but it is a deliberate
insult ( and recognized as such) when non-African-Americans use the
term to or about African-Americans. Try addressing an African-
American as "******" sometime and see what happens.

If you really understood the language, you would know this. Or, as
I suspect, you do know it, but are deliberately trying to appear
stupider than you are.

Rat

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote
> >
> >>
> >>Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>So you think we should sit around and wait until we think something bad
> >
> > has
> >
> >>>happened, then form possees of vigilantes to hunt down and string
> >
> > evil-doers
> >
> >>>up?
> >>
> >>No, Dutch.
> >>
> >>Rat
> >
> >
> > You want to do away with LAWS to deter crime, you want to do away with
the
> > STATE, but you don't advocate vigilante justice..
> >
> > I give up, what do we do about crime? Specifically what do we do to stop
> > sexual predators from targetting children?
>
> She stupidly believes there is an "anarchist" -
> non-state - solution to this.

I'd like to hear her description of what it is.

> By definition there is
> no state in anarchy, but there ARE laws, even if the
> lying **** Karen doesn't want to call them that, and
> there is a "state-like" entity that has all the
> coercive powers of the modern state, even if the lying
> shitbag Karen doesn't want to admit it. She is wrong.
>
> Remember my earlier advice, Dutch: do NOT engage her
> in a discussion of anarchism; it's part of her sleazy
> strategy, just like ****WIT's never-ending circle of
> deceit. Even if you spot what she's doing every step
> of the way, it *still* is a time-wasting endeavor; just
> a complete loss every step of the way. Her dystopian
> vision could never succeed, and she knows it. The
> whole thing is a smokescreen for the advancement of a
> totalitarian agenda, and everyone knows it, including
> the lying skank.

I'm more than willing to give her the rope to hang herself.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> [...] You are correct in that the ugly,
>>> openly vicious terms you still employ, like "queer" and "faggot"
>>> are generally no longer used in public discourse, except by a few
>>> particularly repulsive open bigots, like you and Fred Phelps.
>
>
>
>> Nope; how do you explain http://www.queernation.com/? Are the people
>> behind that webpage "particularly repulsive open bigots"?
>
>
> No, they are *** -- and other -- people turning the bigots' terms
> against them and reclaiming the language.

I don't care what you want to call it. I reject their
wish to have a double standard.

You have no expertise in language; you have merely been
indoctrinated, willingly, into political correctness,
something I've contended about you all along.

Once again, you lose.

Dutch wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>So you think we should sit around and wait until we think something bad
>>>
>>>has
>>>
>>>
>>>>>happened, then form possees of vigilantes to hunt down and string
>>>
>>>evil-doers
>>>
>>>
>>>>>up?
>>>>
>>>>No, Dutch.
>>>>
>>>>Rat
>>>
>>>
>>>You want to do away with LAWS to deter crime, you want to do away with
>
> the
>
>>>STATE, but you don't advocate vigilante justice..
>>>
>>>I give up, what do we do about crime? Specifically what do we do to stop
>>>sexual predators from targetting children?
>>
>>She stupidly believes there is an "anarchist" -
>>non-state - solution to this.
>
>
> I'd like to hear her description of what it is.

She already has, right on cue like one of Pavlov's
dogs, trotted out all the basic elements of it in this
thread.

>
>
>>By definition there is
>>no state in anarchy, but there ARE laws, even if the
>>lying **** Karen doesn't want to call them that, and
>>there is a "state-like" entity that has all the
>>coercive powers of the modern state, even if the lying
>>shitbag Karen doesn't want to admit it. She is wrong.
>>
>>Remember my earlier advice, Dutch: do NOT engage her
>>in a discussion of anarchism; it's part of her sleazy
>>strategy, just like ****WIT's never-ending circle of
>>deceit. Even if you spot what she's doing every step
>>of the way, it *still* is a time-wasting endeavor; just
>>a complete loss every step of the way. Her dystopian
>>vision could never succeed, and she knows it. The
>>whole thing is a smokescreen for the advancement of a
>>totalitarian agenda, and everyone knows it, including
>>the lying skank.
>
>
> I'm more than willing to give her the rope to hang herself.

Suit yourself. Don't complain later you weren't warned.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Dutch wrote:

<snip>
>> I give up, what do we do about crime? Specifically what do we do to stop
>> sexual predators from targetting children?

> She...believes there is an "anarchist" - non-state - solution to
> this.

Yes.

> By definition there is no state in anarchy, but there ARE laws,

Means of enforcing highly important social norms and providing
social safety, yes.

> even if the lying **** Karen doesn't want to call them that, and there
> is a "state-like" entity that has all the coercive powers of the modern
> state,

No. Such consensual social structures do not have state or state-like
coercive powers; that is what makes them different from State-enforced
laws. The most extreme power such social structures have is a form
of "shunning" -- which most responsible people wish to avoid -- but it
is only invoked when genuine, physical harm to others is involved.

<snip>

> Remember my earlier advice, Dutch: do NOT engage her in a discussion of
> anarchism;

Right, jon -- you know Dutch is a theoretical incompetent. He can't
even engage me in a decent discussion of AR.

Rat
<snip>

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Dutch wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I give up, what do we do about crime? Specifically what do we do to stop
>>> sexual predators from targetting children?
>
>
>> She...believes there is an "anarchist" - non-state - solution to this.
>
>
> Yes.

Yes, but stupidly and naively. There is no possibility
of "anarchism".

>
>> By definition there is no state in anarchy, but there ARE laws,

[snip futile attempt at dragging others into a quagmire]

We aren't here to discuss "anarchism". We also aren't
going to have a meta-discussion about the reason you
keep trying to bring it up, because that reason is
known and the issue is settled. The reason for it is
your arrested development. You became enamored of a
silly dystopian ideal back in your 20s, and you never
grew up.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > Dutch wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> I give up, what do we do about crime? Specifically what do we do to
stop
> >> sexual predators from targetting children?
>
> > She...believes there is an "anarchist" - non-state - solution to
> > this.
>
> Yes.
>
> > By definition there is no state in anarchy, but there ARE laws,
>
> Means of enforcing highly important social norms and providing
> social safety, yes.
>
> > even if the lying **** Karen doesn't want to call them that, and there
> > is a "state-like" entity that has all the coercive powers of the modern
> > state,
>
> No. Such consensual social structures do not have state or state-like
> coercive powers; that is what makes them different from State-enforced
> laws. The most extreme power such social structures have is a form
> of "shunning" -- which most responsible people wish to avoid -- but it
> is only invoked when genuine, physical harm to others is involved.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Remember my earlier advice, Dutch: do NOT engage her in a discussion of
> > anarchism;
>
> Right, jon -- you know Dutch is a theoretical incompetent. He can't
> even engage me in a decent discussion of AR.

Are you going to respond to my previous question or sooth yourself with ad
hominems?

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
news
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Rat & Swan" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Dutch wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>><snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>>So you think we should sit around and wait until we think something
bad
> >>>
> >>>has
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>happened, then form possees of vigilantes to hunt down and string
> >>>
> >>>evil-doers
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>up?
> >>>>
> >>>>No, Dutch.
> >>>>
> >>>>Rat
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You want to do away with LAWS to deter crime, you want to do away with
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>STATE, but you don't advocate vigilante justice..
> >>>
> >>>I give up, what do we do about crime? Specifically what do we do to
stop
> >>>sexual predators from targetting children?
> >>
> >>She stupidly believes there is an "anarchist" -
> >>non-state - solution to this.
> >
> >
> > I'd like to hear her description of what it is.
>
> She already has, right on cue like one of Pavlov's
> dogs, trotted out all the basic elements of it in this
> thread.
>
> >
> >
> >>By definition there is
> >>no state in anarchy, but there ARE laws, even if the
> >>lying **** Karen doesn't want to call them that, and
> >>there is a "state-like" entity that has all the
> >>coercive powers of the modern state, even if the lying
> >>shitbag Karen doesn't want to admit it. She is wrong.
> >>
> >>Remember my earlier advice, Dutch: do NOT engage her
> >>in a discussion of anarchism; it's part of her sleazy
> >>strategy, just like ****WIT's never-ending circle of
> >>deceit. Even if you spot what she's doing every step
> >>of the way, it *still* is a time-wasting endeavor; just
> >>a complete loss every step of the way. Her dystopian
> >>vision could never succeed, and she knows it. The
> >>whole thing is a smokescreen for the advancement of a
> >>totalitarian agenda, and everyone knows it, including
> >>the lying skank.
> >
> >
> > I'm more than willing to give her the rope to hang herself.
>
> Suit yourself. Don't complain later you weren't warned.

What makes you think I need you to protect me from her?

Dutch wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>>
>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>I give up, what do we do about crime? Specifically what do we do to
>
> stop
>
>>>>sexual predators from targetting children?
>>
>>>She...believes there is an "anarchist" - non-state - solution to
>>>this.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>> By definition there is no state in anarchy, but there ARE laws,
>>
>>Means of enforcing highly important social norms and providing
>>social safety, yes.
>>
>>
>>>even if the lying **** Karen doesn't want to call them that, and there
>>>is a "state-like" entity that has all the coercive powers of the modern
>>>state,
>>
>>No. Such consensual social structures do not have state or state-like
>>coercive powers; that is what makes them different from State-enforced
>>laws. The most extreme power such social structures have is a form
>>of "shunning" -- which most responsible people wish to avoid -- but it
>>is only invoked when genuine, physical harm to others is involved.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Remember my earlier advice, Dutch: do NOT engage her in a discussion of
>>>anarchism;
>>
>>Right, jon -- you know Dutch is a theoretical incompetent. He can't
>>even engage me in a decent discussion of AR.
>
>
> Are you going to respond to my previous question or sooth yourself with ad
> hominems?

She's going to attempt to bog you down in a pointless,
inane discussion of "anarchism". Your time would be
better spent palavering with flat-earthers; they make
more sense than any "anarchist" could hope to do.

Dutch wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> news

>>>>Remember my earlier advice, Dutch: do NOT engage her
>>>>in a discussion of anarchism; it's part of her sleazy
>>>>strategy, just like ****WIT's never-ending circle of
>>>>deceit. Even if you spot what she's doing every step
>>>>of the way, it *still* is a time-wasting endeavor; just
>>>>a complete loss every step of the way. Her dystopian
>>>>vision could never succeed, and she knows it. The
>>>>whole thing is a smokescreen for the advancement of a
>>>>totalitarian agenda, and everyone knows it, including
>>>>the lying skank.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm more than willing to give her the rope to hang herself.
>>
>>Suit yourself. Don't complain later you weren't warned.
>
>
> What makes you think I need you to protect me from her?

Whoa, Seabiscuit! I don't think anyone needs any
protection. It's merely a caution.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote
> >
> >>
> >>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>>I give up, what do we do about crime? Specifically what do we do to
> >
> > stop
> >
> >>>>sexual predators from targetting children?
> >>
> >>>She...believes there is an "anarchist" - non-state - solution to
> >>>this.
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >>
> >>
> >>> By definition there is no state in anarchy, but there ARE laws,
> >>
> >>Means of enforcing highly important social norms and providing
> >>social safety, yes.
> >>
> >>
> >>>even if the lying **** Karen doesn't want to call them that, and there
> >>>is a "state-like" entity that has all the coercive powers of the modern
> >>>state,
> >>
> >>No. Such consensual social structures do not have state or state-like
> >>coercive powers; that is what makes them different from State-enforced
> >>laws. The most extreme power such social structures have is a form
> >>of "shunning" -- which most responsible people wish to avoid -- but it
> >>is only invoked when genuine, physical harm to others is involved.
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>Remember my earlier advice, Dutch: do NOT engage her in a discussion
of
> >>>anarchism;
> >>
> >>Right, jon -- you know Dutch is a theoretical incompetent. He can't
> >>even engage me in a decent discussion of AR.
> >
> >
> > Are you going to respond to my previous question or sooth yourself with
ad
> > hominems?
>
> She's going to attempt to bog you down in a pointless,
> inane discussion of "anarchism". Your time would be
> better spent palavering with flat-earthers; they make
> more sense than any "anarchist" could hope to do.

That won't happen. If I don't get straightforward answers to my pertinent
questions very soon I will conclude that she doesn't know wtf she's talking
about.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> >>You may think so, but it is NOT funny-- it is an example
> >>of the kind of sexist, homophobic comment that escalates
> >>into vicious prejudice in older children, teasing, beatings,
> >>harassment, and perhaps death. "***" has become a slur
> >>among youngsters because sexist, homophobic crap like
> >>jonnie's "joke" are tolerated by people like you. I just
> >>hope none of your children turn out to be ***.
>
> > ===============
> > Hey, maybe you could make it a 'hate crime'. Bet you'd support that,
hey
> > rattie?
>
> No, rick.
=================
That's not what the posts say from your 'other' half.


>
> Rat
>

"Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > Dutch wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> I give up, what do we do about crime? Specifically what do we do to
stop
> >> sexual predators from targetting children?
>
> > She...believes there is an "anarchist" - non-state - solution to
> > this.
>
> Yes.
>
> > By definition there is no state in anarchy, but there ARE laws,
>
> Means of enforcing highly important social norms and providing
> social safety, yes.
>
> > even if the lying **** Karen doesn't want to call them that, and there
> > is a "state-like" entity that has all the coercive powers of the modern
> > state,
>
> No. Such consensual social structures do not have state or state-like
> coercive powers; that is what makes them different from State-enforced
> laws. The most extreme power such social structures have is a form
> of "shunning" -- which most responsible people wish to avoid -- but it
> is only invoked when genuine, physical harm to others is involved.

So in your dream state (in both senses), rape of an adult would not be a
crime, since the harm in a rape is primarily psychological trauma.

Psychopaths and sexual predators don't care about being shunned. Your ideal
society would appear to be an ideal playground for such people.

Dutch wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" > wrote
>
>>
>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>I give up, what do we do about crime? Specifically what do we do to
>
> stop
>
>>>>sexual predators from targetting children?
>>
>>>She...believes there is an "anarchist" - non-state - solution to
>>>this.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>> By definition there is no state in anarchy, but there ARE laws,
>>
>>Means of enforcing highly important social norms and providing
>>social safety, yes.
>>
>>
>>>even if the lying **** Karen doesn't want to call them that, and there
>>>is a "state-like" entity that has all the coercive powers of the modern
>>>state,
>>
>>No. Such consensual social structures do not have state or state-like
>>coercive powers; that is what makes them different from State-enforced
>>laws. The most extreme power such social structures have is a form
>>of "shunning" -- which most responsible people wish to avoid -- but it
>>is only invoked when genuine, physical harm to others is involved.
>
>
> So in your dream state (in both senses), rape of an adult would not be a
> crime, since the harm in a rape is primarily psychological trauma.
>
> Psychopaths and sexual predators don't care about being shunned. Your ideal
> society would appear to be an ideal playground for such people.

Ah! See, in her little "anarchism" board game, it's
not something as soft as "I'm not speaking to you any
longer." No, this "shunning" is an enforced exclusion
from *all* contact with the rest of society, and it
includes the forfeiture of all property of the one
shunned. The people remaining in the society are
forbidden to interact with the shunned one, upon pain
of being shunned themselves.

In the Commonwealth period in Iceland, there were two
such levels of "outlawry". If one were only sentenced
to the less severe level, one could regain admittance
to the society, but one of the requirements was to kill
three others who were fully "outlawed".

Make no mistake: Iceland in the Commonwealth era had
laws, and the enforcement of them was state-like. What
they had that distinguished it from the modern state is
that you could "resign" from your local chieftan's
group, and sign up with another, without changing place
of residence.

If you do a search on "anarchist societies", the other
principal one that pops up most often, in addition to
Iceland in the Commonwealth era, is...Somalia, 1990s.
Great place to live, eh?

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Dutch wrote:

>> "Rat & Swan" > wrote

<snip>
>>>> By definition there is no state in anarchy, but there ARE laws,

>>> Means of enforcing highly important social norms and providing
>>> social safety, yes.

>>>> even if the lying **** Karen doesn't want to call them that, and there
>>>> is a "state-like" entity that has all the coercive powers of the modern
>>>> state,

>>> No. Such consensual social structures do not have state or state-like
>>> coercive powers; that is what makes them different from State-enforced
>>> laws. The most extreme power such social structures have is a form
>>> of "shunning" -- which most responsible people wish to avoid -- but it
>>> is only invoked when genuine, physical harm to others is involved.

>> So in your dream state (in both senses), rape of an adult would not be a
>> crime, since the harm in a rape is primarily psychological trauma.

No -- psychological harm is a form of genuine harm which results from
the physical violence and coercion of rape. One major harm of rape is
that it is non-consensual.

>> Psychopaths and sexual predators don't care about being shunned. Your
>> ideal
>> society would appear to be an ideal playground for such people.

> Ah! See, in her little "anarchism" board game, it's not something as
> soft as "I'm not speaking to you any longer." No, this "shunning" is an
> enforced exclusion from *all* contact with the rest of society, and it
> includes the forfeiture of all property of the one shunned. The people
> remaining in the society are forbidden to interact with the shunned one,
> upon pain of being shunned themselves.

You see, jonnie, you do understand what anarchism involves, and you
understand that it can and does work under the right conditions. No
one says an anarchistic society must be perfect -- no society is
perfect. But it can work. The main difference between modern theories
of anarchism and Iceland is that modern anarchist theory comes out of
a society with much more experience with diversity of cultures and
the pitfalls of modern states.

> In the Commonwealth period in Iceland, there were two such levels of
> "outlawry". If one were only sentenced to the less severe level, one
> could regain admittance to the society, but one of the requirements was
> to kill three others who were fully "outlawed".

Which, of course, wouldn't apply in a modern anarchist society.

> Make no mistake: Iceland in the Commonwealth era had laws, and the
> enforcement of them was state-like. What they had that distinguished it
> from the modern state is that you could "resign" from your local
> chieftan's group, and sign up with another, without changing place of
> residence.

No, there were no laws as we use the term, nor was enforcement of them
"state-like." You provide the most important difference right above:
the person who does not want to participate in a particular anarchist
society has the freedom to resign from it and put himself outside it's
consensus. His original group can not legitimately pursue him further;
it can only refuse to include him in its protection and benefits.

> If you do a search on "anarchist societies", the other principal one
> that pops up most often, in addition to Iceland in the Commonwealth era,
> is...Somalia, 1990s. Great place to live, eh?

No. As I said, not all anarchist societies are good ones.


Rat

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> > news
> > >
> > > "Michael Saunby" > wrote in message
> > > <snip>
> > > > Perhaps not, but if you choose to define the crime by "age of
consent"
> > > then
> > > > it is the same crime.
> > >
> > > Neither party is really old enough to be able to support kids should
an
> > > accident happen (if its male/female sex), and neither party is mature
> > enough
> > > to weigh the risks of disease, etc. Both of these are related to
their
> > age.
> > >
> >
> > Age is a factor, but so is environment, education, and presumably
> culture -
> > since there is quite a deal of variability in age of consent from one
land
> > to another.
>
> For the purposes of this discussion I was talking about first world
> countries like the US and GB. I'm sure there is some culture somewhere,

Ok but for a European perspective, rather than a North American one you
need to understand that this age can be as low as 12 and may vary between
hetrosexual and homosexual age of consent, there may even be a lower age at
which marriage can occur with the consent of parents. The association of
sexual freedom and freedom to marry are perhaps not so much first world
values as Protestant values.

There was a programme on the radio the other night with some discussion of
how the modern notion of sex in England was "inventented" about 1750. It
was at this time that homosexuals became open about their sexuality and
this resulted in a response from others to declare their heterosexuality,
something that hadn't occured before and indeed it was claimed that most
people avoided penetrative sex before that date for obvious birth control
reasons. However once the type of sex a person has starts to be part of
what defines them as a person then all sorts of other issues result, e.g.
number of partners.

> where a girl is mature at the point of puberty and ready for married
life,
> but I really don't believe that's the case in the vast majority of
children
> in industrialized countries.

In some cultures marriage, or the promise of marriage, occurs long before
puberty - this is a cultural matter, not a sexual one.

>
> > > I don't think its the right thing to do, but I think that an adult
> > preying
> > > upon a child is much worse.
> > >
> >
> > Of course, but as I pointed out such a crime isn't actually defined by
the
> > age of the victim.
>
> That's a pretty reasonable thing to measure it by.
>

If that's what the crime is. Just as "dangerous driving" is generally
measured in MPH.

> > > I mean, compare a 15 year old having sex with a 15 year old, to a 30
> year
> > > old having sex with a 5 year old. Certainly the latter is much worse!
> > >
> >
> > In this example you've picked two very different situations. One factor
> > that makes them distinct is the age difference, but is that really what
> > troubles us?
>
> It's part of what troubles me.
>
> > Another example. If we assume an age of consent of 16 then how about a
30
> > year old women and a 15 year old boy, compared with a 15 year old boy
and
> > a 5 year old boy. In the first case the age difference is 15 years, in
> the
> > second only 10.
>
> Good point, clearly the 15 year old having sex with the 5 year old would
be
> worse. It seems complicated, but its really not.
>
> > > Another thing that's really bad about adults having sex with young
> > children,
> > > is that young children often don't even know sex exists. They may
have
> > been
> > > told some kind of story about where babies come from (The stork,
etc.)
> So
> > > when someone forces them down and penetrates them, they're being hurt
in
> > a
> > > way they didn't even think was possible. Little kids don't even
realize
> a
> > > lot of times that the opposite sex is different down there.
> >
> >
> > There's loads of stuff that's bad about it and a lot of psychological
harm
> > can be surely be done with no penetration at all.
>
> Yes, that's true.
>
> > >
> > > When I was in kindergarten I used to think the way to tell boys from
> > girls
> > > was that girls had long hair and boys had short hair. It got kind of
> > > confusing when I found out there were some girls who had short hair
too.
> > >
> >
> > If that's the worse thing that happened to you then you're clealry very
> > fortunate.
>
> Yeah I know
>
> > > > Of course that's why we have courts, with jury, etc.
> > > > to make an appropriate decision on each case - or so it is hoped.
> > >
> > > Yup.
> >
> > Which, hopefully, handles the punishment side. The purpose of the age
of
> > consent is to make it clear to folks what defines this crime. In the
past
> > it was probably easier since any sex outside marriage was a sin and in
> many
> > places therefore a crime.
>
> Sex outside of marriage generally isn't a good idea, IMO, whether its a
sin
> or not, is up to religious beliefs to indicate. I don't think the state
> should be involved in that though.
>

I understand that is the view in the US. In other cultures your mileage
may vary.

> I think the easiest and simplest way to handle this is the age of consent
> laws, that way a seemingly complicated problem is made simple.
>

First and foremost it's actually about consent. I expect the age of
consent laws we have were originally designed to protect against unlawful
marriage and have been extended to cover sexual behaviour.

> > > > Even so your insistence that the crime is defined by the age of the
> > victim
> > > > isn't entirely honest because we all know that in truth that in our
> own
> > > > minds we define the crime in terms of the age and to some extent
the
> > > > behaviour of the adult involved.
> > >
> > > The age of the victim is one factor, a very important factor.
> >
> > Of course, but it clearly there are other factors or we both wouldn't
be
> so
> > certain that it's wrong for adults to have sex, grope, and in many
cases
> > even discuss sex with children, or take photos of them....
>
> Yes, there are other factors. The naivety of young children, the lack of
> maturity of children in general, and many others.
>
> > > >In some UK cases, particularly where the
> > > > adult involved has been female, the public view seems to be that
they
> > are
> > > > simply immature themselves. Whether that's actually the case for
> adult
> > > > women that prey on young girls (or boys) I couldn't even guess.
> > >
> > > I think they're just perverts. Remember that people are trying to say
> > > Michael Jackson is just a child himself, too.
> > >
> >
> > Most people think they're perverts, that's why it's a crime. Indeed
> that's
> > why for most of the global population homosexuality is also a crime.
> What
> > you need to be sure of isn't that it's wrong, but why it's wrong and
how
> > you determine whether a crime has taken place. Age of consent helps,
I
> > won't deny it, but you must take other factors into consideration too.
>
> Of course other factors need to be weighed in but age of consent is a
simple
> way to say that everything below a certain age is illegal, then people
can
> deal with other circumstances in other ways.
>

Yes, but as with all such matter it's important to recognise that the law
is an instrument not an absolute definition of right or wrong. The notion
that sex on the day before the 16th birthday is wrong, and not the day
after isn't going to seem particularly rational to a child (or is it
adult?) of that age, because it isn't, but it is a necessary law for the
reasons we've discussed.

Michael Saunby

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>

>>> Psychopaths and sexual predators don't care about being shunned. Your
>>> ideal
>>> society would appear to be an ideal playground for such people.
>
>
>> Ah! See, in her little "anarchism" board game, it's not something as
>> soft as "I'm not speaking to you any longer." No, this "shunning" is
>> an enforced exclusion from *all* contact with the rest of society, and
>> it includes the forfeiture of all property of the one shunned. The
>> people remaining in the society are forbidden to interact with the
>> shunned one, upon pain of being shunned themselves.
>
>
> You see, jonnie, you do understand what anarchism involves, and you
> understand that it can and does work under the right conditions.

What I understand, what any person with a brain
understands, is that it does NOT work, and the "right
conditions" NEVER hold. This "right conditions"
bullshit is a non-testable excuse for utter failure.

> No one says an anarchistic society must be perfect -- no society is
> perfect. But it can work.

It can't. You know it. There isn't a penny's worth of
difference between you and "good" old-fashioned
Marxist-Leninists who said the state would "wither
away". The state will not wither away, AND YOU KNOW
IT. It would take a totalitarian state to attempt to
move to "anarchism", and that state would not wither
away, AND YOU KNOW IT.

>> In the Commonwealth period in Iceland, there were two such levels of
>> "outlawry". If one were only sentenced to the less severe level, one
>> could regain admittance to the society, but one of the requirements
>> was to kill three others who were fully "outlawed".
>
>
> Which, of course, wouldn't apply in a modern anarchist society.

Uh-huh. There is no reason it wouldn't.

>
>> Make no mistake: Iceland in the Commonwealth era had laws, and the
>> enforcement of them was state-like. What they had that distinguished
>> it from the modern state is that you could "resign" from your local
>> chieftan's group, and sign up with another, without changing place of
>> residence.
>
>
> No, there were no laws as we use the term,

Yes, there were. You are utterly ignorant. The very
terms for "outlaw" meant "outside the protection of
'Our Law'". 'Our Law' was, in effect, a deity. There
was a functionary whose job it was to recite 'Our Law'
annually, until they developed writing.

> nor was enforcement of them "state-like."

Yes, it most certainly was.

We are not here to discuss your stuck-in-your-youth
infatuation with an unworkable, mushy political theory.
We are here to discuss your support, TODAY, for
government and law:

The government is full of idiots and bullies, but
when I look at those who really need [help], I
can't see
any alternative for the present but to have some
government help.

Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM

We are discussing your support for the abolishment of a
*particular* set of laws, age-of-consent, but not
others. We are discussing your motive for the support:
aiding a group of queers who want to **** young boys,
inflicting what YOU acknowledge to be harm in *all* cases.

Michael Saunby wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, but as with all such matter it's important to recognise that the law
> is an instrument not an absolute definition of right or wrong. The notion
> that sex on the day before the 16th birthday is wrong, and not the day
> after isn't going to seem particularly rational to a child (or is it
> adult?) of that age, because it isn't, but it is a necessary law for the
> reasons we've discussed.

So what about the Netherlands? Do you (from your European perspective)
see any evidence that people there are scarred by having an age of
consent of 12? Do you see any evidence that behavior there would change
if there were no age of consent law?

<snip>

Rat

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>
> We are discussing your motive
> for the support: aiding a group of queers who want to **** young boys,
> inflicting what YOU acknowledge to be harm in *all* cases.

So -- I assume I should conclude that your motive for opposing
confiscation of guns in private hands is that you want to aid a
group of violent people who rob and murder. You can't possibly
have any other motive --

Rat

Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...

> > Make no mistake: Iceland in the Commonwealth era had laws, and the
> > enforcement of them was state-like. What they had that distinguished it
> > from the modern state is that you could "resign" from your local
> > chieftan's group, and sign up with another, without changing place of
> > residence.
>
> No, there were no laws as we use the term, nor was enforcement of them
> "state-like."

The laws of the old Alþingi were laws in the same sense as we use
today and some of them are still in use here in Iceland.

> You provide the most important difference right above:
> the person who does not want to participate in a particular anarchist
> society has the freedom to resign from it and put himself outside it's
> consensus. His original group can not legitimately pursue him further;
> it can only refuse to include him in its protection and benefits.

No one could resign from society, outlawry was a punishment, not a way
of escape. Changing from one Goði to another did not change your
responsibilities.

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> We are discussing your motive
>> for the support: aiding a group of queers who want to **** young
>> boys, inflicting what YOU acknowledge to be harm in *all* cases.
>
>
> So --

So:

- you are not opposed to laws, so your claim to be
opposed to age-of-consent laws *because* they are
laws is specious

- you acknowledge that young boys are harmed by anal
penetration, BASED ON THEIR AGE

- you have *already* acknowledged that you support
NAMBLA because you see it as a queer group

- you are a queer

Ergo, we conclude that solidarity with fellow deviants
is more important to you than protecting young boys
from CERTAIN harm, when a significant barrier to
pedophile queers is eliminated.

You are scum.

Sigvaldi Eggertsson wrote:

> Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...
>
>
>>>Make no mistake: Iceland in the Commonwealth era had laws, and the
>>>enforcement of them was state-like. What they had that distinguished it
>>>from the modern state is that you could "resign" from your local
>>>chieftan's group, and sign up with another, without changing place of
>>>residence.
>>
>>No, there were no laws as we use the term, nor was enforcement of them
>>"state-like."
>
>
> The laws of the old Alþingi

What is the third letter of that word, and how is it
pronounced?

> were laws in the same sense as we use
> today and some of them are still in use here in Iceland.
>
>
>>You provide the most important difference right above:
>>the person who does not want to participate in a particular anarchist
>>society has the freedom to resign from it and put himself outside it's
>>consensus. His original group can not legitimately pursue him further;
>>it can only refuse to include him in its protection and benefits.
>
>
> No one could resign from society, outlawry was a punishment, not a way
> of escape. Changing from one Goði to another did not change your
> responsibilities.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote

> >> So in your dream state (in both senses), rape of an adult would not be
a
> >> crime, since the harm in a rape is primarily psychological trauma.
>
> No -- psychological harm is a form of genuine harm which results from
> the physical violence and coercion of rape. One major harm of rape is
> that it is non-consensual.

Being compelled to do something is a far cry from "genuine, physical harm".
You seem to want to re-define your theory so it is essentially like the
democratic system under which we live now. Why don't you just accept that
the current system is better?

-snip-

Dutch wrote:
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote

<snip>

>>No -- psychological harm is a form of genuine harm which results from
>>the physical violence and coercion of rape. One major harm of rape is
>>that it is non-consensual.

> Being compelled to do something is a far cry from "genuine, physical harm".

Really? Let's see how you feel if you are raped.

> You seem to want to re-define your theory so it is essentially like the
> democratic system under which we live now.

Nope.

> Why don't you just accept that
> the current system is better?

Because it isn't.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>> Why don't you just accept that
>> the current system is better?
>
>
> Because it isn't.

It's real, it works well enough, and it works better
and more equitably than any other real system. Your
system is a weird board-game fantasy, unreal and
unworkable. It isn't worth discussing, and your
infatuation with it is not the interest of a
well-adjusted adult. But then, you aren't, never were,
and never could be a well-adjusted adult.