Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
*yawn* jon's at it again
Jonathan Ball wrote: his usual drivel. Having been shown that there is no way a genuine libertarian could not agree with my position on age on consent laws, and, therefore, jon is no libertarian -- indeed is unmasked as the fascist he truly is -- jon again flees discussion and resorts to lies. So -- this discussion becomes pointless again. When you're willing to actually discuss, jonnie -- as in your discussion of anarchism, which shows you DO understand my real position, and why it is a reasonable one -- you show glimmers of intelligence and a frustrating potential for real interaction -- frustrating because you waste so much potential in silly lies and inventions. A mind is a sad thing to waste, jonnie. <snip> >> Jonathan Ball wrote: <snip> > - you are not opposed to laws, so your claim to be > opposed to age-of-consent laws *because* they are > laws is specious false > - you acknowledge that young boys are harmed by anal > penetration, BASED ON THEIR AGE false. > - you have *already* acknowledged that you support > NAMBLA because you see it as a queer group true -- partly. > - you are a queer also true.... > Ergo, we conclude something utterly false, which I suspect you recognize is false. <snip> Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
*yawn* jon's at it again
In article >,
Rat & Swan > wrote: > > Rat > Whatever, take it elsewhere. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
Jonathan Ball > wrote in message thlink.net>...
> 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 Alțingi > > What is the third letter of that word, and how is it > pronounced? > It is a letter known as "Țorn" (Thorn) and is usually pronounced "Th" in english. It was in existance in Old english and words that begin with Th in english (They, Their etc) were originally written using that letter. |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter lies, whiffs off AGAIN
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > his usual drivel. > > Having been shown that there is no way a genuine libertarian > could not agree with my position on age on consent laws Nope. Nothing of the kind. But in your monumental arrogance and non-stop self-deception, you pretend you have. You are not the authority on genuine libertarianism. In fact, you are not an authority on ANYTHING pertinent to any of this. > <snip> > >>> Jonathan Ball wrote: > > > <snip> > >> - you are not opposed to laws, so your claim to be >> opposed to age-of-consent laws *because* they are >> laws is specious > > > false No, TRUE: 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 You are not opposed to government or laws. > >> - you acknowledge that young boys are harmed by anal >> penetration, BASED ON THEIR AGE > > > false. No, TRUE; what a truly stupid lie! Yes, it [sexual penetration of pre-teens] is harmful, I believe. THEREFORE it should be prohibited -- not because the boy is a certain age, but because the action involved is HARMFUL. Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM Indeed, I agree anal penetration of young [pre-teen] boys is harmful, and that it would be forbidden AS HARMFUL either as part of assault laws [snip dreamy irrelevant 'anarchist' bullshit]. Karen Winter, lying sophist in Santa Fe, NM You believe it is *always* harmful in the case of pre-teens, PRECISELY because of their age. > >> - you have *already* acknowledged that you support >> NAMBLA because you see it as a queer group > > > true -- partly. True, full stop. > >> - you are a queer > > > also true.... A deviant, in other words. > >> 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. > > > something utterly false Nope. We conclude that which the evidence leads to unswervingly. You are scum. |
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
Sigvaldi Eggertsson wrote:
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message thlink.net>... > >>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 Alțingi >> >>What is the third letter of that word, and how is it >>pronounced? >> > > > It is a letter known as "Țorn" (Thorn) and is usually pronounced "Th" > in english. It was in existance in Old english and words that begin > with Th in english (They, Their etc) were originally written using > that letter. Țank you. |
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
|
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
"Rat & Swan" > wrote > > > 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. The physical harm in most rapes is the assault prompted by the victim resisting, or added gratituitously by the rapist. If I demand forcefully that a woman have sex with me, and she cooperates out of fear of being harmed, then physically all that has happened is sex. Since sex in and of itself is not "genuine, physical harm" then by your definition nothing wrong has happened. > > You seem to want to re-define your theory so it is essentially like the > > democratic system under which we live now. > > Nope. Yes. You made a proposition that only genuine physical harm should be considered a crime, then you defined unwanted sex as genuine physical harm, when in fact it is psychological harm. > > Why don't you just accept that > > the current system is better? > > Because it isn't. You're full of shit. Your shitty logic has you running in circles, and condoning horrible harm to children, for the sake of protecting the jollies of a few perverts. The only logical conclusion is that you are one yourself. |
|
|||
|
|||
Give me a break!
Russ Thompson wrote:
> (snip) > *** Yes I know very well what AFO and CAFOs are and what is and isn't > one. > This is our business after all. > Then you must agree when a Wisconsin agency calls a CAFO a "confined animal feeding operation", they are redundant. |
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
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. > The physical harm in most rapes is the assault prompted by the victim > resisting, or added gratituitously by the rapist. If I demand forcefully > that a woman have sex with me, and she cooperates out of fear of being > harmed, then physically all that has happened is sex. Since sex in and of > itself is not "genuine, physical harm" then by your definition nothing wrong > has happened. Genuine harm does not have to involve much physical damage, but the point is that there is real harm, genuine harm, not that a simple status is involved, like an age, or being ***, or some such thing. Change it, perhaps, to "genuine, real harm", or "genuine, objective harm" -- something involving the real world. I think you understand what I mean. <snip> > You're full of shit. Your shitty logic has you running in circles, and > condoning horrible harm to children, for the sake of protecting the jollies > of a few perverts. The only logical conclusion is that you are one yourself. That is certainly not the "only logical conclusion" -- and you know it. Freedom is always capable of abuse, but freedom is the central value on which all others are based, and without it, nothing else is of real value. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
"Rat & Swan" > wrote
> > > 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. > > > The physical harm in most rapes is the assault prompted by the victim > > resisting, or added gratituitously by the rapist. If I demand forcefully > > that a woman have sex with me, and she cooperates out of fear of being > > harmed, then physically all that has happened is sex. Since sex in and of > > itself is not "genuine, physical harm" then by your definition nothing wrong > > has happened. > > Genuine harm does not have to involve much physical damage, but the > point is that there is real harm, genuine harm, not that a simple > status is involved, like an age, or being ***, or some such thing. > Change it, perhaps, to "genuine, real harm", or "genuine, objective > harm" -- something involving the real world. I think you understand > what I mean. Fine, I accept the stipulation. The central point that you can't seem to grasp is that prevailing understanding of sex between adults and children is that it is damaging *frequently enough* to warrant prohibition. Shooting off a gun on a public street or driving while drunk doesn't *always* result in harm to innocents either, but it occurs often enough that those freedoms are best curtailed. I may *love* getting hammered and driving my Camaro fast down Main Street, I amy be quite confident that *I* can do so safely, but society makes it illegal for everyone, to protect innocent citizens. <snip> > > > You're full of shit. Your shitty logic has you running in circles, and > > condoning horrible harm to children, for the sake of protecting the jollies > > of a few perverts. The only logical conclusion is that you are one yourself. > > That is certainly not the "only logical conclusion" -- and you know it. Everything about your position reeks of it. You speak as one who is sexually attracted to children but believe in yourself that you would never harm one or force your attentions upon one. That may be true, some people think they can drink and drive quite safely too, but that doesn't matter, the only effective safety measure is to prohibit drinking and driving. > Freedom is always capable of abuse, but freedom is the central value > on which all others are based, and without it, nothing else is > of real value. Freedom is the easy part. Democratic rights are all about accepting limitations on one's own freedom on behalf of a greater good. It doesn't matter what kind of social structure you want to place it in, it always boils down to that. |
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
Dutch wrote: > "Rat & Swan" > wrote <snip> >>Genuine harm does not have to involve much physical damage, but the >>point is that there is real harm, genuine harm, not that a simple >>status is involved, like an age, or being ***, or some such thing. >>Change it, perhaps, to "genuine, real harm", or "genuine, objective >>harm" -- something involving the real world. I think you understand >>what I mean. > Fine, I accept the stipulation. The central point that you can't seem to > grasp is that prevailing understanding of sex between adults and children is > that it is damaging *frequently enough* to warrant prohibition. And what you can't seem to grasp is that that prohibition does not have to be enforced by State force, and does not have to be defined on the basis of age _per se_. It can be defined on a case-by-case basis on the basis of demonstrable HARM. <snip> > > >>>You're full of shit. Your shitty logic has you running in circles, and >>>condoning horrible harm to children, for the sake of protecting the > jollies >>>of a few perverts. The only logical conclusion is that you are one > yourself. >>That is certainly not the "only logical conclusion" -- and you know it. > Everything about your position reeks of it. You speak as one who is sexually > attracted to children but believe in yourself that you would never harm one > or force your attentions upon one. I am not sexually attracted to children -- but think whatever you want. I don't care. The logic of my position does not depend on belonging to any particular sexual orientation. <snip> >>Freedom is always capable of abuse, but freedom is the central value >>on which all others are based, and without it, nothing else is >>of real value. > Freedom is the easy part. Democratic rights are all about accepting > limitations on one's own freedom on behalf of a greater good. Accepting limitations, and having stupid, ill-conceived, and unjust limitations on one's freedom thrust upon one by the State are two different things. <snip> Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > Dutch wrote: > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote > > <snip> > > >>Genuine harm does not have to involve much physical damage, but the > >>point is that there is real harm, genuine harm, not that a simple > >>status is involved, like an age, or being ***, or some such thing. > >>Change it, perhaps, to "genuine, real harm", or "genuine, objective > >>harm" -- something involving the real world. I think you understand > >>what I mean. > > > Fine, I accept the stipulation. The central point that you can't seem to > > grasp is that prevailing understanding of sex between adults and children is > > that it is damaging *frequently enough* to warrant prohibition. > > And what you can't seem to grasp is that that prohibition does not have > to be enforced by State force, and does not have to be defined on the > basis of age _per se_. It can be defined on a case-by-case basis on the > basis of demonstrable HARM. And what you can't seem to grasp is that by that time it's too late. After a person kills an innocent pedestrian it's too late to prohibit them from driving while drunk. > <snip> Yes, snip indeed, snip the analogies that expose the folly of your position. <unsnip> Shooting off a gun on a public street or driving while drunk doesn't *always* result in harm to innocents either, but it occurs often enough that those freedoms are best curtailed. I may *love* getting hammered and driving my Camaro fast down Main Street, I amy be quite confident that *I* can do so safely, but society makes it illegal for everyone, to protect innocent citizens. > >>>You're full of shit. Your shitty logic has you running in circles, and > >>>condoning horrible harm to children, for the sake of protecting the > > jollies > >>>of a few perverts. The only logical conclusion is that you are one > > yourself. > > >>That is certainly not the "only logical conclusion" -- and you know it. > > > Everything about your position reeks of it. You speak as one who is sexually > > attracted to children but believe in yourself that you would never harm one > > or force your attentions upon one. > > I am not sexually attracted to children -- but think whatever you want. > I don't care. The logic of my position does not depend on belonging to > any particular sexual orientation. There is no valid logic to your position, that's why it appears that you're operating from the kind of rationalization that an alcoholic might use when excusing his habit of driving while intoxicated. > > <snip> > > >>Freedom is always capable of abuse, but freedom is the central value > >>on which all others are based, and without it, nothing else is > >>of real value. > > > Freedom is the easy part. Democratic rights are all about accepting > > limitations on one's own freedom on behalf of a greater good. > > Accepting limitations, and having stupid, ill-conceived, and unjust > limitations on one's freedom thrust upon one by the State are two > different things. Thrust by "the State" eh? Who do you suggest do the thrusting? And why must we wait until we discover damaged children? The freedom you are asking for is to risk aggregious harm to children before action is taken, and for what, to satisfy the lusts of a few perverts. Do you also wish to allow the freedom to shoot off handguns in schoolyards until harm is done, or shall you allow the State to "thrust" limitations on that? |
|
|||
|
|||
Age of Consent Laws
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > 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? The important issue is surely that they have an age of consent and it corresponds with some sensible notion of sexual and intellectual maturity. Yes it's lower than in the UK and USA but my impression of the Dutch is that although their laws seem very liberal they are quite inflexible in the application of those laws. It wouldn't surprise we to learn that have sex with a person of 12 years less one day is treated as a serious offence, as would having sex with anyone above that age without their consent. To my mind it doesn't add weight to your belief that there should be no fixed age of consent. All it does is raise a question as to whether it should be linked to the age at which sexual maturity occurs or the age at which individuals are free to marry. > Do you see any evidence that behavior there would change > if there were no age of consent law? > Absolutely. The Dutch (like all the rest (or most?) of continental Europe) don't have trial by jury so clearly defined laws are a must. The Dutch are very liberal, but also very inflexible. They also allow euthenasia - do you believe there should be no lower age at which a person may ask a doctor to end their life? Michael Saunby |
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
Dutch wrote: > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message <snip> >>And what you can't seem to grasp is that that prohibition does not have >>to be enforced by State force, and does not have to be defined on the >>basis of age _per se_. It can be defined on a case-by-case basis on the >>basis of demonstrable HARM. > And what you can't seem to grasp is that by that time it's too late. After a > person kills an innocent pedestrian it's too late to prohibit them from > driving while drunk. And did the law prevent them from driving drunk? No. The law doesn't prevent anyone from killing pedestrians while drunk -- or while sober. The people who violate the law are the same people who would violate responsible behavior if there were no law. The law won't bring the dead person back. Nor did Prohibition end drunk driving. Prohibition merely punished responsible drinkers and made money for bootleggers. Drunk driving laws merely punish after the harm is done. Age of consent laws do the same. <snip> >>>>Freedom is always capable of abuse, but freedom is the central value >>>>on which all others are based, and without it, nothing else is >>>>of real value. >>>Freedom is the easy part. Democratic rights are all about accepting >>>limitations on one's own freedom on behalf of a greater good. >>Accepting limitations, and having stupid, ill-conceived, and unjust >>limitations on one's freedom thrust upon one by the State are two >>different things. > Thrust by "the State" eh? Who do you suggest do the thrusting? I don't suggest anyone do "the thrusting." I suggest people be educated, and those who demonstrate no ability to live responsibly in society be shunned. > And why must > we wait until we discover damaged children? Education begins at birth. We do not wait for any damage. The point is that the law does not kick in UNTIL after the victim is damaged. It is pointless as a means to to avoid damaging anyone. It is only institutionalized revenge. > The freedom you are asking for is to risk aggregious harm to children before > action is taken, and for what, to satisfy the lusts of a few perverts. No, to allow _responsible_ freedom for all. <snip> Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > Dutch wrote: > > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message > > <snip> > >>And what you can't seem to grasp is that that prohibition does not have > >>to be enforced by State force, and does not have to be defined on the > >>basis of age _per se_. It can be defined on a case-by-case basis on the > >>basis of demonstrable HARM. > > > And what you can't seem to grasp is that by that time it's too late. After a > > person kills an innocent pedestrian it's too late to prohibit them from > > driving while drunk. > > And did the law prevent them from driving drunk? No. You aren't seriously arguing that laws have no effect? > The law doesn't prevent anyone from killing pedestrians while drunk -- > or while sober. You *are* serious.. how can you take such a ridiculous position? >The people who violate the law are the same people who > would violate responsible behavior if there were no law. What about the people who don't do the behaviour *because* there is a law? What about the potential victims of harm that are spared? > The law won't > bring the dead person back. Strawman, I didn't suggest anything could revive dead bodies. What I am TELLING you is that making something *illegal* SIGNIFICANTLY reduces that behaviour, in ALL cases. In increases voluntary compliance, it increases social stigma, and enforcement is a deterrence. > Nor did Prohibition end drunk driving. > Prohibition merely punished responsible drinkers and made money for > bootleggers. Prohibition is not the issue, taking drugs per se is a victimless crime. *Driving* while drunk is the issue. > Drunk driving laws merely punish after the harm is done. False, they deter people from driving while drunk, and they punish/deter people who do *before* they do any harm. Waiting for harm to occur as you suggest is signing a death warrant for millions of innocent people. > Age of consent laws do the same. Age of consent laws deter pedophiles from engaging in sexual predatory behaviour and punish those who do. Perverts can't get at innocent children while they are behind bars. <snip> Why do you keep snipping relevant arguments? <unsnip analogy that illustrates the folly of your position> Shooting off a gun on a public street or driving while drunk doesn't *always* result in harm to innocents either, but it occurs often enough that those freedoms are best curtailed. I may *love* getting hammered and driving my Camaro fast down Main Street, I may be quite confident that *I* can do so safely, but society makes it illegal for everyone, to protect innocent citizens. > >>>>Freedom is always capable of abuse, but freedom is the central value > >>>>on which all others are based, and without it, nothing else is > >>>>of real value. > > >>>Freedom is the easy part. Democratic rights are all about accepting > >>>limitations on one's own freedom on behalf of a greater good. > > >>Accepting limitations, and having stupid, ill-conceived, and unjust > >>limitations on one's freedom thrust upon one by the State are two > >>different things. > > > Thrust by "the State" eh? Who do you suggest do the thrusting? > > I don't suggest anyone do "the thrusting." I suggest people be > educated, and those who demonstrate no ability to live responsibly > in society be shunned. If "shunning" isn't a "thrust" then what is it? If the rest of society isn't represented by the state then what does? > > And why must > > we wait until we discover damaged children? > > Education begins at birth. We do not wait for any damage. The > point is that the law does not kick in UNTIL after the victim is > damaged. You just contradicted yourself in the previous two sentences. You don't wait for damage, and the law kicks in *after* the damage is done. Can't you see the tenuous position you are in? > It is pointless as a means to to avoid damaging anyone. > It is only institutionalized revenge. Laws and legal penalities are a deterrent, not revenge. It's also not entirely a bad thing for the victims and family to obtain some revenge against child abusers. > > The freedom you are asking for is to risk aggregious harm to children before > > action is taken, and for what, to satisfy the lusts of a few perverts. > > No, to allow _responsible_ freedom for all. We have that already. It's not responsible behaviour for adults to engage in sex with children, it's selfish and almost universally damaging to the child. The freedom you advocate is _irresponsible_freedom for all to cause harm until they get caught. If you aren't a pedophile then I can only conclude that you were a victim of a pedophile and you are desperately trying to convince yourself that the experience was not responsible for your neurotic life. |
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
<snip> Dutch wrote: > Prohibition is not the issue, taking drugs per se is a victimless crime. > *Driving* while drunk is the issue. Bingo. You do get it. Prohibiting behavior which causes no harm is wrong. Sexual activity at any age (depending on what it is) can be harmless _per se_, just like drinking can be harmless _per se_. It is irresponsible behavior which causes harm which is wrong. <snip> > Age of consent laws deter pedophiles from engaging in sexual predatory > behaviour No, not at all. Sexual predators don't CARE about laws, or about responsible behavior. They will act because they feel they have a right to act if they want to do so, no matter who is hurt, and most such people (like anyone who acts without concern for others) regard laws as simply another handicap to evade, like victims who resist or angry relatives. If you look at gang behavior or Mafia behavior -- where the people feel justified in their actions -- those in the culture actually gain points with their fellow gang members or Mafiosi by managing to evade the law successfully. Those who go to prison often get little tatoos to show they've served their time without breaking. People who are arrested for civil disobedience or some other act (like animal liberation or helping slaves through the underground railroad) are also often seen as heroes by those who share their views. Unless the person feels the behavior is wrong, punishment becomes either a source of resentment or a source of bragging-rights to one's fellows. If the person _already_ feels the behavior is wrong, punishment after the fact is superfluous. > Perverts can't get at innocent children > while they are behind bars. So -- why not lock up the entire population and let them out only as work-gangs under guard? Then we'd all be SO much safer.... <snip> >>>>Accepting limitations, and having stupid, ill-conceived, and unjust >>>>limitations on one's freedom thrust upon one by the State are two >>>>different things. >>>Thrust by "the State" eh? Who do you suggest do the thrusting? >>I don't suggest anyone do "the thrusting." I suggest people be >>educated, and those who demonstrate no ability to live responsibly >>in society be shunned. > If "shunning" isn't a "thrust" then what is it? It's a negative potentiality, true. People want to avoid it, true. But it is not a punishment; it is simply setting the person who can't play by the voluntary rules outside the playground until he can play nice again. > If the rest of society isn't > represented by the state then what does? People represent themselves. I don't need a State to represent me. >>>And why must >>>we wait until we discover damaged children? >>Education begins at birth. We do not wait for any damage. The >>point is that the law does not kick in UNTIL after the victim is >>damaged. > You just contradicted yourself in the previous two sentences. No, I didn't. > You don't wait > for damage, and the law kicks in *after* the damage is done. Can't you see > the tenuous position you are in? >>It is pointless as a means to to avoid damaging anyone. >>It is only institutionalized revenge. > Laws and legal penalities are a deterrent, not revenge. But they don't deter well, if at all, unless people feel the behavior is wrong for them to do. Prohibition is a perfect example. The social harm of the prohibition was worse than the situation before the law went into effect; just like the current War on Drugs. > It's also not > entirely a bad thing for the victims and family to obtain some revenge > against child abusers. Revenge is always wrong. <snip> > If you aren't a pedophile then I can only conclude that you were a victim of > a pedophile Nope, not that either. I am just a person who believes in freedom, responsible freedom. <snip> Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Winter, tireless but tiresome sophist
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > <snip> > > Dutch wrote: > >> Prohibition is not the issue, taking drugs per se is a victimless crime. >> *Driving* while drunk is the issue. > > > Bingo. You do get it. Prohibiting behavior which causes no harm > is wrong. Grown men ****ing pre-teen boys ALWAYS causes harm, and is ALWAYS wrong. You have conceded that it is age-determined, although you are too stubborn and stupid to acknowledge the concession now. > Sexual activity at any age (depending on what it is) > can be harmless _per se_, just like drinking can be harmless _per se_. > It is irresponsible behavior which causes harm which is wrong. Adult men ****ing pre-teen boys ALWAYS causes harm, and is ALWAYS wrong. You've conceded that. > > <snip> > >> Age of consent laws deter pedophiles from engaging in sexual predatory >> behaviour > > > No, not at all. Yes, AT ALL. > Sexual predators don't CARE about laws, or about > responsible behavior. You are plainly wrong to claim they don't care about the law. They may not respect the law intellectually, but many do indeed "respect" the law in the sense of being deterred. There is a wealth of literature in the criminology and economics literature that examines the deterrent effect of punishments. You are completely unfamiliar with the literature, and have your usual ideologically driven sophist's need to pretend it isn't there. It is there, and it refutes you. >> If you aren't a pedophile then I can only conclude that you were a >> victim of a pedophile > > > Nope, not that either. I am just a person who believes in freedom, > responsible freedom. No, you don't. You believe in you and your fellow queers enjoying special privileges. |
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message ... > > > <snip> > > Dutch wrote: > > > Prohibition is not the issue, taking drugs per se is a victimless crime. > > *Driving* while drunk is the issue. > > Bingo. You do get it. Prohibiting behavior which causes no harm > is wrong. Sexual activity at any age (depending on what it is) > can be harmless _per se_, just like drinking can be harmless _per se_. You still don't get it. Drinking and driving can also be harmless, few of us can honestly say we have never done it, but on balance it makes sense to outlaw it, to protect innocent victims. > It is irresponsible behavior which causes harm which is wrong. That's false, all irresponsible behaviour is wrong. Drinking and drving is wrong even when it causes *no harm* because it bears a high probabilty of causing harm, it poses undue risk to innocents. The same is true of sex between adults and children. > <snip> > > > Age of consent laws deter pedophiles from engaging in sexual predatory > > behaviour > > No, not at all. Yes. All pedophiles (meaning any adult who wishes to approach children sexually) are not criminals. Sexual predators don't CARE about laws, or about > responsible behavior. Sexual predators will to attempt to establish sexual contact with children if *they* believe (i.e. convince themselves) that it will not harm the child, and if it is legal. Why wouldn't they? > They will act because they feel they have > a right to act if they want to do so, They do have the right if there's no law against it. > no matter who is hurt, Not all pedophiles believe they are harming their victims. I would submit that many think they are doing them a favour. > and > most such people (like anyone who acts without concern for others) > regard laws as simply another handicap to evade, like victims who > resist or angry relatives. You are discounting that there are law-abiding pedophiles who respect the wishes of society. There will always be law-breakers, that's no reason to abandon all laws. > If you look at gang behavior or Mafia behavior -- where the people > feel justified in their actions -- those in the culture actually > gain points with their fellow gang members or Mafiosi by managing to > evade the law successfully. Those who go to prison often get little > tatoos to show they've served their time without breaking. > People who are arrested for civil disobedience or some other act > (like animal liberation or helping slaves through the underground > railroad) are also often seen as heroes by those who share their > views. Unless the person feels the behavior is wrong, punishment becomes > either a source of resentment or a source of bragging-rights to one's > fellows. If the person _already_ feels the behavior is wrong, > punishment after the fact is superfluous. I don't know what you're getting at. Are we supposed to adopt a Mafia mentality? > > Perverts can't get at innocent children > > while they are behind bars. > > So -- why not lock up the entire population and let them out only as > work-gangs under guard? Then we'd all be SO much safer.... The entire population aren't child molestors. > <snip> > >>>>Accepting limitations, and having stupid, ill-conceived, and unjust > >>>>limitations on one's freedom thrust upon one by the State are two > >>>>different things. > > >>>Thrust by "the State" eh? Who do you suggest do the thrusting? > > >>I don't suggest anyone do "the thrusting." I suggest people be > >>educated, and those who demonstrate no ability to live responsibly > >>in society be shunned. > > > If "shunning" isn't a "thrust" then what is it? > > It's a negative potentiality, true. People want to avoid it, true. > But it is not a punishment; it is simply setting the person who > can't play by the voluntary rules outside the playground until he > can play nice again. That's just what prison does. It sounds more brutal than any prison to me, and I see no reason to assume it would be more effective. > > If the rest of society isn't > > represented by the state then what does? > > People represent themselves. I don't need a State to represent me. How are you going to intervene when a child is molested in your state or city? How are you going to assess physical and emotional harm? How will you even know? > >>>And why must > >>>we wait until we discover damaged children? > > >>Education begins at birth. We do not wait for any damage. The > >>point is that the law does not kick in UNTIL after the victim is > >>damaged. > > > You just contradicted yourself in the previous two sentences. > > No, I didn't. Du-uuh! (A) We do not wait for any damage. and (B) the law does not kick in UNTIL after the victim is damaged. How can you act *after* the victim is damaged if you don't wait for any damage? You're a walking contradiction. > > You don't wait > > for damage, and the law kicks in *after* the damage is done. Can't you see > > the tenuous position you are in? > > >>It is pointless as a means to to avoid damaging anyone. > >>It is only institutionalized revenge. > > > Laws and legal penalities are a deterrent, not revenge. > > But they don't deter well, if at all, unless people feel the > behavior is wrong for them to do. Most law-abiding people develop the notion that a thing is wrong if it is illegal, provided the law is reasonable and rational. > Prohibition is a perfect > example. I already told you, it's a terrible example, taking drugs in an of itself is a victimless crime, approaching children for sex is not. > The social harm of the prohibition was worse than > the situation before the law went into effect; just like the > current War on Drugs. See above. > > It's also not > > entirely a bad thing for the victims and family to obtain some revenge > > against child abusers. > > Revenge is always wrong. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." It's not a good motivation, but it's not a bad side effect. <snip> <avoidance> > > > If you aren't a pedophile then I can only conclude that you were a victim of > > a pedophile > > Nope, not that either. I am just a person who believes in freedom, > responsible freedom. You believe in freedom for pedophiles to approach children, why would anyone hold onto such a terrible idea? Do you actually believe that pedophiles can be allowed to be the judges of whether or not their actions will be harmful? |
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
I think we've more or less exhausted this topic.
Dutch wrote: <snip> > You are discounting that there are law-abiding pedophiles who respect the > wishes of society. Well, duh -- what do you think I've been talking about? <snip> > Most law-abiding people develop the notion that a thing is wrong if it is > illegal, provided the law is reasonable and rational. Again, duh -- <snip> Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Anarchism (Dutch: words of warning)
"Rat & Swan" > wrote
> I think we've more or less exhausted this topic. I agree, I've plainly shown that your position is irrational, yet you cling doggedly to it anyway. So although the topic is exhausted, your ignorance is seemingly bottomless. > Dutch wrote: > > <snip> Snipping everything that shows your position is irrational.. > > You are discounting that there are law-abiding pedophiles who respect the > > wishes of society. > > Well, duh -- what do you think I've been talking about? You said that laws are useless because people will only obey them if they think they are doing something wrong. I'm saying that most people will obey laws out of respect for the law, and out of fear of punishment, whether or not they think they are doing anything wrong. > <snip> > > Most law-abiding people develop the notion that a thing is wrong if it is > > illegal, provided the law is reasonable and rational. > > Again, duh -- Well, it's reasonable and rational for driving drunk to be illegal. *Even though* any particular person may believe he is perfectly capable of driving safely under the influence, he is more likely to abstain if there are laws against it. Objectively as a society we know that he would be highly likely to be posing a risk. It's perfectly reasonable to prohibit sexual contact between adults and children. *Even though* any particular pedophile may believe that he is perfectly capable of fairly weighing the interests of his desired partner, as a society we know that the chances of him being objective are slim to none, and the chances of psychological damage to the child are very high. You're on the wrong side of this issue Rat. |
|
|||
|
|||
Age of Consent Laws
(degene)RAT(e) wrote:
>> How exactly do you propose deterring sexual predators from approaching >> children? > > The way we prevent harm of any kind coming to children - by exercising > caution and knowing about our children's activities. How do you > propose we prevent children from falling into our neighbor's swimming > pool? Should we require all owners of swimming pools in neighborhoods > with small children to fill or cover the pools because some two year > old *might* fall in and drown? Municipalities (city or county) and indeed many states require fences with locks around private and public swimming pools. So do insurance companies. Try getting coverage for your home with a pool if you don't have a fence around the pool. > No -- we say adults should exercise > proper care over their children. No -- we have laws, building codes, and ordinances to deal with that issue, degene-RAT. > Responsible people (including > children) should be able to enjoy pools in peace, without government > interference. Responsibility includes following laws and ordinances. > Or shall we just wait and hope that somehow we find out after the >> fact when harm has been done? > > Which is what laws do. Laws do not prevent crimes, or save potential > victims. Laws punish *afterward* -- after the fact. They are > institutionalized revenge. Laws do have deterrent effects. Laws are not revenge or recompense, that is the function of penalties. BTW, do you support so-called "hate crimes" laws and anti-discrimination measures? >>> Again, the punishment, if any, will vary >>> according to the capability of those involved as well, which is why >>> younger children, or the severely retarded, or the insane, etc., are >>> often seen as worthy of lesser or no sentence under law than a normal >>> adult who does the same action. > >> How do you measure psychological harm to a child? > > By observing -- and asking -- the child. That isn't a measure of psychological harm. Children who are harmed through sexual and physical abuse often don't show the worst effects of such harm until later in their teens or even adulthood. > (degene)Rat(e) Your previous kind words about NAMBLA came as a minor surprise to me. Now I see how deranged you really are. |
|
|||
|
|||
Age of Consent Laws
usual suspect wrote: > (degene)RAT(e) wrote: How cute...I'll bet you're another of those (half)witty types who calls the actress "Ellen Degenerate". <snip> > Responsibility includes following laws and ordinances. Like the Nuremberg Laws, right? Good Germans everywhere applaud your spinelessness. I'm sure Bonhoeffer would. Following laws is only responsible when the law reflects justice -- and then there is no need for laws. Christ gave us an example here, too. <snip> > BTW, do you support so-called "hate crimes" laws No > and anti-discrimination measures? Yes, depending on what they are. Education is the best anti-discrimination measure. <snip> > That isn't a measure of psychological harm. Children who are harmed > through sexual and physical abuse often don't show the worst effects of > such harm until later in their teens or even adulthood. Get over it. We all have childhood traumas, but the Christian and adult thing is to deal with them, forgive those who injure us, and go on. <snip> Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Age of Consent Laws
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:43:16 -0700, Rat & Swan > wrote:
> > >Jonathan Ball wrote: >> Rat & Swan wrote: > ><snip> > >>>> How would you know? Are you claiming to be intimately familiar with >>>> all NAMBLA propaganda? > >>> Yes. I read their journal regularly, > >> Yeah, *sure* you do. ****ing liar. > >Why should you doubt it? > >The NAMBLA Journal is an excellent miner's canary which provides >useful information about the government's efforts to stifle >free speech and dissent. > >Rat Firstly the prejudicial term " propaganda " hardly bespeaks tolerance of divergent views . Secondly , the conceptual ground pounding goose step of - That which is not forbidden will destroy us .... Arguably by such doctrine a koranic obsessive canon denoting all possible thoughtcrimes will be where " law " ends up . I suspect that our present government by coup'detat would so use the Decalogue . By bible standards of some faiths children were freely married at what had to have been prepubertal ages for those races . There has been more erosion of basic civil freedom under this president than any other in the history of America . And the scarey speed of deluded laws increases faster than our ability to comprehend what the real evils are . Dissent is the sincerest form of being a patriot . You may not agree but must never forget that freedom to dissent is the hub of all freedom itself . Think of another mundane area that such a zeal to protect caues more harm than good . Internet Censorship . Due to well-meaning < or not needfully so > laws medical support group information is no longer accessible by internet at many public libraries and in scchools . Imagine the traumas caused by children entering puberty totally unprepared . Would you have us restore the Comstock act and ban even the concept that contraception is possible ? INFORMATION is not to EVER be considered supressible with no damages . Now for another example - The concept that discussion equates to acts . The resultant arguement could ban categorically" Gangsta Rap "and MTV . Sure - * NO * even marginally sane person will defend any form of rape . None. But a legit exploration of social concepts that are not " comfortable " ? ? RAPE is a power crime seldom about mere sex . So also is Legislative abuse . In my proper person as a grandparent anyone approaching my grandchildren sexually would be quite dead . And there is little to justify any other result . I for one am willing to consider that unpopular though the views of ANY group are , only deeds causing harm become a crime . And harm is simple to define . Capybyra " Censorship can make life so much easier - no need to worry about what to think or read or believe as all such will be done for you by those who know themselves things that you will not be allowed to " |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
KFC is a sleazy marketer | General Cooking | |||
Tasteless apples - Doug K | General Cooking | |||
tasteless apples | General Cooking | |||
Tasteless ingredients | General Cooking | |||
tasteless acid ? | Preserving |