cbacon

It would be nice if that example about the dog made any sort of sense. Again, the root cause of why crimes are committed are essential: What the motive was, what the person felt, how the felt after, etc. You can't use prison or the death penalty as a deterrent, because I'm pretty sure that after killing someone you'd have a hard time living as though nothing had happened (barring mass murderers, obvz), regardless of what consequences others imposed on you. There are a myriad of root causes (mostly social) that need to be looked at, unless you believe that it's human nature and that we're born with "original sin". I'd like to hear a realistic reason as to why criminals can't be rehabilitated. Reactionary policies like minimum sentencing, increasing police powers, that whole three-strikes thing and capital punishment don't really deter crime but cause a huge drain on the public purse by cramming people into already over-crowded prisons. Focusing on crime prevention and rehabilitation is a more logical and cost-effective means of fighting crime.

Parents don't own their MySpace account, which last I checked, was free. That's essentially what privacy entails, yes. One of the biggest problems of adolescence is sexual suppression by society. The teenage years are the time when sexual energy is at its height. Why should it be repressed?

Privacy is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights treaties and in most constitutions. To argue against the rights to privacy is an argument that essentially favors totalitarianism.

Has such a philosophy been seriously implemented? Even if the majority of individuals that commit violent crimes (due to mental illness) cannot be rehabilitated, we should still show empathy towards them and help them as best as we can, while at the same time protecting society. Instead of quick fix punishment methods, we have to look at the root cause of why crimes are committed. Say I beat someone up. Why did I do it? What was I feeling at the time, how do I feel about it now, how do I think it made them feel, what would I say to that person if I could, etc. Mushrooms could sure help with that. Here's a wiki article on Timothy Leary that I found interesting: This is unsourced, but for what it's worth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_Prison_Experiment

Since when do they have the right to privacy? Privacy is a fundamental human right? Parents should a have a healthy, non-coercive relationship with their kids. They can educate them about the dangers of online predators so that they can make informed decisions independently. Most kids who have healthy relationships with their parents will be less likely to keep secrets from them.

Once a murderer, always a murderer? People can be rehabilitated, you know.

What does carrying it out "properly" mean? And obviously punishment doesn't act as a deterrent. I do believe some dangerous offenders should be isolated from society, but it should be humane, and with an aim towards rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. Yes Invader, I do work. And although i'm not sure if i'll own a house in the future, I find it highly unlikely that my beliefs would change if I did. Any yeah, it's pretty funny how floyd gets all angry and tells everyone to stop replying to me when he replies to more of my posts than anyone. And it's always the same tired response rather than an actual rebuttal.

All human beings have the right to privacy, you dolt. And i'm pretty sure i made it obvious that i'm not a liberal.

Because invasion of a child's privacy is good parenting

The question here is whether people need discipline; whether people need to be disciplined into being good, and whether lack of discipline results in "spoiled brats." That's a pretty cynical view of children and human beings in general. I'm probably not going to win many over here but I think discipline is what anarchists are really fighting against, so I'm in favour of abolishing parental authority over children, abolishing schools and prisons and radically redesigning the workplace, family, and society, to eliminate discipline and punishment, because it just doesn't make any sense for anyone have the power to discipline others when all people are equals. And yes, we are all equals despite our actions. I absolutely do not understand how showing compassion towards criminals is at odds with compassion towards victims. Does your conception of justice require that the guilty suffer? We are all fallible and all capable of committing crimes, and no one is beyond redemption. A conception of respect that is based on knowing your place in the hierarchy so you will respect force and how to wield it against others. The major problem in a lot of the posts here are the major social problems of capitalism and our society - the idea that people have varying degrees of economic worth, based on their economic contribution to society. You can sort of measure what people contribute, economically (we don't do it very well). But you can't ever measure a person's worth. Egalitarian thought is based on the idea that people have equal and innate social worth. I think we need to treat "criminals" with as much love as we treat anyone else - they need help, not punishment. I'd start with counselling and mushroom trip therapy About video games: I think it's irrational to regiment kids' time and limit how often they can play video games. If they want to be playing the games and not doing whatever other activity you have planned for them they would probably benefit more from games. I don't define a kid's activities in terms of how it relates to his parents. Video games are not "used" by parents on kids, they are used by kids for fun (the same way one does a crossword or plays chess for fun - all three are good uses of your time if they are what you want to be doing). Offering them as a "reward" (an authoritarian notion in itself since the ability to reward is the flip side of the ability to punish - both are based on control) for good behaviour or time well spent on "healthy" activities doesn't seem like a particularly wise parenting strategy. It teaches the kid to value the games more highly than he otherwise would, because time spent on them is in limited supply. That might lead a kid to want to play more nintendo and his parents might perceive that as wanting to play it all day, but if kids' video gaming activities are not constrained they will use them the exact same way free adults do, so there's no reason to assume kids want to play nintendo all day. They might want to play them more than their parents think think they should, but I don't know of any parents who think their kids do too many crosswords, and there is no reason crosswords are better than video games. Besides, video games are good for you: Finally, i'm not sure what my age has anything to with my anarchist beliefs. Were Bakunin, Goldman, Kropotkin, Chomsky, Bookchin, etc. all angst ridden teenagers? I'm pretty sure in 10 or even 20 years I'll still have the same belief in the fundamentals of what I consider anarchism, socialism and democracy: commitment to social equality, environmentalism, non-violence, civil liberties, solidarity, and participatory democracy, in opposition to hierarchy and coercion. I guess freedom and self-determination are hard concepts to grasp.

match will still suck tho

yahoo.ca

"Nothing on this island stays buried" :/

along the lines of sexism, racism, ageism, etc. in terms of school, work, income, familial raising, or w/e.

this video is still awesome

@ Tom dancing

He still releases records, not as big as he was in the 90's though obvz First time I heard Life is a Highway was in a beer ad when i was about 11 or 12. Was a huge Tom Cochrane fan after that

You missed the point entirely. different people prioritize various qualities differently. Some people will be treated differently their entire life because of how they look. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, or putting any moral value to it, that's just fucking REALITY C-Bacon, which is seemingly the hardest thing for you to grasp. Assigning a moral value to everything and getting all upset when things aren't completely ideal and groovy just clouds the issue. (And no, I don't think that good-looking people are 'better') The point i'm making is that all people have innate equal worth. On the contrary, it has worked quite successfully. The revolutions in Hungary and Spain didn't fail because nobody worked, they failed because they were destroyed by outside military force. And obviously you can't organize a nationwide referendum on every economic and political issue. So you abolish nations. Start at the base levels - the neighbourhood and the workplace - and work your way upwards through federal arrangements. A neighbourhood council would send representatives to a city council, and then to a regional council, and so on, and decision-making authority would be kept as local as possible. Want to learn more? ParEcon is a proposed economic system constructed on anarchist principles Wiki article because i'm lazy: The examples you listed are not realistic, we would not expect a five year old to desire such things. Parents should provide guidance to such matters in a way that educates them rather than dictates what they should or shouldn't do. And no, I wouldn't say the situation with your grandma is an example of ageism.

I still don't get how wrestling fans have money for these PPVs in the first place. Given their demographic.

Or you could, you know, not buy any PPVs

Ok, since you seem to admit that there is at least some form of ageism that exists, shouldn't we be more conscious about this sort of thing in the same way we should with racism and sexism? Or should we just shrug our shoulders and accept it because 'that's the way it is'?

And look what that order has left us with. Some anarchist/socialist ideals may sound completely impractical but in the 18th century you could have argued that ending slavery was impractical. And that's precisely what conservatives argued at the time, while defending the rights of the powerful to maintain their power and dominance. Domination can only be maintained through violence - remove this and power collapses, leaving all as equals. I like the progress humanity has made so far, in the last hundred years especially we have made tremendous progress and dismantled a great deal of oppression, but we have a long way to go to realizing an egalitarian society. How many people here would disagree in principle with the idea that society should be organized along egalitarian lines?

tru Heh, maybe not so much incineration, but i'd advocate disarmament, drastically reducing military and defense budgets, and actually adhering to international law.

Floyd: hay u gehs lets ban the guy cuz of his CRAZY ideology!!!

Isn't an age-based insult as bad as a racially insensitive one? That ought to set off some alarms, shouldn't it? That's an expression of our society's contempt for young people, which comes from fear of young people. That's why we deny adulthood to kids, because we as adults have been socialized to identify with "adults" and not "children," even though adulthood and childhood and adolesence are social inventions. When you talk about them running around doing whatever they want, again the unstated premise is that what they want is bad. Children are not inferior beings. Why is it immoral for young people to do something adults do? In some places it's seen as immoral for 19-year olds to drink, but we all think that's crazy, don't we? Children learn about morality the same way they learn anything else, they do figure things out themselves. The idea that people need to be shaped by coercion into complete members of society is fundamentally based on violence. People need to be free to develop as individuals Sure, kids don't always do what's in their own interest, but neither do adults. The point is that nobody is in a better position to know what's best for a person than that person. The fact is that nobody has any idea how to parent, but all parents do the best job they can based on what they know, and what most people know about child-rearing is that when they were kids they were always told what to do. Good place to start: http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/ Here's a good example of an area where conventional wisdom says parents need to impose a certain way of doing things on their children: http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/learning_to_sleep: Your not equal to someone who is better looking than you? Are you fucking serious? Who do you think you're better than? Better than you?