RIP School Survival Forums
August 2001 - June 2017

The School Survival Forums are permanently retired. If you need help with quitting school, unsupportive parents or anything else, there is a list of resources on the Help Page.

To everyone who joined these forums at some point, and got discouraged by the negativity and left after a while (or even got literally scared off): I'm sorry.

I wasn't good enough at encouraging people to be kinder, and removing people who refuse to be kind. Encouraging people is hard, and removing people creates conflict, and I hate conflict... so that's why I wasn't better at it.

I was a very, very sensitive teen. The atmosphere of this forum as it is now, if it had existed in 1996, would probably have upset me far more than it would have helped.

I can handle quite a lot of negativity and even abuse now, but that isn't the point. I want to help people. I want to help the people who need it the most, and I want to help people like the 1996 version of me.

I'm still figuring out the best way to do that, but as it is now, these forums are doing more harm than good, and I can't keep running them.

Thank you to the few people who have tried to understand my point of view so far. I really, really appreciate you guys. You are beautiful people.

Everyone else: If after everything I've said so far, you still don't understand my motivations, I think it's unlikely that you will. We're just too different. Maybe someday in the future it might make sense, but until then, there's no point in arguing about it. I don't have the time or the energy for arguing anymore. I will focus my time and energy on people who support me, and those who need help.

-SoulRiser

The forums are mostly read-only and are in a maintenance/testing phase, before being permanently archived. Please use this time to get the contact details of people you'd like to keep in touch with. Send me a message if you'd like to keep in touch with me & Steve.

Please do not make a mirror copy of the forums in their current state - things will still change, and some people have requested to be able to edit or delete some of their personal info.


Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft
Author Message
Superkamiguru Offline
Resistance Leader

Posts: 202
Joined: Dec 2016
Thanks: 770
Given 83 thank(s) in 52 post(s)
Post: #1
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

Random Mother-That's It give me your laptop

Random Child of Random Mother-You gave the money to me for [Insert Giant list of chores here],and fortified the right to claim it as yours when you did so,unless your paycheck is "your bosses money",you fucking hypocrite.

So no,I will not give you the Laptop I bought with my money.

Hidden stuff:
"CONSENSUAL incest is not wrong. (Abuse victims: being abused by a relative does not make it wrong for others to have consensual incest, any more than rape by a stranger makes all sex wrong. Sex and assault/molestation are two different things.) An aversion became common in humans that aided in population growth as one disease couldn't wipe out the human race. That's not a problem anymore.

Consensual incest is very common. You know people who have been involved, whether you know it or not.

There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consensual
incest that is consistently applied to other relationships. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in what I call consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY consenting adults. Youthful experimentation between close relatives close in age is not uncommon, and there are more people than you'd think out there who are in lifelong healthy, happy relationships with a close relative. It isn't for everyone, but we're not all going to want to have each others' love lives, now are we? If someone thinks YOUR love life is disgusting, should you be thrown in prison?

Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and
marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. Some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. It is true that in general, children born to consanguineous parents have an increased chance of these problems than those born to nonconsanguineous parents, but the odds are still minimal. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry.

Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.

Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either. Let consenting adults love each other the way they want!"-Keith Pullman

01-17-2017 12:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: SoulRiser , Jop , Sadly_Not , Rule_BreakerXVIII , the Analogist , Avatar Korra , StrixDesmodus , -SCS- , Benjavaz
Jop Offline
Revolutionary

Posts: 498
Joined: Aug 2014
Thanks: 306
Given 192 thank(s) in 120 post(s)
Post: #2
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

The law often doesn't care about theft. Their definition of theft is extremely narrow and inconsistent. Digital piracy being legal in so many places is another example.

New forums located at https://forums.tainttracker.net/
01-18-2017 03:57 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Superkamiguru Offline
Resistance Leader

Posts: 202
Joined: Dec 2016
Thanks: 770
Given 83 thank(s) in 52 post(s)
Post: #3
RE: It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

(01-18-2017 03:57 AM)Jop Wrote:  The law often doesn't care about theft. Their definition of theft is extremely narrow and inconsistent. Digital piracy being legal in so many places is another example.

Okay,but we're not here to discuss piracy.

Hidden stuff:
"CONSENSUAL incest is not wrong. (Abuse victims: being abused by a relative does not make it wrong for others to have consensual incest, any more than rape by a stranger makes all sex wrong. Sex and assault/molestation are two different things.) An aversion became common in humans that aided in population growth as one disease couldn't wipe out the human race. That's not a problem anymore.

Consensual incest is very common. You know people who have been involved, whether you know it or not.

There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consensual
incest that is consistently applied to other relationships. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in what I call consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY consenting adults. Youthful experimentation between close relatives close in age is not uncommon, and there are more people than you'd think out there who are in lifelong healthy, happy relationships with a close relative. It isn't for everyone, but we're not all going to want to have each others' love lives, now are we? If someone thinks YOUR love life is disgusting, should you be thrown in prison?

Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and
marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. Some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. It is true that in general, children born to consanguineous parents have an increased chance of these problems than those born to nonconsanguineous parents, but the odds are still minimal. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry.

Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.

Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either. Let consenting adults love each other the way they want!"-Keith Pullman

01-18-2017 05:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gwedin Offline
dumb shithead

Posts: 2,361
Joined: May 2013
Thanks: 217
Given 559 thank(s) in 410 post(s)
Post: #4
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

What if the child didn't earn their pocket money? Does that make it any different?
01-18-2017 05:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoulRiser Offline
Site Founder

Posts: 18,240
Joined: Aug 2001
Thanks: 2673
Given 1977 thank(s) in 1209 post(s)
Post: #5
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

Quote:The law often doesn't care about theft. Their definition of theft is extremely narrow and inconsistent.
The lawmakers also technically steal from most of their citizens on a regular basis (taxes).

"If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them." - Dalai Lama
Help & Support - Get help with leaving school, unsupportive parents, and more.
Click here if school makes you depressed or suicidal

Support School Survival on Patreon or Donate Bitcoin Here: 1Q5WCcxWjayniaL92b8GfXBiGdfjmnUNa2
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." - André Paul Guillaume Gide
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." - Albert Einstein
"I'm pretty sure there's a lot of beauty that can only be found in the mind of a lunatic." - TheCancer
EIPD - Emotionally Incompetent Parent Disorder

Push Button for Collection of Useful Links:
Hidden stuff:
01-18-2017 05:35 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Jop , Superkamiguru , Prankster813
Superkamiguru Offline
Resistance Leader

Posts: 202
Joined: Dec 2016
Thanks: 770
Given 83 thank(s) in 52 post(s)
Post: #6
RE: It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

(01-18-2017 05:32 AM)Gwedin Wrote:  What if the child didn't earn their pocket money? Does that make it any different?
No.

Hidden stuff:
"CONSENSUAL incest is not wrong. (Abuse victims: being abused by a relative does not make it wrong for others to have consensual incest, any more than rape by a stranger makes all sex wrong. Sex and assault/molestation are two different things.) An aversion became common in humans that aided in population growth as one disease couldn't wipe out the human race. That's not a problem anymore.

Consensual incest is very common. You know people who have been involved, whether you know it or not.

There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consensual
incest that is consistently applied to other relationships. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in what I call consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY consenting adults. Youthful experimentation between close relatives close in age is not uncommon, and there are more people than you'd think out there who are in lifelong healthy, happy relationships with a close relative. It isn't for everyone, but we're not all going to want to have each others' love lives, now are we? If someone thinks YOUR love life is disgusting, should you be thrown in prison?

Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and
marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. Some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. It is true that in general, children born to consanguineous parents have an increased chance of these problems than those born to nonconsanguineous parents, but the odds are still minimal. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry.

Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.

Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either. Let consenting adults love each other the way they want!"-Keith Pullman

(This post was last modified: 01-18-2017 05:46 AM by Superkamiguru.)
01-18-2017 05:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sadly_Not Offline
Town Idiot

Posts: 73
Joined: Sep 2016
Thanks: 22
Given 15 thank(s) in 14 post(s)
Post: #7
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

Yo~ If it's the child's property they bought with their own cash definitelyly theirs. If the parents gave the cash to the child I think the parent should have a little more control over the laptop. Like no using it for games past 12 AM or you can't use it on Sunday afternoon. (idk) But by give money I don't mean like money earned through chores I mean money given without earning it.

Poof! Poof! Glitter Boots!
01-18-2017 06:30 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gwedin Offline
dumb shithead

Posts: 2,361
Joined: May 2013
Thanks: 217
Given 559 thank(s) in 410 post(s)
Post: #8
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

Quote:No.
Why? If the child did not earn the money then it wouldn't be a stretch for the parent to consider the laptop or whatever paid for out of their own pocket.
01-18-2017 06:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Superkamiguru Offline
Resistance Leader

Posts: 202
Joined: Dec 2016
Thanks: 770
Given 83 thank(s) in 52 post(s)
Post: #9
RE: It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

(01-18-2017 06:43 AM)Gwedin Wrote:  
Quote:No.
Why? If the child did not earn the money then it wouldn't be a stretch for the parent to consider the laptop or whatever paid for out of their own pocket.

Once you give a gift away (ESPECIALLY IF THE GIFT IS MONEY),it's no longer yours.

Hidden stuff:
"CONSENSUAL incest is not wrong. (Abuse victims: being abused by a relative does not make it wrong for others to have consensual incest, any more than rape by a stranger makes all sex wrong. Sex and assault/molestation are two different things.) An aversion became common in humans that aided in population growth as one disease couldn't wipe out the human race. That's not a problem anymore.

Consensual incest is very common. You know people who have been involved, whether you know it or not.

There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consensual
incest that is consistently applied to other relationships. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in what I call consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY consenting adults. Youthful experimentation between close relatives close in age is not uncommon, and there are more people than you'd think out there who are in lifelong healthy, happy relationships with a close relative. It isn't for everyone, but we're not all going to want to have each others' love lives, now are we? If someone thinks YOUR love life is disgusting, should you be thrown in prison?

Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and
marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. Some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. It is true that in general, children born to consanguineous parents have an increased chance of these problems than those born to nonconsanguineous parents, but the odds are still minimal. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry.

Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.

Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either. Let consenting adults love each other the way they want!"-Keith Pullman

01-18-2017 07:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: stevehein , StrixDesmodus
Gwedin Offline
dumb shithead

Posts: 2,361
Joined: May 2013
Thanks: 217
Given 559 thank(s) in 410 post(s)
Post: #10
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

Often the case is it isn't a gift and the parent expects good behaviour in return for the money (or at least, not shit behaviour). In that case, is it justified for the parent to take the laptop that they (in their opinion) forked out for away from the child for misbehaving?
01-18-2017 07:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Superkamiguru Offline
Resistance Leader

Posts: 202
Joined: Dec 2016
Thanks: 770
Given 83 thank(s) in 52 post(s)
Post: #11
RE: It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

(01-18-2017 07:57 AM)Gwedin Wrote:  Often the case is it isn't a gift and the parent expects good behaviour in return for the money (or at least, not shit behaviour). In that case, is it justified for the parent to take the laptop that they (in their opinion) forked out for away from the child for misbehaving?

Depends..

Hidden stuff:
"CONSENSUAL incest is not wrong. (Abuse victims: being abused by a relative does not make it wrong for others to have consensual incest, any more than rape by a stranger makes all sex wrong. Sex and assault/molestation are two different things.) An aversion became common in humans that aided in population growth as one disease couldn't wipe out the human race. That's not a problem anymore.

Consensual incest is very common. You know people who have been involved, whether you know it or not.

There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consensual
incest that is consistently applied to other relationships. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in what I call consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY consenting adults. Youthful experimentation between close relatives close in age is not uncommon, and there are more people than you'd think out there who are in lifelong healthy, happy relationships with a close relative. It isn't for everyone, but we're not all going to want to have each others' love lives, now are we? If someone thinks YOUR love life is disgusting, should you be thrown in prison?

Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and
marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. Some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. It is true that in general, children born to consanguineous parents have an increased chance of these problems than those born to nonconsanguineous parents, but the odds are still minimal. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry.

Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.

Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either. Let consenting adults love each other the way they want!"-Keith Pullman

01-18-2017 08:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TheCancer Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,372
Joined: Dec 2009
Thanks: 20
Given 566 thank(s) in 340 post(s)
Post: #12
RE: It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

Is it theft when a parent is forced by law to provide food, clothing, and shelter for a child?

If a 12 eats food that she didn't buy isn't she stealing from whoever paid for it?

Sure she should be allowed to keep her computer as long as she's ready to no longer accept anything else unless it's freely gifted by the parents. I wouldn't want the child to be morally compromised by stealing food and shelter.

If you want to be a different fish, you've got to jump out of the school.


Captain Beefheart
01-18-2017 09:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gwedin Offline
dumb shithead

Posts: 2,361
Joined: May 2013
Thanks: 217
Given 559 thank(s) in 410 post(s)
Post: #13
RE: It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

Quote:Depends..

On?
01-18-2017 09:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Superkamiguru Offline
Resistance Leader

Posts: 202
Joined: Dec 2016
Thanks: 770
Given 83 thank(s) in 52 post(s)
Post: #14
RE: It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

(01-18-2017 09:21 AM)Gwedin Wrote:  
Quote:Depends..

On?


Things.




TROLOLOLOLLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOOLLLLLLOOLLLLLLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL​LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO​OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Hidden stuff:
"CONSENSUAL incest is not wrong. (Abuse victims: being abused by a relative does not make it wrong for others to have consensual incest, any more than rape by a stranger makes all sex wrong. Sex and assault/molestation are two different things.) An aversion became common in humans that aided in population growth as one disease couldn't wipe out the human race. That's not a problem anymore.

Consensual incest is very common. You know people who have been involved, whether you know it or not.

There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consensual
incest that is consistently applied to other relationships. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in what I call consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY consenting adults. Youthful experimentation between close relatives close in age is not uncommon, and there are more people than you'd think out there who are in lifelong healthy, happy relationships with a close relative. It isn't for everyone, but we're not all going to want to have each others' love lives, now are we? If someone thinks YOUR love life is disgusting, should you be thrown in prison?

Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and
marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. Some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. It is true that in general, children born to consanguineous parents have an increased chance of these problems than those born to nonconsanguineous parents, but the odds are still minimal. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry.

Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.

Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either. Let consenting adults love each other the way they want!"-Keith Pullman

01-18-2017 10:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jop Offline
Revolutionary

Posts: 498
Joined: Aug 2014
Thanks: 306
Given 192 thank(s) in 120 post(s)
Post: #15
RE: It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

(01-18-2017 09:07 AM)TheCancer Wrote:  Is it theft when a parent is forced by law to provide food, clothing, and shelter for a child?

They aren't. You can let your child be adopted by someone else.

(01-18-2017 09:07 AM)TheCancer Wrote:  If a 12 eats food that she didn't buy isn't she stealing from whoever paid for it?

If the food has a label on it with someone's name, then yes. But it probably doesn't and they purchased it for the whole family.

New forums located at https://forums.tainttracker.net/
01-18-2017 09:02 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: StrixDesmodus
TheCancer Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,372
Joined: Dec 2009
Thanks: 20
Given 566 thank(s) in 340 post(s)
Post: #16
RE: It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

Quote:They aren't. You can let your child be adopted by someone else.

You can't just stop feeding a kid and tell him to get adopted. It's against the law to let a kid starve. It's crazy. It's like kids are using the government to steal from their parents. Go out and find your own food. If you can. Or starve. Just as long as there's no "theft".

If you want to be a different fish, you've got to jump out of the school.


Captain Beefheart
01-19-2017 11:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Gwedin
stevehein Offline
Pariah

Posts: 536
Joined: Dec 2007
Thanks: 116
Given 327 thank(s) in 188 post(s)
Post: #17
RE: It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

(01-18-2017 08:39 AM)Superkamiguru Wrote:  [quote='Gwedin' pid='574726' dateline='1484690273']
Often the case is it isn't a gift and the parent expects good behaviour in return for the money (or at least, not shit behaviour). In that case, is it justified for the parent to take the laptop that they (in their opinion) forked out for away from the child for misbehaving?

this would just behavior control.

i would feel discouraged if anyone on ss would think this could possibly be ok. the relationship between so called children and the birth parents is an involuntary one, forced by laws in every country i have been to

i believe few pple would agree to blatant behavior control if they were really free, and relatively intelligent
02-01-2017 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Superkamiguru , Small Axe
Rule_BreakerXVIII Offline
Revolutionary

Posts: 484
Joined: Sep 2013
Thanks: 733
Given 271 thank(s) in 168 post(s)
Post: #18
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

And my parents wonder why I don't trust them at all.

Don't play chess with pigeons-they'll just knock over the pieces, shit on the board and strut about like they won anyway.
-the Internet


Quote:May the days and months of flowing bitterness be rewarded...
To forget!?

Unforgivable!!
02-02-2017 07:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: the Analogist , Superkamiguru
Superkamiguru Offline
Resistance Leader

Posts: 202
Joined: Dec 2016
Thanks: 770
Given 83 thank(s) in 52 post(s)
Post: #19
RE: It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

(02-01-2017 10:56 AM)stevehein Wrote:  
(01-18-2017 08:39 AM)Superkamiguru Wrote:  [quote='Gwedin' pid='574726' dateline='1484690273']
Often the case is it isn't a gift and the parent expects good behaviour in return for the money (or at least, not shit behaviour). In that case, is it justified for the parent to take the laptop that they (in their opinion) forked out for away from the child for misbehaving?

this would just behavior control.

i would feel discouraged if anyone on ss would think this could possibly be ok. the relationship between so called children and the birth parents is an involuntary one, forced by laws in every country i have been to

i believe few pple would agree to blatant behavior control if they were really free, and relatively intelligent
Yay,this.

Hidden stuff:
"CONSENSUAL incest is not wrong. (Abuse victims: being abused by a relative does not make it wrong for others to have consensual incest, any more than rape by a stranger makes all sex wrong. Sex and assault/molestation are two different things.) An aversion became common in humans that aided in population growth as one disease couldn't wipe out the human race. That's not a problem anymore.

Consensual incest is very common. You know people who have been involved, whether you know it or not.

There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against consensual
incest that is consistently applied to other relationships. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in what I call consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY consenting adults. Youthful experimentation between close relatives close in age is not uncommon, and there are more people than you'd think out there who are in lifelong healthy, happy relationships with a close relative. It isn't for everyone, but we're not all going to want to have each others' love lives, now are we? If someone thinks YOUR love life is disgusting, should you be thrown in prison?

Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and
marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. Some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. It is true that in general, children born to consanguineous parents have an increased chance of these problems than those born to nonconsanguineous parents, but the odds are still minimal. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification to bar this freedom of association and freedom to marry.

Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.

Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either. Let consenting adults love each other the way they want!"-Keith Pullman

02-07-2017 08:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Rule_BreakerXVIII
The man Offline
Resistance Leader

Posts: 361
Joined: Feb 2017
Thanks: 2999
Given 103 thank(s) in 92 post(s)
Post: #20
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

I'm bringing it back.

their pee should hv been shot out like a ki blast breaking the rocks

oh and also No one has any rights. We're free, rights create invisible restrictions. But we live in a society where the majority accepts rights to be true.
04-13-2017 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gwedin Offline
dumb shithead

Posts: 2,361
Joined: May 2013
Thanks: 217
Given 559 thank(s) in 410 post(s)
Post: #21
RE: It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

(02-01-2017 10:56 AM)stevehein Wrote:  
(01-18-2017 08:39 AM)Superkamiguru Wrote:  [quote='Gwedin' pid='574726' dateline='1484690273']
Often the case is it isn't a gift and the parent expects good behaviour in return for the money (or at least, not shit behaviour). In that case, is it justified for the parent to take the laptop that they (in their opinion) forked out for away from the child for misbehaving?

this would just behavior control.

ok.

(02-01-2017 10:56 AM)stevehein Wrote:  i would feel discouraged if anyone on ss would think this could possibly be ok.

i don't care what you feel

(02-01-2017 10:56 AM)stevehein Wrote:  the relationship between so called children and the birth parents is an involuntary one, forced by laws in every country i have been to

ok, get rid of the laws and are parents going to suddenly stop using taking away a child's items as punishment? lol. or are children suddenly going to start acting on equal terms with the parent, ignoring the natural authority a parent exerts over their child? lol.

(02-01-2017 10:56 AM)stevehein Wrote:  i believe few pple would agree to blatant behavior control if they were really free, and relatively intelligent

i care more about facts than what you believe

Superkamiguru Wrote:Yay,this.
idiot
(This post was last modified: 04-13-2017 05:58 PM by Gwedin.)
04-13-2017 05:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Avatar Korra Offline
There is no cause of anything

Posts: 342
Joined: Jan 2017
Thanks: 1491
Given 204 thank(s) in 143 post(s)
Post: #22
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJ6.html

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but this article describes a way of raising "free children" without punishments or coercion. It sounds pretty radical at first, but makes more sense(and sounds more practical) with the more you read.
Here's a piece of it for an idea:

Quote:Moralism, however, can never get at the root of the problem of secondary drives, but in fact only increases the pressure of crime and guilt. The real solution is to let children develop what Reich calls natural self-regulation. This can be done only by not subjecting them to punishment, coercion, threats, moralistic lectures and admonitions, withdrawal of love, etc. in an attempt to inhibit their spontaneous expression of natural life-impulses. The systematic development of the emphatic tendencies of the young infant is the best way to "socialise" and restrict activities that are harmful to the others. As A.S. Neill pointed out "self-regulation implies a belief in the goodness of human nature; a belief that there is not, and never was, original sin." [Summerhill, p. 103]

According to Neill, children who are given freedom from birth and not forced to conform to parental expectations spontaneously learn how to keep themselves clean and develop social qualities like courtesy, common sense, an interest in learning, respect for the rights of others, and so forth. However, once the child has been armoured through authoritarian methods intended to force it to develop such qualities, it becomes out of touch with its living core and therefore no longer able to develop self-regulation. In this stage it becomes harder and harder for the pro-social emotions to shape the developing mode of life of the new member of society. At that point, when the secondary drives develop, parental authoritarianism becomes a necessity.

This oppression produces an inability to tolerate freedom. The vast majority of people develop this automatically from the way they are raised and is what makes the whole subject of bringing up children of crucial importance to anarchists. Reich concluded that if parents do not suppress nature in the first place, then no anti-social drives will be created and no authoritarianism will be required to suppress them: "What you so desperately and vainly try to achieve by way of compulsion and admonition is there in the new-born infant ready to live and function. Let it grow as nature requires, and change our institutions accordingly." [Op. Cit., p. 47] So in order to raise psychologically healthy children, parents need to acquire self-knowledge, particularly of how internal conflicts develop in family relationships, and to free themselves as much as possible from neurotic forms of behaviour. The difficulty of parents acquiring such self-knowledge and sufficiently de-conditioning themselves is obviously another obstacle to raising self-regulated children.

"I’M BEGGING YOU, PRINCE ZUKO! It’s time for you to look inward and begin asking yourself the big question: who are you and what do YOU want?"
" While it is always best to believe in one’s self, a little help from others can be a great blessing"
-Uncle Iroh(Avatar: the Last Airbender)
04-13-2017 11:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: stevehein
James Comey Away
Banished Oldfaf in Exile

Posts: 6,519
Joined: Aug 2013
Thanks: 1081
Given 2292 thank(s) in 1517 post(s)
Post: #23
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

Well this ought to be a good debate Popcorn

These were the best things about old SS.

RIP GWEDIN
RIP URITIYOGI
RIP NIGHT
RIP VONUNOV
RIP WES/THEWAKE
RIP USERNAME

[Image: Nas-One-Love.jpg]

Stop jerking off to porn and whining and do something about it

Make School Survival Great Again - MSSGA

Hidden stuff:

[Image: BallsofSteel2.png]
[Image: mg_michelle_2020.png]
04-14-2017 03:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The man Offline
Resistance Leader

Posts: 361
Joined: Feb 2017
Thanks: 2999
Given 103 thank(s) in 92 post(s)
Post: #24
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

Yas.

their pee should hv been shot out like a ki blast breaking the rocks

oh and also No one has any rights. We're free, rights create invisible restrictions. But we live in a society where the majority accepts rights to be true.
04-23-2017 07:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
James Comey Away
Banished Oldfaf in Exile

Posts: 6,519
Joined: Aug 2013
Thanks: 1081
Given 2292 thank(s) in 1517 post(s)
Post: #25
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

Yes, let's continue this debate!

RIP GWEDIN
RIP URITIYOGI
RIP NIGHT
RIP VONUNOV
RIP WES/THEWAKE
RIP USERNAME

[Image: Nas-One-Love.jpg]

Stop jerking off to porn and whining and do something about it

Make School Survival Great Again - MSSGA

Hidden stuff:

[Image: BallsofSteel2.png]
[Image: mg_michelle_2020.png]
04-23-2017 07:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gwedin Offline
dumb shithead

Posts: 2,361
Joined: May 2013
Thanks: 217
Given 559 thank(s) in 410 post(s)
Post: #26
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

what sorry am i supposed to be refuting something here or what
04-23-2017 08:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
James Comey Away
Banished Oldfaf in Exile

Posts: 6,519
Joined: Aug 2013
Thanks: 1081
Given 2292 thank(s) in 1517 post(s)
Post: #27
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

Korravatar?

RIP GWEDIN
RIP URITIYOGI
RIP NIGHT
RIP VONUNOV
RIP WES/THEWAKE
RIP USERNAME

[Image: Nas-One-Love.jpg]

Stop jerking off to porn and whining and do something about it

Make School Survival Great Again - MSSGA

Hidden stuff:

[Image: BallsofSteel2.png]
[Image: mg_michelle_2020.png]
04-23-2017 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Avatar Korra Offline
There is no cause of anything

Posts: 342
Joined: Jan 2017
Thanks: 1491
Given 204 thank(s) in 143 post(s)
Post: #28
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

I'm supposed to be debating? o.o
I just posted an article with a way to raise kids without coercion and punishment- the opposite of what the random mother in Superkamiguru's OP did for her kid.
I still have to read more about it before I can debate for it. It's a slightly new concept (that's making hella sense so far) for me at the moment.

"I’M BEGGING YOU, PRINCE ZUKO! It’s time for you to look inward and begin asking yourself the big question: who are you and what do YOU want?"
" While it is always best to believe in one’s self, a little help from others can be a great blessing"
-Uncle Iroh(Avatar: the Last Airbender)
04-23-2017 09:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gwedin Offline
dumb shithead

Posts: 2,361
Joined: May 2013
Thanks: 217
Given 559 thank(s) in 410 post(s)
Post: #29
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

that article, even the "examples" bit, seems to be entirely theory. i have a small mental capacity and that article is simply way too fucking dense for me to try to argue against. i'd like to see that philosophy put into practice so that the results of it could actually be analysed so we can perhaps say "oh, this works, but..." or "this works great!" or "this is complete trash!"
04-23-2017 11:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
 Thanks given by: Avatar Korra
Avatar Korra Offline
There is no cause of anything

Posts: 342
Joined: Jan 2017
Thanks: 1491
Given 204 thank(s) in 143 post(s)
Post: #30
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

It kinda seems like a combination of unschooling and attachment parenting which have more research put into them since they are a little more common.

"I’M BEGGING YOU, PRINCE ZUKO! It’s time for you to look inward and begin asking yourself the big question: who are you and what do YOU want?"
" While it is always best to believe in one’s self, a little help from others can be a great blessing"
-Uncle Iroh(Avatar: the Last Airbender)
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2017 11:46 AM by Avatar Korra.)
04-23-2017 11:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Can schools legally check your cell phone text messages? Freeman 11 7,476 02-03-2017 12:12 PM
Last Post: ColossalBlocks
  Am I Legally Required to Show a Report Card FindTheLight 11 1,709 11-25-2009 10:35 AM
Last Post: Leon Kinotolian

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | School Survival | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication