Current time: 12-14-2024, 04:56 AMHello There, Guest! (Login — Register)
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.
If you want to write about your experiences in school, you can write on our blog.
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. My contact details are here.
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.
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
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.
01-18-2017 03:57 AM
Thanks given by:
Superkamiguru
Resistance Leader
Posts: 202
Joined: Dec 2016
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
Thanks given by:
Gwedin
dumb shithead
Posts: 2,361
Joined: May 2013
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
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.)
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
Thanks given by:
Gwedin
dumb shithead
Posts: 2,361
Joined: May 2013
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
Thanks given by:
Superkamiguru
Resistance Leader
Posts: 202
Joined: Dec 2016
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
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
Thanks given by:
Superkamiguru
Resistance Leader
Posts: 202
Joined: Dec 2016
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
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
Thanks given by:
Gwedin
dumb shithead
Posts: 2,361
Joined: May 2013
"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
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.
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
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
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
Thanks given by:
Gwedin
dumb shithead
Posts: 2,361
Joined: May 2013
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
Thanks given by:
Avatar Korra
There is no cause of anything
Posts: 341
Joined: Jan 2017
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)
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
Thanks given by:
James Comey
Banished Oldfaf in Exile
Posts: 6,500
Joined: Aug 2013
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
Thanks given by:
Gwedin
dumb shithead
Posts: 2,361
Joined: May 2013
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!"
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.)
Search
Member List
Calendar
Help
/
It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft
![[Image: Nas-One-Love.jpg]](http://www.hipstrumentals.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Nas-One-Love.jpg)
![[Image: BallsofSteel2.png]](http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx201/unschooleagle/BallsofSteel2.png)
![[Image: mg_michelle_2020.png]](https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/mg_michelle_2020.png)