RedSimone

RedSimone wrote

Now you are just dogmatic. And I find it hard to understand what you are even promoting? Some sort of abstract "freedom" which is not even possible in this world?

What I want is that children are given an environment without violence and abuse. Are you against that? And if you are really saying that a teacher is same as a violent cop, then I just don't know what to even say anymore.

0

RedSimone wrote (edited )

but I do reject science myself

OK. Well, I don't. I think science is pretty good thing and has taken us away from superstition and religious thinking. But if you have something better than scientific method as a way to prove facts, then that's great.

2

RedSimone wrote

Whatever community it is you speak of may view children as individuals, but the vast majority of adults do not, including teachers and especially parents. I've literally had teachers say to me they plan on "indoctrinating" their students. I assumed the text was referring to culture more generally as well

I don't know where you live, but that is certainly not the case in many countries. This is why people shouldn't just say "teachers bad".

Are you saying that schools and parents keep kids safe to develop their own personalities?

In ideal circumstances yes. But of course reality is often different. The reason for the unsafe homes and lack of decent education is often lack of funding. Often when there is little or no funding of education, the result is an educational institutions that ruled by force and violence. There is no teachers who are experts in pedagogy and psychology. The only way to keep kids at school is then threat of violence. But if you get if resources, you can create schools which serve the healthy development of a child.

1

RedSimone wrote

Those "broad generalization created by science" are in fact actual academic psychology. And that science (which the author of the text seems to reject) acknowledges that children are individuals. But the text somehow supposes that psychological community is the same as it was in the 1960's?

And any person with clinical experience of children's psychology tells you that children need protection and can't be treated the same way as adults. A person who doesn't have a safe childhood is very likely to have serious psychological troubles and unhealthy habits. Keeping children safe and giving them possibility to develop their personality in peace is not some form of oppression.

Also, the text functions as a justification for pedophilia; if we "liberate" the underaged youth and children, then shouldn't that "liberation" also include sexuality? This is what also Foucault (and many others) argued when they were demanding the abolishment of age of consent in France. The youth liberation has led to some very dark places in the past. It has been basically abused by older men and used as a way to excuse sexual abuse of minors.

2

RedSimone wrote (edited )

That is just horrible. Whoever wrote it doesn't have any idea of developmental psychology and pedagogy. I wonder how somebody is actually capable of ignoring so large amounts of real life studies and scientific findings? This is exactly what happens when you completely disregard reality and choose dogmatic, philosophical anarchism.

0

RedSimone wrote (edited )

I don't anymore care so much. I used to care more but now I just think that crimes of artists aren't mostly my thing. People do bad stuff. I don't have energy waste my time thinking too much of it.

But I have decided that if an artist turns out to be an abusive and horrible person, I don't buy their work. I don't give them any money because I don't want to make their lives any better.

But if the artist is already dead, I don't care. Then it's all the same for me. For example, I don't care about what Picasso did in his life. I don't really care if David Bowie slept with underage groupies. Probably horrible things happened, but history is so full of it and in the past many things that are now considered absolutely wrong, were normal.

I know that if I cared more about the crimes of artists, I would have to probably burn half of my books, sell most of my records and stop watching movies. Art world and entertainment industry have always been full of narcissistic and abusive assh*les.

3

RedSimone wrote

This is a difficult topic. Some people just have a kink (ageplay) which is harmless since it doesn't include abuse of under-age persons. And at least I can't say that having a fantasy is in itself wrong. Even healthy people can have some very strange desires. If you want your partner to wear diapers and act like a kid, it's fine as long as both are consenting adults. And getting turned on by age difference is quite common.

But then again, we shouldn't be OK with anything that might lead to actual pedophilia. And it can very well be that some people seek "barely legal" partners because they are too afraid to do actual pedophilic acts. Some 50-year old guy trying to get sex from 18 year old is very suspicious. And I'm enough cynical to think that probably most men have at least some pedophilic desires. It's just a taboo to even talk about it. Pedophilia is a horrible and disgusting thing, but it is interesting how whenever you talk about it, especially men go totally crazy and demand that every pedophile should be castrated and killed. Could that be because men are actually scared that they might also have that side in them? This is of course something you can't say without getting attacked. But like with other forms of sexual perversions; it's always somebody else.

2