There is literally nothing wrong with raping child molesters/child killers in gulag, they deserve it!

There is literally nothing wrong with raping child molesters/child killers in gulag, they deserve it!

No, they deserve to be drowned in a peat bog.

W e w

rape is a spook

I agree my man.


I agree they should be gulaged, but isn't the goal of such incarceration to reform the offenders?

You can't cure pedos just like you cant cure the gays

The pedo hating faction of Holla Forums is just a vocal minority, right?

I'm okay with it as long as you don't fuck a kid irl and just Fap to anime children

As long as you keep your hands off kids then you're good my man.

story on pic?

We're not fascists, user. A quick bullet to the head is enough.

why would you shit yourself like that

There's nothing wrong with raping rapists.
Not all sex interaction between an adult and a child is rape tho.

i agree

but try to send pedos to therapy before they do soemthing with children

He was convicted of killing the kid but there was no proof of sexual abuse.

Of course a weeaboo would say this.


hang yourself

I don't know, maybe some good old fashioned back-breaking labor will make them reconsider their attraction to kids.

That's what the robots are for. 21st century gulags will force people to do 18 hours straight of mechanical turking, every day until they go completely insane.

Sweet spook, friendo.
The universe does not have some kind of cosmic scales that need to be kept in balance by the application of reciprocal suffering.
People who are dangerous should be isolated for the safety of others. After this isolation, they should be rehabilitated if possible, and if not, they should be imprisoned until they are no longer a threat, either because they are old or because they are now sufficiently afraid of being imprisoned again that they won't repeat their crime. Killing is a last resort, though it should be on the table if long-term isolation is impossible.
Revenge is irrational. Causing other people to suffer for the sole purpose of making them suffer does not benefit anyone.

Reactionaries whose notion of pedophilia is nearly a century out of date should be round up and shot. They are no better than racists, sexists, or any of the other ideologically retarded manchildren.

There is literally nothing wrong with pedophilia. The problem is with child abuse and rape, neither of which have more than a tangential relationship to pedophilia.

It happens after getting raped in the ass.

Why imprison when exile would typically be more effective? Perhaps the person would prefer to live in a community of like-minded individuals? So long as they are not an immediate and violent threat to others, and exile or relocation is sufficient to neutralize any potential concerns, imprisonment would not be meaningfully any better than the slave labor in those concentration camps colloquially referred to as "the Gulag".

Anyway, you seem to be endorsing thought criminalization, which is fundamentally antithetical to the principles of an anarchist or communist society. Unless the pedophile acted in a way warranting detainment and intervention, such as harming or disrespecting the boundaries of a child, no intervention should occur. In such situations, it's far more likely that the pedophile will voluntarily seek help with their condition so long as it's freely available without stigma or threat of punishment and it distresses them enough that they want to do something about it.


1) Because it might be possible to rehabilitate them and then reintegrate them into society.
2) Because most people these days don't know how to be subsistence farmers anymore, so they'd die if they were alone in the wilderness.
3) Because there's the possibility that they might not abide by the terms of the exile, and would instead surreptitiously return to society.
4) Because even if they can't be permitted to live in mainstream society, depriving them of the benefits of society (like access to doctors, literature, etc.) is inhumane.
5) Because there aren't many places that a person can just "go into exile" anymore. The world is almost completely settled, so you're effectively just forcing a dangerous person onto some other society, which is unfair.

I'm thinking of the kind of people who are, or who are at least more likely to be immediate, violent threats. We shouldn't imprison or exile people who aren't dangerous.

For what it's worth, I'm against forced labor, including the ridiculously cheap quasi-slave labor that is legally permitted even in modern Western prisons. Prisoners should be allowed to do constructive things if they want to, but the idea of someone else profiting off their need to be active, and their lack of other avenues to do so, disgusts me.

I'm not. My comment was meant as a broad reply to the idea of revenge, not about pedophilia itself, which, as a thing unto itself, is a non-issue. I don't care what thoughts people think, only what they do. If you think dogs are sexy, fine. If you fuck a dog, you should go to jail. I'm absolutely for freedom of thought, opinion, and belief. I'm not going to address the rest of your post since it's mostly about pedophilia, which I don't give a fuck about–though I do think adults who have sex with kids should be imprisoned (and I think most other sane people share that view).

Prisons are already a form of internal exile., with all the major problems that exile has always entailed (recividism, people in exile establishing hostile power structures they jse to continue harrasing those still in society, etc). Difference is that traditional exile relies on having an Outside where you can send people and know they won't come back, whereas an internal exile is still nominally policed.

The problem with your exile idea is that if those likeminded individuals change their minds, or have kids who do not nave the same mind as the community (or are having kids and brainwashing them into being part of their pedophile cult), then you're back to square one. Each generation would require another mass exodus and establishing a new ghetto and rescuing another wave of people from the previous ghetto and attempting to rehabilitate them.

Or you just create priaon planet/island hellholes like in cartoons and scifi movies where everyone born there is inherently a criminal.

I should have been more clear; by "exile", I mean that the person is prohibited from a given territory or community and is sent to another community or territory upon which the sending party, receiving party, and subject party mutually agree. I'd assume that in most if not all cases, exiles would be provided with the transportation and essentials needed to relocate, and their new community would have a new domicile and work available for the person upon reception. Naturally, attempts at rehabilitation and accomodation should be made before the decision of exile is made. Failing those measures, the person could then choose either imprisonment or exile (if the community does not decide for them). Simply sending the person out into the wilderness (if it even exists at that point) would of course be unacceptable and grossly unethical, not to mention a waste of a valuable individual. I assumed that this idea of exile was already part of the ideological background on Holla Forums, but apparently I was mistaken.

After some consideration, though, perhaps I'm just getting hung up on the term "imprisonment". As a Freedomlander, that term invokes pretty inhospitable conditions. I suppose that in this hypothetical communist society, there might be local rehabilitation centers (or regional supercenters) where unrehabilitable members are kept in closely monitored or isolated but otherwise normal conditions, complete with the luxuries and accomodations that they had before as well as employment of their choosing. If this may be what you mean by "imprisonment", then I don't see how the exile I described above would be preferable.

I agree with everything else and apologize for the confusion, excepting:

Why exactly? It's pretty well documented that canines, among other social animals, provide sexual cues when aroused and other cues when they find a given situation to be uncomfortable or unpleasant. Canines, like many other intelligent social animals, engage in recreational sex. If that recreational sex so happens to be with a different species, such as their human companion, does it really matter so long as some semblance of consent and respect for boundaries are established?

My same general criticism of this categorical statement applies as from before: pubertal humans of any age provide cues about—and, more importantly, articulate—their sexual arousal and relative comfort or consent to a given situation. Prepubertal humans can also provide consent to partaking in whatever activities they enjoy, regardless of whether those activities are sexual in nature. Just so long as consent and boundaries are established, again, does it really matter? More importantly, should people be punished for otherwise consensual activities with no serious risk of harm simply due to these spooky conventions?

I'm not advocating for sexual conduct with non-human animals or with children, but I am advocating for the same sort of indifference you express applied to those situations, as well, so long as the same basic criteria that one can reasonably expect from any interaction are met.

Obviously, exile would be a useless and counterproductive practice if all it did was send unwanted people out of the community, thus perpetually risking the development of criminal communities comprising all those exiles. Refer to the first two paragraphs of this post for clarification. I suspect any disagreement we might have is my fault.

It's unlikely that many democratic societies would willingly accept criminal immigrants. And if they do, it won't be long before you've created a hostile neighboring community. Imagine an adjacent state made up entirely of bourgeois exiles whose sole goal is reestablishing capitalism, for example.
I mean, if another country actively lobbies my government to send violent offenders their way, then sure, I'd consider it; it's their loss, after all. Especially if we're sending them to a country that doesn't border ours.
Holla Forums is not one person.
I suspect we both have similar views on prisons. They shouldn't be these dangerous, spartan places with constant stress. Some stress will probably always exist there, since, by their nature, most prisoners will be surrounded by violent young men. But turning a blind eye to prison rape, not allowing prisoners to vote, etc., seems unethical to me.
The same reason that we have laws against animal cruelty. People can have social relationships with animals–hence pets–but it's just not possible for that relationship to be qualitatively the same as relationships between humans. And between humans, sex needs consent. Because this isn't a concept that can be mapped onto non-human life, sex with non-human life shouldn't be permitted. I don't think we should kill dogfuckers, but it's a pathology, and they won't get any sympathy from me.
Children are, by their nature, still developing. A child who "voluntarily" wanted to join the military, or work in a sweatshop, shouldn't get his or her way, because we as adults know better than they do, and it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Kids likewise shouldn't have the power to decide to have sex–especially given that kids are more susceptible to manipulation.
I wouldn't want to see prosecution against children who have sex with children, or teenagers who have sex with teenagers. But if you're an adult and you fuck a kid, you know what you were getting into more than the other party possibly could have. And you belong in prison until the problem is resolved.

Rape establishes hierarchy. Hierarchy degrades the ruler and the ruled. I, a self interested egoist will not sacrifice a part of my self for power.

Smh can't even spook correctly.

When framed in those terms, then of course. Some communities may not consider them criminals, though. For example, their community may have different policies and laws, or at least a different culture, which may better accommodate the person. For example, if one community prohibits the consumption of alcohol or tobacco and someone violates those policies, a solution can be to exile the person to a community that does not have those policies. After some time, the exile may expire and the person can return, so long as they follow the policies and laws of that community. With cases like sexual activity with children or non-human animals, such instances may become less likely. Nevertheless, I can conceive of a society wherein some communities (like the one in which you'd live) prohibit such activities whereas others might not due to the very reasons I previously specified.

Of course not, but some ideas seem to inform the background of this community. For example, a general understanding of what communism is and how the basics of a communist society might function is pretty much a given on this board. I mistakenly assumed the same was true with exile policies.

Animal cruelty by definition implies a lack of consent. If consent is present, however conceived, then it would by definition not be animal cruelty.

I'm not disputing that. What I am saying, however, is that two intelligent social animals of different species can engage in consensual sexual activity for recreational purposes. If someone is looking for a human-like relationship in a pet, then that's obviously a fault of the person.

Of course it can be. With just a little bit of knowledge of the animal species' sexual anatomy mating behaviors, one can accurately determine whether an animal is sexually aroused and interested in sexual activity. With canines, for example, that may be indicated by estrus (in females) or a visible erection (in males). So long as the canine does not withdraw contact or provide any other indicators of refusing consent during the course of the sexual encounter, I see no reason why that does not meaningfully qualify as a consensual sexual encounter between the human and their canine companion. To assume that non-human animals, particularly intelligent social animals, categorically cannot consent seems to me like a gross underestimation of animal behavior. What makes humans qualitatively different from those other animals such that we can consent and they cannot? What about dolphins or monkeys? Can they not consent, either, despite being clearly intelligent and social enough to nonverbally articulate their emotions?

>I don't think we should kill dogfuckers, but it's a pathology, and they won't get any sympathy from me.
The same was said about pedophilia, and yet the DSM-V clearly distinguishes between pedophilia as a sexual orientation and as a pathological disorder. The same was also said of other sexually deviant orientations. What makes interspecies sexual attraction inherently pathological?

The human brain is in a constant state of development throughout its lifetime and major structural neurodevelopments don't stop until around age 25 with the extremely important prefrontal cortex. Given that the developed prefrontal cortex and its functions are essentially what defines adulthood and maturity from a neurodevelopmental standpoint, how then is a 20-year-old qualitatively different in their capacity to provide consent than, say, a 2-year-old? Of course there are massive developmental differences between age 2 and age 20, but the same is true between age 20 and age 25. When counting experience and post-developmental maturation, age 25 is massively different from age 50, as well.

Sounds like a fundamentally undemocratic and autocratic way to treat children, and thus I argue is antithetical to the principles of an anarchist or communist society. Rather than adults being the functional equivalent of a dictator to their children, it would be more consonant (and probably far more effective and beneficial) to allow children to learn for themselves why they shouldn't, say, join the military or work in a sweatshop. That should be pretty easy to accomplish: simply explain to them what those things are and, if they are not sufficiently dissuaded, provide them with safe simulations which they can experience to help them come to the conclusion themselves. The same would apply to practically all parts of parenting and upbringing, including sexual conduct. I strongly suspect, however, that even a prepubertal child wouldn't shy away from sexual activity like they might from military service or dangerous physical labor—not because of any innate sexuality in the child, but simply because of the social bonding and interactive play which might be involved.

How is that position meaningfully different from that of a fundamentalist Christian or some other puritanical reactionary? While I personally have concerns about the age disparity of sexual partners, especially when one of them is young (or a child!), I don't think it's anyone's place to deprive children of their autonomy, liberty, and free association. There are better ways of bringing up children than to restrict and confine them like prisoners under the rule of well-meaning and "benevolent" dictators.

The same is true of many social interactions, from surprise parties and gifts to joining a particular group and many more, yet I doubt you'd object then. Using the ignorance or "innocence" of any person, whether child or adult, as an excuse to exclude them from harmless consensual activities seems to me like an arbitrary and unfair abuse of power, and fundamentally not anarchist or communist.

/thread honestly. when I was a teen I wouldnt shy away from sex with older people. its on a case by case basis and should be treated the same for children as it is adults.

Carceral Feminism 101, it's okay to be a bloodthirsty murderer/rapist as long as you use the faulty criminal justice system to accuse your victims first!

Your idea of exile is interesting, and I will admit that it's not something I'd given much thought to before. Whenever someone mentioned it, I usually just imagined the ancient Greek model, and then dismissed it out of hand since that model isn't workable in the modern world.

As for the rest of this, I'm not interested in explaining why dogfucking and kiddyfucking is bad. In any democratic society, your shit isn't going to fly. Deal with it.

I agree. An eye for an eye.

Nope, so kill yourself child rapist.

Some Brazilian who raped his son then turned himself in because he said he was possessed by demons. He was then raped and beaten up multiple times in prison.



Maybe in a society far removed from religion derived moralization that birthed the idea that these things were inherently wrong in the first place.

You're functionally asking for a society in which parents are not allowed to prevent an adult from having sex with their child or their dog, because you're pretending that they "consent" is meaningfully similar to that of a developed adult's.
Go back to your Tumblr torture chamber where nothing can be wrong, harmful, or ill-advised, as long as it's sexual.

define "meaningful"

Define "define."

Every pedo will hang.

explain what counts as meaningful. stop being a faggot avoiding my questions with nonsense

Define "nonsense."

blatantly avoiding my question by asking me to define shit you already know the answer to. jesus fuck why do tankies start acting like they just ate a bucket of fucking lead paint chips whenever someone challenges the age of consent.

Define "''"

Congratulations, you just got the point.

I'm sure that would be convenient for you. I'm a mutualist.

uh no, because in this context "meaningful consent" means different things to different people. is the fact that the child in question has a less developed brain enough for being "meaningful", because in that case how "developed" do they have to be?? so no, thats not the point

Rad. You can't have sex with my child, so I don't think there's anything more we have to say to each other.
Legit question, though: How did you find Holla Forums?

since when do you own them? are states able to own their citizens too?

and I found leftypol through rebel's channel

Gosh, I guess I own my dad, too.


even though your dad is "yours" im pretty sure you dont make and enforce decisions for him now do you?

Does this mean you don't want to fuck my dad?

I dont give a shit about your dad

What if he were a kid? I bet you'd want to fuck him then.

I still dont give a shit

Come on, my dad's a great guy. I mean, he doesn't fuck dogs or kids, so he's clearly not that great, but I bet he'd show you a good time. I guess it would be pointless if you already fuck your own dad, though. Is that on your list, too?

As long as you don't rape kids you're fine in my books. I have a constant urge to kick stupid people in the face but as a functional human being I can control my emotions and actions, because I'm not an animal.

I'd say It's around 50/50, which is pretty good these days.

You want to fuck kids, but you can't fuck kids, because laws. What to do?
1. Draw a hard distinction between fucking kids and wanting to fuck kids. If you don't actually do it, you haven't done anything wrong.
2. Pretend that children are capable of making their own decisions responsibly with the context and maturity of an adult, even though the lack of that is precisely what makes them children and why they need people to raise them.
3. Defend your inalienable right to fuck a kid because you got them to say, "I consent," as though that has the same meaning when coming out of an 8-year-old's mouth as it does when coming out of an adult's, or even a 16-year-old's.
4. Even though you said you'd never fuck kids, now you're allowed to fuck kids, and when their parents object, the law will step in because the child "consents." So, hey, you might as well fuck some kids as long as you've got the opportunity.
You all need to commit suicide.

The only people who talk about, think about, post about, and obsess about, the right of adults to fuck kids are people from Tumblr. Frankly, I don't know how any Tumblrinas who came here could stick around, since we're allergic to idpol, but apparently a few of you have managed to conjure up the will.

How about you go fuck yourself and take your spooky dogma with you, pseudo-Stirnerite? If you're just going to browbeat and kowtow to liberal mainstream notions of these issues, then I agree that discussing this matter any further is a waste of time.

Stay mad, degenerate. If I ever meet scum like you during pitched battles, I'll either let the reactionaries crush you or I'll do it myself.

Not me. And none of the subsequent replies until now were me.

user wasn't me.

No, I'm applying communist and anarchist principles to notions of family and familial hierarchy, both of which are feudal remnants from bourgeois ideology. What I'm asking is for children to not become the new underclass in the power dynamics of a future anarchist or communist society, or for people to be deprived of consensual and harmless activities simply because of dogmatic moralization from ethical traditionalists like you. You've yet to explain how consent is qualitatively different from a "child" and an "adult", terms which you have yet to clearly define, as well. And I can turn your own language back onto you just as well: You're functionally asking for a society in which parents are permitted to dictate and autocratically rule over their children like they are slaves and to prevent people from engaging in harmless activities due to your arbitrary puritanism because you're pretending that those arbitrary puritanical views are anything more than socially constructed spooks predicated on icky factor and your personal fee-fees.

Fuck off, liberal.

Literally no different from homophobes and racists in the South.

Your shitshow "arguments" mean practically nothing when you fail to define or specify what exactly constitutes the operative terms and phrases therein, such as "child", "adult", "consent", and "context and maturity". At this point, you're no better than a theologian.

Take your own advice.

Is this a new meme or in-joke you're trying to start? Or is this just another unoriginal rehashing of the "people from X site who I'm pressured into caricaturing and treating as an outgroup by the site I most frequently visit are Y"? My guess is the latter, since your retarded strawman doesn't even make coherent sense.

Smells like COINTELPRO. Reported.

Forgot my sage.

I'm using Tor, nigger, so I'll just get a new circuit or identity and continue on if your puerile report has any effect. I responded late because I have been busy doing shit that matters more than arguing with anons on Holla Forums. I have no idea what page any thread is on because that information is not displayed while viewing through Tor. If I so happened to have bumped it before it 404'd, that would be strictly a coincidence.

Go be paranoid somewhere else.

When it comes to Milo, get the rope and pretend its not cool.