Unofficial History of Drama in the Free State

[hellbilly]

So am I to believe that if the Keene liberty community found out judge Burke, or some keene cop  or statist state rep was a pedophile they would keep it a secret?

Or do you only keep it a secret when it is someone in your group?

I don't think anyone has said he should keep it a secret. The issue is what's to be done now that the info has been made public.

In another post in this thread I asked "wouldn't you rather know who to keep your kids away from?" I don't think anyone answered that.

**

In the Free Society scenario, the couple in question would have fled. What are the odds they would have found a home in some other community with others who are "sympathetic to their ideals"?

[dalebert]

If there weren't government in the mix, you would not have had a problem with her actions, would you?

If the environment were such that there was hope for a calm, rational discussion about what's wrong with their controversial views without putting them in jeopardy just by the public outing alone, then no, I wouldn't.  I still feel like really smart people are feigning ignorance about the mass hysteria that this subject invokes and all the potential repercussions.

And how will the issues of injustice be brought to light, Dale? Shit had to come out for it to be dealt with.

There are no issues.  There is no shit.  There are controversial views.  There is ZERO real evidence of any harm done to any child.  As I understand it from hearing it from multiple first-hand sources, all we have is what they said and that included that they have not acted and that they don't intend to, and having controversial views is not a violation of anyone's rights.

I wouldn't, however, tell KKK members that there are slaves in a basement, and I said a couple posts back what I, personally would have done in this situation.

Bad choice for an example on my part.  Obviously we all sympathize with the slaves, not to mention that I don't think the KKK overlaps with institutionalized slavery on the time line.  A better example might be some pro-lifers posting the personal info of abortion doctors knowing that there are people out there ready and willing to assassinate them.  I doubt even the pro-life folks here support that tactic.

Key word being innocent. Yes. That point has become moot because the people in this specific case didn't stick around to defend themselves and couldn't have been harmed at all, using assumed names.

I've done my best to convey to you why I strongly disagree with such optimism so I guess we just have to disagree, and unfortunately, that seems to be the crux of the rest of our disagreement.  I doubt I would have reacted as strongly as Ian did toward Summer, but I understand his motives and I think this is what it comes down to.  I have no expectations for anything remotely approaching a rational airing of the issues via a very public Facebook discussion and so I don't ascribe any fishiness to them leaving town.  I think they had a rational fear that their children could be taken from them or more.  I do agree with some here that they were naive not to expect someone to react like Summer did.  They were sort of collectivist in that way, i.e. assuming all Free Keene folks were above the typical mainstream over-reaction to this subject.

I believe we have the same motivations, Dale. I am just not as nice a guy as you are. Fuck bad people. If they are sorry and make damn sure to prove it, then cool. No more fuck them. If they prove over time to continue being bad, then WAAAAAY fuck them. I have a pretty deep well of forgiveness, but it is conditional and not as deep as yours, maybe.

I have no idea what I'm supposed to be forgiving them for.  I strongly disagree with them and would love a chance to talk to them and try to change their views.  I am quite willing to forgive Summer for reacting in a way that would likely bring harm to (for all we know) innocent people.  (Note: It's my opinion that harm from her actions is very likely.  I realize I've failed to convince you of that and I've more or less given up.)  She's simply caught up in the massive frenzy that this subject inspires.  I don't doubt her sincerity and desire to do the right thing.  The pedo-frenzy is a fairly modern phenomenon and I do think people will eventually calm down and be able to talk about it again with rational solutions in mind.  All the emotionalism leads people to poor solutions.  Kind of reminds me of the war on drugs.  Some people are facing real problems related to drug abuse but the way we're trying to solve those is ineffective and often makes things much worse.

[alaric89]

Pedo-frenzy? Maybe this should have been handled internally but this sort of thing has to be hashed out. It would be best to have clear definitions and nip it in the bud. I would recommend that someone in the FSP start some sort of arbitration firm, preferably more than one. This shouldn't be shouted from the rooftops but it shouldn't be shoved under the rug either. It will suck, and even though I would prefere to have people who have tendencies towards child sexual attraction be forthright, it is better if everyone is just honest and says that what they want to do isn't exceptable. I wish you insiders could at least sympathise with us outsiders point of view. A young single mother felt frightened and had no one to turn to. For at least the second time the free staters were called for real world help and dropped the ball.

[John Shaw]

If there weren't government in the mix, you would not have had a problem with her actions, would you?

If the environment were such that there was hope for a calm, rational discussion about what's wrong with their controversial views without putting them in jeopardy just by the public outing alone, then no, I wouldn't.  I still feel like really smart people are feigning ignorance about the mass hysteria that this subject invokes and all the potential repercussions.

So not even in a free society then, right? I mean, what you're saying is that a society without significant chance of retaliation against people with "Controversial views" must exist before this is an acceptable topic to even discuss?

As for the repercussions of a dude admitting to be a pedophile on a planet where pedophilia is almost universally denounced are solely the responsibility of the dude and no one else, so far as I'm concerned. Dude knew what he was saying when he opened his mouth, right? No one is responsible for that but him. HE publicly outed himself.

There are no issues.  There is no shit.  There are controversial views.  There is ZERO real evidence of any harm done to any child.  As I understand it from hearing it from multiple first-hand sources, all we have is what they said and that included that they have not acted and that they don't intend to, and having controversial views is not a violation of anyone's rights.

It is however, perfectly valid that anyone with a kid near this dude, after he admits his... tastes, should be informed of them so that they can make their own choice about interacting with him, or letting their kid come near him. And for the record, he didn't say that he didn't intend to have sex with children. He said that he hadn't at this point, and when specifically asked about whether he had touched Summer's baby, he responded with (Accurate paraphrasing) "She's too young for my tastes, I like them between 6 and 8."  Did you catch the implication in that statement?

Also, a point I'd like to make about "controversial views" - Pedophilia is no more a "controversial view" than homosexuality is. It is a state of brain chemistry due to development or genetics or whatever. The dude admits to sexual feelings toward children. He is a pedophile. That's what a pedophile is. It is not the action, it is the predilection.

Before my next statement I want to make clear that I am in NO WAY conflating being gay with being a pedophile. Nothing wrong with being gay at all.

Now - To prove the point about action vs. thought - You were gay before you ever had sex with a dude. You will surely admit this, yes? Having sex is not what defined your sexual tastes. It is not the action. It is who you are. You're a gay guy. S'cool. But you'd still be gay whether or not you ever decided to have sex with a dude, right? You'd still be a gay guy if you closeted up and joined a church and married some woman who doesn't like sex anyhow and etc etc.

This dude expressed his desire to have sex with children. He's a pedophile. He admitted it fairly openly. That is who he is, whatever the reason. He also specifically said that children can consent. That absolutely means that he saw no reason why it would be necessary to consult a parent when or if he decided to act on his sexual feelings. He even dropped the phrase "Anti ageist" into the convo.

That leads to the logical conclusion that if he decided to have sex with a child, he'd do it and he would be perfectly happy to hide it from the parents of the child, what with it not being any of their business, due to the child's ability to consent.

Now, there are fucking shitpiles of scientific and social evidence that fucking a kid damages them. I don't think that this is even in dispute so I'm not gonna cite any of the thousands of studies out there. Fucking kids hurts kids. There's no controversy there. It's a supportable fact.

Long story short - This guy wants to fuck kids. Keep him away from kids or there is a greater than zero chance of them getting fucked. Knowing this is more valuable than his sense of privacy, especially when he is willing to admit it in conversation. This is not some case where some creepy guy acted sorta creepy and people were worried about what he might do. That I would totally agree qualifies as the witch hunt you were talking about.  This is a very specific case of a man expressing his desire to do something.

Tell the whole fucking world as far as I'm concerned. Let it be known throughout the land. S'not my problem if as a result of his messed up brain and big mouth that the state starts paying attention to him. The fact that gooberment exists is a bummer, but I am not responsible for gooberment or its actions, and I'm not pretending ignorance either.

I think you might have a problem using free market solutions that overlap state monopolies because the state might intercede. Well, I dunno what to tell you about that beyond that I think that kids being exposed to pedophiles is worse to me than pedophiles being exposed to gooberment. Again, I wouldn't have done what she did. In some ways what I would have done is worse, by threatening the dude personally, but at least my threat would have been an if/then sort of affair. But I don't think she did anything worthy of what happened to her. She was treated like the perpetrator rather than the victim.

Bad choice for an example on my part.  Obviously we all sympathize with the slaves, not to mention that I don't think the KKK overlaps with institutionalized slavery on the time line.  A better example might be some pro-lifers posting the personal info of abortion doctors knowing that there are people out there ready and willing to assassinate them.  I doubt even the pro-life folks here support that tactic.

But that isn't what happened. What happened is more akin to an abortion doctor sitting down with a pro-lifer and telling them all about how he's an abortion doctor who's never performed an abortion yet.

Of course that metaphor breaks down because there's nothing wrong with abortion and there IS something wrong with pedophilia. Pedophilia is bad.

They were sort of collectivist in that way, i.e. assuming all Free Keene folks were above the typical mainstream over-reaction to this subject.

Yeah, we disagree. I have been pretty damned rational in this discussion with you and I will continue to assert that there is no "Typical mainstream over-reaction" to pedophilia. That dude needs serious therapy and whatever other treatments exist/will exist and he needs to be kept away from children. Otherwise kids could get fucked just because he can't do without his favorite type of orgasm. That's small potatoes for him, but life changing damage for most kids.  

Because he's not interested in help, people need to be informed so they can keep their kids away from him. Summer did that. I still see no problem here in her actions, man.

I have no idea what I'm supposed to be forgiving them for.

I was talking bad behavior in general, not this particular case.

I strongly disagree with them and would love a chance to talk to them and try to change their views.

I don't think anything either of us could say would be helpful. This is serious psychological shit that requires therapy. Sexual desire is not always rational, by nature, and debate doesn't change what causes a hardon.

I am quite willing to forgive Summer for reacting in a way that would likely bring harm to (for all we know) innocent people.  (Note: It's my opinion that harm from her actions is very likely.  I realize I've failed to convince you of that and I've more or less given up.)  

Yeah, we disagree there. I think she ostracized some people good and proper, although I'd have done it differently. It would probably have ended in the same result if it were me, though. If I had told the dude right then and there that I was gonna tell everyone in the community what he'd just told me via word of mouth, they'd have bugged out just as quickly I think.

I don't doubt her sincerity and desire to do the right thing.  

This we agree on.

The pedo-frenzy is a fairly modern phenomenon and I do think people will eventually calm down and be able to talk about it again with rational solutions in mind.  All the emotionalism leads people to poor solutions.

Rational solution options to pedophilia are therapy and ostracism. The dude wasn't gonna do the therapy thing, man. He thought that his views were acceptable and rational. Ostracism was the only option left.

Kind of reminds me of the war on drugs.  Some people are facing real problems related to drug abuse but the way we're trying to solve those is ineffective and often makes things much worse.

I don't see how. Being a drug addict doesn't necessitate harming anyone but oneself.

Being a pedophile by its very nature requires someone else to act upon if the temptation or whatever is too strong. I junkie can shoot up and lie in bed with no one getting hurt. A pedophile can't fuck a kid and not fuck a kid at the same time.

A cannot also be non-A.

[John Shaw]

Maybe this should have been handled internally but this sort of thing has to be hashed out.

I think that this is a very important conversation and it's good that someone is having it. Hence my big assed posts, heh.

They should be getting smaller at this point, for clarity sake, but I'm violating my own rule and blabbing away.

[blackie]

So am I to believe that if the Keene liberty community found out judge Burke, or some keene cop  or statist state rep was a pedophile they would keep it a secret?

Or do you only keep it a secret when it is someone in your group?

I don't think anyone has said he should keep it a secret. The issue is what's to be done now that the info has been made public.

In another post in this thread I asked "wouldn't you rather know who to keep your kids away from?" I don't think anyone answered that.

I'm pretty sure it is still a "secret" in the free keene community. The only thing we know about this couple is a fake first names, that they have a two year old, and the dude is a pedophile. I would need more information in order to know who to keep my kids away from...unless  I am just supposed to avoid all Free Keeners.

I would like to know who to keep my kids away from. Is there somewhere else on the internet I can go to find out about this dude, or is this the only place it is being discussed? Currenlty I don't have enough information so I could avoid him. I'll need a picture in order to avoid him.

[dalebert]

So not even in a free society then, right? I mean, what you're saying is that a society without significant chance of retaliation against people with "Controversial views" must exist before this is an acceptable topic to even discuss?

We can always discuss the topic.  Where I stress extreme caution is with public accusations toward specific presumed-innocent people without clear evidence of a crime or threat.  I think I mis-poke or you misheard, probably the former.  I was trying to say that yes, we could have this discussion with regard to specific people openly in public in a culture where there is some sense of justice, i.e. an innocent until prove guilty approach instead of as it is, i.e. the exact opposite, ESPECIALLY on this subject.

On a slight side note, I'm having to craft my words because you keep saying "government".  I feel that you see governments as the root of the problem.  I see them as a symptom of cultures that have irrational behaviors.  We won't see voluntary and non-monopolistic governments until we change the cultures that fuel the authoritarian monopoly style of governments (credit to my friend Menno for the term).  It's just as people will not abandon irrational religions until they stop being superstitious and unscientific.  I'm just trying to dig a little deeper.

As for the repercussions of a dude admitting to be a pedophile on a planet where pedophilia is almost universally denounced

Support for violent governments is almost universal.  Means absolutely shit to me.  I'm trying to get people to distinguish between the ACT which we would almost certainly all universally agree has a victim and is therefore criminal, and a

THOUGHT CRIME

HE publicly outed himself.

I admitted he was stupid to talk about it openly but he didn't exactly make a webpage or post it on FB.  He told a small circle of friends he thought he could trust not to act as the thought police.

And for the record...

You don't have any business going there.  You were not there.  You don't have the record.  You have 2nd-hand out-of-context information from one extremely biased source.  Again, that was one of my biggest points to begin with and why I take issue with a massive public discussion amongst people who WERE NOT THERE about an extremely volatile topic.  This is gossip at its worst.  I wasn't there either.  I didn't follow the gossip because I didn't trust it and I hate that kind of drama.  I stated what I heard and how was very different from what you heard only to point out how unreliable such information is, especially when the repercussions are so potentially serious.  I understand there are potentially serious repercussions for children if an acting pedophile isn't stopped, and I am inclined to er on the side of safety, but not to the point of dismissively harming innocent people.

That absolutely means that he saw no reason why it would be necessary to consult a parent when or if he decided to act on his sexual feelings. He even dropped the phrase "Anti ageist" into the convo.

Bullshit.  He knows there are potential and likely serious repercussions if he acts on it for as long as our culture broadly rejects his views on child consent, whether it's the government specifically or concerned people defending children.

That leads to the logical conclusion that if he decided to have sex with a child, he'd do it and he would be perfectly happy to hide it from the parents of the child, what with it not being any of their business, due to the child's ability to consent.

I don't think you can derive all that at all from the statements that you got 2nd-hand and out of context from an emotional source.  That implies a sneakiness and very confrontational approach to his differences of opinion with other people.  He has not demonstrated those traits, quite the opposite actually.

Now, there are fucking shitpiles of scientific and social evidence that fucking a kid damages them.

You don't even have to go there.  I get it.  Really.

This guy wants to fuck kids. Keep him away from kids or there is a greater than zero chance of them getting fucked.

Protecting kids is crucial, but the principle of innocent until proven guilty is a very core foundation of my moral structure and I will not contrive justifications for violating it.

This is not some case where some creepy guy acted sorta creepy and people were worried about what he might do.

I believe that's exactly what it is.

I dunno what to tell you about that beyond that I think that kids being exposed to pedophiles is worse to me than pedophiles being exposed to gooberment.

When there's not proof whatsoever of any criminal action, just thoughts, and you know governments are almost certainly going to violate his rights.  This subject has you so stirred up that you've abandoned any principles of innocent until proven guilty, at least in your heart.  It's attitudes like that which justify aggression against innocent people, one of the attitudes of a culture that allows aggressive governments to flourish.

I don't think anything either of us could say would be helpful. This is serious psychological shit that requires therapy. Sexual desire is not always rational, by nature, and debate doesn't change what causes a hardon.

Then there's a pretty good chance that's the direction the conversation would go.  "Get professional help, man.  Seriously."

Kind of reminds me of the war on drugs.  Some people are facing real problems related to drug abuse but the way we're trying to solve those is ineffective and often makes things much worse.

I don't see how. Being a drug addict doesn't necessitate harming anyone but oneself.

The analogy was simply meant to point out a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't solve the problem and even makes it worse.  I think the ways we try to protect children from pedophiles aren't very effective for protecting children and end up harming innocent people.  In that sense it's very like the drug war.  Shit like putting people on registries that force them live under bridges (yes, for realz), as if any true predator won't just travel a few miles to violate children.  (Who wants to shit where they eat?)  The attitude is "Fuck 'em.  They're pedos.  They should have been executed!"

I'm not going to quote and respond to the long list of your obfuscations that compare the thought to the deed and treat him as a criminal for thoughts and not actions.

[dalebert]

I would like to know who to keep my kids away from. Is there somewhere else on the internet I can go to find out about this dude, or is this the only place it is being discussed? Currenlty I don't have enough information so I could avoid him. I'll need a picture in order to avoid him.

You should be vetting anyone that you might allow to be alone with your children in a private setting.  Statistically, your children are at the greatest risk with your friends and family that are secretive about their desires.  I don't want to make you paranoid (watch the South Park episode about pedophilia), but I don't know the answer for protecting against that other than to trust your instincts and find polite ways to decline someone's offer to babysit when your internal alarms are going off, or whatever.  I really don't have great answers.  It's an insidious problem.

But I know what you're asking for is simply a false sense of security.  You have hope that targeting specific people on some kind of registry will somehow significantly decrease the odds of your children being molested.  It won't.  This is akin to seeking gun control to deal with crime.  You've been deluded by the pedo-frenzy and the extremely bad solutions it has put forth.  When you get your knee-jerk emotional reactions under control, you can finally start seeking rational solutions for keeping your children safe.

[dalebert]

Maybe this should have been handled internally but this sort of thing has to be hashed out.

I'm inclined to agree with that.  I just take issue with a massive public outing when I'm quite confident that justice will not be served by it.

[blackie]

Maybe this should have been handled internally but this sort of thing has to be hashed out.

I'm inclined to agree with that.  I just take issue with a massive public outing when I'm quite confident that justice will not be served by it.

So you are advocating the catholic church way of dealing with pedophiles?

[blackie]

  I doubt I would have reacted as strongly as Ian did toward Summer, but I understand his motives and I think this is what it comes down to.

What is Ian's role in this?

How did Ian react?

What do you think his motives are?

[dalebert]

I think part of what's fueling your frenzy is a misunderstanding.  You have interpreted his admitted attraction to children as a burning and uncontrollable desire that MUST be acted upon.  Agreed that it is an unhealthy desire and IF he acted on it, there would be a clear victim but you're jumping to some unjustified conclusions.

I'd guess you've been attracted to countless women who did not reciprocate your feelings.  Most of us can relate, especially me since most of the people I'm attracted to are incapable of ever being attracted back.  IF you violated a woman's space to fulfill that desire against her wishes, there would be repercussions including the fact that you'd feel like shit because you're just not the kind of guy who can sleep with himself after violating someone's rights.  But more so, you might get prosecuted, or slapped with a restraining order, or a free market version much like those, or simply a punch in the mouth by her boyfriend or another valiant guy who just happened to witness the interaction.  There are countless repercussions for acting on those desires that go beyond your personal morality.  He has consent issues, yes, but there are many other serious repercussions that apply to him and he knows it.

The point is you control yourself and for all we know, so does this guy.  It's as simple as that.  You seem to presume that someone who is attracted to children is like a heroin junky with no willpower whatsoever who will tear copper pipes out of someone's home and hock them to get their junk.  There's no reason to treat the degree and severity of his attraction as any greater than yours.  That image of ALL pedophiles as being unable to control their desires is a propaganda image.

I will admit right now that I've been attracted to post-pubescent but not yet age of legal consent men.  In my personal opinion, some of them are probably capable of consent and some aren't.  Doesn't matter.  I will NEVER fucking act on such an attraction.  Not fucking worth risking the potential repercussions.  Not interested in getting famous on that show where they set up sting ops with supposed 15 year-olds.  I've also been attracted to countless str8 dudes.  Never invaded a single space bubble.  Don't wanna get punched in the teeth.  It ain't that hard for me to resist an attraction.  I have no reason to believe his attractions, though bizarre, are any different in that respect.

[dalebert]

So you are advocating the catholic church way of dealing with pedophiles?

No.  They ACTED.  They were real criminals.  Goddamn!  All the fucking straw-men in this discussion...  Are you still claiming ignorance of the difference between a thought crime and a real crime?  Is it that complicated?

[dalebert]

How did Ian react?

I'm just going on John's quote in the gigantic lettering.  Just go back a few pages if you missed it.

What do you think his motives are?

I think he's ostracizing someone for starting a witch hunt based on a thought crime.

[blackie]

I think part of what's fueling your frenzy is a misunderstanding.  You have interpreted his admitted attraction to children as a burning and uncontrollable desire that MUST be acted upon.  Agreed that it is an unhealthy desire and IF he acted on it, there would be a clear victim but you're jumping to some unjustified conclusions.

No, the problem is that the guy doesn't see anything wrong with his attraction to children, or having sexual relations with children. I'm not jumping to any conclusions, he said that shit. No one is disputing that.