Ray H.

This isn't an argument.

Abortions destroy genetically complete humans that haven't aggressed against anyone. There is a moral component.

I was just making a prediction with regard to how the male versus the female prodigy would be depicted. I doubt the writers are aware enough to make any points about compulsory education and parent/child separation.

Is Trump not pandering to his supporters? Are his positions this year the same as they have been in the past? If not, why not?

Could be that young Ben Solo was an impatient student who pushed the bounds of his power with the expectation that he could use them to right wrongs. Of course, leading to power lust and the raping and pillaging of the otherwise pristine galaxy. Pattern recognized. Could be that young Rey Solo was deprived of the use of her power and potential, not even being told that she possessed such a thing for her entire childhood. Nevertheless, all she requires is to be inserted into critical situations for her abilities to erupt perfectly and innocently. *vomit* I pray to Yoda that this flips around and Rey goes to the Dark Side. Make it 2 for 2, Luke! Ohhh, wait! That would leave us with the two protagonists being Poe and Finn. Insert biracial, homo-erotic plot twists. Those two did become quite fond of one another quite quickly. Poe certainly liked the way Finn looked in his X-wing jacket.

What are Trump's principles? His selling point is that he can wheel and deal and get things done. Sounds very free markety doesn't it? But how does he wheel and deal? Eminent domain use? Threatening lawsuits? Bankruptcy filing? Making grand promises, claiming grand wisdom and ability when they come true, and conveniently forgetting about the ones that failed miserably? Generally doing what he can get away with? Are these virtues? Should I expect the same from President Trump? Oprah has built a successful, diverse empire, as well. I'm impressed. I don't think she should be President either.

Many people that vote don't put much thought into it. They've been led to believe their whole lives that it's a duty; that democracy is the bulwark of freedom. It isn't immoral for them to think this. In fact, they may believe that the alternative is despotism. It would be immoral for them to choose that outcome, and so they vote to preserve liberty. Many people have placed trust in the concept of democracy. I can't blame them. It's got a two hundred forty year marketing campaign behind it. By the same reasoning, I don't hold it against otherwise moral Christians that the god they believe in is immoral. The church promotes "God is love" and this is what Christians that I know are drawn towards. When, overwhelmingly, the voters/Christians that I am surrounded by are living in a moral way, I will not hold it against them that they've fallen for entrenched dogma. This is the only life I'm going to live. What a waste it would be to write off everyone who votes as just as immoral as the liars they've placed trust in. My tack is to inform those I know of political and bureaucratic bullshit. Hopefully, adding to the discontent for those institutions. The solution is changing the minds of the powerless, not indicting them.

Rothbard's case against the flat tax

I'll do her a favor and not watch her videos.

Later.

So, to be clear, the fact that the people being discussed might have lived their entire lives in an area under dispute makes no difference? What does make a difference is that they don't meet an IQ requirement to exercise property rights?

I detect an empathy gap in this thread.

An individual human is one that possesses unique genetic material, as well as unique experience. Each individual has property rights and is subject to the non-aggression principle, regardless of stage of development, since that individual will be able to reciprocate as an adult. No individual is wholly the property of another in any context. No adult is the property of another adult. No child is the property of its parents. No fetus is the property of the woman carrying it. Each is its own. And, in fact, the further the individual is from adulthood, the more responsibility those who gave it existence have in protecting it and ensuring its health and wellbeing to adulthood. A fetus is a human being with no control over its circumstances and no choice over who's womb it happens to be in. This does not make it property, nor does it make it a parasite. A parasite would have had some choice as to who's plumbing it crawled into. A fetus was forced into existence and is owed protection so that it can fulfill its potential. Abortion should be a last resort for truly tragic circumstances. Carrying the baby to term and putting it up for adoption should be the preferred option as long as there are no health considerations. It's too bad if that's inconvenient to the mother. It's too bad if she has to change her life for nine months. It's too bad if the man who got her pregnant is uncertain or missing or a douchebag. Too bad! Have the baby, give it up, and never do that stupid shit again. I've seen this happen. I've seen a community rally around a pregnant teen who carried a baby to term and then gave it up for adoption. Her life was not "destroyed" by having that baby. And more importantly, that baby's life was not truly destroyed.

The most relevant fact is that this is a child. He's not a jerk. He's learning to be a jerk, though. Thanks to his parents.

Economic Left/Right: 3.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69