DaVinci

I don't see this as being too dissimilar from Obama. Hope! Change! Eh, turns out he's more of the same. They all make promises they don't keep, or say things they can't actually do, or say things they won't do that they end up doing. Is a promise being kept a sign of someone changing the game, or is it a sign of sophisticated and subtle manipulation? I think we all know what the answer to that question is, even if we don't want to admit it. These aren't saints we're dealing with.

So I must be able to blow up my neighbors driveway cause he spanks his kids? Surely this can't be the most reasonable course of action.

I remember debating with people during the election that Hillary was trying to start war with Russia and that Obama declaring a no fly zone would be an act of war. Now we have Trump shooting missiles at Syria....why? Cause of a chemical attack that happened inside the country? Anyone want to try and explain how this is okay?

Sure, he needs money. That's doesn't seem to be the issue though. He could have had a job all that time he was living off of savings. So why didn't he? Cause he didn't want one? Why not? I know you can't answer that for him, but if someone has clearly moved out of their mom's house and refused to go back, I'm not sure suggesting that they go back into something that is stated as an undesired environment makes sense. The only reason it is being brought up is because the world runs on fiat pieces of ink on paper that are required to have to eat food and have a roof. I wouldn't be surprised to hear the OP say he finds working a mind numbing experience to be something that he doesn't really want to go back to doing.

Why is getting a job so important that it should be his first priority? I'm not saying he could't benefit from having a paycheck, but clearly he has been living off of savings because he doesn't want a mindless job. So why should him getting a job be such a high priority?

I was talking about this months ago here and other places and no one ever really responded to what I was saying. It's concerning how human behavior doesn't seem to change until pressed against the wall. Yes, You Tube is changing. It's been changing for a while. Every six months someone makes a You Tube is dead video. It's literally been happening since like 2007. I heard the idea before that the internet could theoretically work completely wirelessly, like a CB radio. Doesn't it make sense for everyone to have a little chunk of the internet? Person 1 has info A, B, and C. Person 2 has info B, C, D. Person 3 has info C, D, E. etc. Granted this wouldn't work for everything, but considering how much original user content is the big draw online I can see a scenario where people go back to having their own websites. Why do people go to You Tube for videos? Security. You Tube has a reputation to uphold. It's the same for Kickstarter. Why do people get angry when people try to crowd fund on their own site instead of KS? Security. KS has to have some kind of protection in place to help people from being scammed. So many industries like Kickstarter and You Tube would dissolve if people thought other people were more trustworthy.

That's a long read, but thanks for posting it. I'll have to give it a look.

I wasn't thinking of one law specifically as there are many laws that revolve around the 15-21 age range. Driver's license. Drinking alcohol. Voting. If you made adulthood start at 25 then it would make sense that some of those things might get pushed back. I'm also interested in what would happen to the family structure. Right now, a parent would get in huge trouble if they kicked a 16 year old out of their house. But fast forward two years and it is acceptable and in some cases encouraged to do the same thing. What would happen if you weren't an adult till 25? Why is kicking out someone with a brain in development a crime only when it falls on an arbitrary point on a calendar and isn't based on evidence of brain maturity, when evidence is available?

To your analogy, the invading army is much closer, and so is more clearly visible than the enemy on the horizon, but there are still those inside the walls who view you as the enemy. You know this. I don't have to tell you that people on the left, including that guy standing next to you, sees you as the enemy. So what do you do about it? How do you defeat the army marching on your walls when the guy next to you is lowering the drawbridge? You convince him that the approaching army is the enemy, right? How well is that working out so far? Sure, there are some on the left who have switched sides, but arguably the tactics being used to draw people away from the left are happening slower than the army is approaching, and in fact we see a surge of people on the left hardening their own defenses in response to who they view as their enemy attacking them.

What about a house with no roof? Most people wouldn't consider it a house and wouldn't move in. Isn't the difference there that you can see with your eyes, "Oh, there's no roof. ... can't move in" There is a clear distinction between a "house" and a vaguely house shaped weave of lumber. Same with a car. A car with no tires isn't exactly able to be driven as a car. At least not in the way most people would expect. These are clear distinctions. So why then make arbitrary points on a conceptual calendar for something as complex and real as a human? Why not give those people under 25 brain scans until they have matured? Instead of kids bugging mom and dad to get their learners permit they will be bugging mom and dad for a brain scan.

The difference between a non-fully developed brain and a fully developed brain seems like a clear distinction with scientific proof to back this up. So why do we consider people adults at 18? Is this an outdated relic of an earlier age before science could prove things about the brain? Should laws be re-written to accommodate for this? What would happen to family dynamics?

The problem is that it just isn't as clear cut as that. This isn't Lord of the Rings where all the orcs happen to be bad guys for some reason, and all the humans happen to be good guys. This is real life. There are people on the left who would view you as the enemy. How will you defend yourself from this approaching army, and from the army inside your walls. The right is fighting a two front war, and that never ends well.

Is this the new meme now? I've seen you respond to threads twice now in this same format.

Think about it like this. Have you ever been through a situation in your life and thought "Next time that happens I know how I can get through it" but then you realize "I'm not even going to get into that situation again". In other words, going through a storm teaches you how to go through a storm, but also makes you realize to sit out storms and wait for a clear day instead. I think the same thing will be true of humanity. By the time we get DRO's we will have largely outgrown the need for them. I think DRO's would be most likely during the transition from government to no government, (as the government was being disassembled), and then they would be largely phased out over time.

My take on this is that if humans were more connected to each other that it would largely negate the need for DRO's. I think our view of DRO's living in a not free society is thinking of them as replacing mountains when a society that is peaceful will actually only need a few scattered hills worth of DRO's.

That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you if you can explain non-aggression to children, and in what way would you do that?

Actually the post itself does start with the personal relevance. "Takes one to know one" It's not like she wasn't upfront about that she does the same thing. Maybe the way she phrased her post could be better, but I don't think that means her post was malicious.

Why is that something that only smart people will be able to process? You're saying that the concept of non-aggression is hard to understand? How would you teach a child that concept then?

But she brought that up. It's the last line of her post. "It "runs in my family." " She also brings up the question of what other behaviors this habit could be linked to, and where it could be coming from.

Yes, you did. But then you also restated it and took out words I said and put quotes around it like I also said it a different way. Are you asking me a hypothetical question or are you trying to strawman what I actually said?

I dunno. That's not even what I said.

Is it a strawman to point out how it is isn't sufficient to empty out a filling bathtub with a teaspoon to save a drowning baby? Yes, you're removing water, which is necessary to save the baby, but I don't think any reasonable person would say that is sufficient. Can you clarify this for me please. I'm not sure what you are asking me.

I've seen people here post the same type of message seen in the OP to other users on this board and those messages got upvotes. If the OP is concern trolling then why is some concern trolling approved of and some disapproved of?

Obviously the left wants the government to provide things for them. If they think they are going to lose what they already have they get mad. But what if they didn't actually lose anything? What would they have to be mad about? And if they couldn't focus their anger at losing what they viewed as theirs on those on the right, then why would they mobilize against them? To the left, the right are "thieves or "the enemy". They're still bitter about Hillary losing. Hence the "But her e-mails" meme that has been popping up. Clearly the left still thinks Trump/the right is going to be the end of the world. So what do we do about this? Lefties are essentially in the same boat we are in. When we say "taxes are immoral" and they say "So then who will build the roads?" aren't they asking for a way out? I think somewhere inside they hate government just as much as we do, and somewhere inside they also view voting as self defense. But the second an actual viable alternative came along they would jump on it, just like if we found out there was an actual peaceful anarchist country we would likely go. Ultimately I don't think lefties are our enemies. I think that most of them just can't see an alternative. Yeah, I know Stef has said that it doesn't matter how the future will work, but most people on the hard left aren't going to be swayed by that. Maybe that is illogical or unreasonable of them, but it's also the truth. To them it's like having a broken arm and asking "Who will mend my arm without going to the immoral doctor?" and being told "Eh, future society will work that out". Lefties love to help each other out, and I think if lefties see the right doing what they do but better, it's possible they will be less likely to push as hard against us. Why would they? There's more to it than this, but it's late and I need to go. I hope this at least begins to answer your question. I agree that there is no instantaneous snap your fingers transfer to anarchy. I'm not however convinced that politics and voting, even as a self defense measure, are sufficient to get to an anarchic world.

I'm not saying they were supposed to. My whole post was about how the left isn't going to just disappear because Trump won. That if you push a bully, even in self defense, they are going to push back, and if they think they are cornered they are going to become very dangerous. I'm not sure what part of that people seem to not like hearing.