simson918

I'm watching my way through Buffy the Vampire Slayer, first time since I was a teen. I didn't realize how much programming this show did on me. That said, in the middle of ham-fisted social justice causes, incompetent, violent, insane, weak men, empowered and ridiculously strong, implausibly smart and capable women, Joss Whedon manages to make a visually striking reveal of the gun in the room. Interestingly this episode (S4E22) aired May 23, 2000. Seasons three(1998-1999) and four (1999-2000) spend considerable time critiquing corruption in government. I suspect it was because the Republicans held a majority in the House and the Senate, not because of Bill Clinton's litany of scandals, debackles, and murderous escapades both foreign and domestic. Now Whedon makes Military-Industrial complex worshiping blockbusters like "The Avengers" and started a super PAC for Hilary Clinton in 2016.

This is precisely what makes the topic interesting to me. This is a circumstance in which most people, (myself included) would advise someone to stay closeted if they believe they'll be cut off, yet upon analysis the action I would advocate, and in fact took for four years with my parents, seems to be fraudulent at best. If I am advocating the consistent application of principle, I don't think I can so flippantly dismiss the fraud simply because the people against whom the fraud is committed are unsympathetic. This is precisely the kind of emotional fallacy the statists use to justify various plunder programs. The fact is that the parents have the right to be massive bigoted jerks with their own property. I fail to see how someone saying "You are no longer welcome in my house." violates the NAP, regardless of the reason. I was very careful to state that the financial relationship is between two adult parties. It's not enough to say, "They're closed-minded ignorant fools." The parents are providing resources to the child presumably because the parents agree with the goals of the child, but given the set of beliefs practiced by the parent and the child, it could easily be that the goals of the two are quite at odds.

Hey all. Oftentimes in the community, closeted individuals are encouraged to remain so if they believe their financial benefactors will cut them off. As an individual who remained closeted about my sexual orientation and my religious views throughout my adolescence, I find it difficult to condemn anyone who chooses this path, however I'd like to explore the logical implications of this course of action. If an adult child is taking financial support from his or her parents with the knowledge or suspicion that they would not provide this support in the light of the child's political views, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation, is the child committing fraud? While I can understand why people remain closeted, I can't classify it as non-fraudulent, no different in process than a woman faking pregnancy to keep a man around, a man telling his wife that he wants kids when he doesn't, or a Nigerian prince scammer. In the case of the closeted child, sometimes they extract from the parents tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in the form of college tuition. Could someone confirm my thinking here, or am I way off base?