So, go ahead, gimme a specific circumstance, let's see if I how much I have to distort MYOB/KYHTY/OE to make it work.

I predict no matter how devilish you are in the scenario-makin', MYOB/KYHTY/OE will work, cleanly, clearly, no idiosyncratic interpretations needed.

sumthin' to chew on
 

The Wide-Open Field

By Holly Lisle

Right now, the world I want to live in is being destroyed in front of my eyes by the people who think they’re saving it.

Being different and trying to force people to respect how different you are by agitating for laws to require respect for your difference has become a cause célèbre.

Problem is, we are ALL different.

I don’t mean just a little different. I mean “holy shit, are you kidding me?” different.

Because no matter who you are and no matter what you want and love and think and desire, you are on the polar opposite end of the universe from not just one person you’d consider a freak, but by a whole lot of folks who think YOU’RE the freak.

Everybody is different. Hold on to that, because I’m going to come back to it.

And BECAUSE everybody is different, I think the case needs to be made for Real Individual Freedom, which is obtained by MYODBAKYHTY, otherwise known as the Philosophy of the Wide-Open Field.

And I am an excellent person to make this argument, because I am deeply and weirdly different, and BECAUSE of my own differences, I have been the beneficiary of the Wide-Open Field.

Right now, whole bunches of folks want a special law to protect their little bits of “special and different.”

And the thing about laws is, they create fences, and the more fences there are, the more impossible it becomes to get from who you are to who you want to become.

The very best law legislates as little as possible, with the broad rule that anything not expressly forbidden is permitted.

What is good and right and honorable in American law started here.

The absolute worst law legislates as much as possible, with the broad rule that anything not compulsory is forbidden.

Chinese Communist law, Russian Communist law, and the laws of all totalitarian countries start here and live here.

Right now, I see a lot of people trying to create laws legislating how people THINK about gender, and race, and political affiliations.

They want to FORCE respect for their point of view, for their alignment, for who they are.

They want to FORCE people to think that however they are is right, good, normal, okay.

And you can’t. People are going to think whatever they think, and you cannot do a single thing to force them to be better, but by trying to force people to think thoughts YOU approve of, you can make the situation a whole lot worse. And not just for them. For yourself.

You can’t make people like you, you can’t make people respect you, and you can’t make people believe that whatever way you are that’s different than the way they are is good, or okay.

You can create an environment, however, in which everyone has to start demanding their own laws to protect their own tiny bit of turf.

But Law create more fences, not more field.

So you can be part of the problem by locking down pieces of freedom with pieces of “compulsory action” and “compulsory thought.”

Or you can embrace the Philosophy of the Wide-Open Field, which starts with “Everything that is not forbidden is permitted,” and which is protected by the Rule of The Wide-Open Field:

MYODBAKYHTY
Pronounced Mee-YOD-bak-YHET-ee.

MYODBAKYHTY: Mind Your Own Damn Business, And Keep Your Hands To Yourself.

If you leave the Wide-Open Field wide open, there will be room enough in it for you to be whoever you are.

If you push for laws to try to force respect and obedience from those who don’t respect or like you, realize that the people YOU don’t like or respect can also get lawyers, and they too can push through bad laws that fence off thought and action and lock down parts of the field of individual rights and personal freedom until you cannot speak without doing so illegally, and you cannot think without committing a crime.

Please consider that there are four-hundred-million-ish people in the USA, and maybe as many as eleven of them HAVEN’T said, “There oughtta be a law…”

The Honest English translation of “There oughtta be a law…” is “I wanna shove MY view of the world down YOUR throat.”

When you support more laws, you start forcing people who never gave you a second thought before to hate you, because the law you favored put them in a box, and made them criminals for their thoughts.

MYODBAKYHTY.
Say it with me. Mee-YOD-bak-YHET-ee.
It is the simple rule that grants broad and amazing freedom. When you live by this rule, and this is the rule enforced by the law…

No one else needs to like you.

No one else needs to respect you.

Bastards can fucking HATE you… IF they mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves.

Which you make possible by doing the same thing.

The moment you realize that if you like and respect yourself and are living the life you want to live, or are at least pursuing the path you’ve set out for yourself to get there, you are FREE.

When you’re earned your own respect by living the life that matters to you, what other people think of you doesn’t affect your world.

And being able to walk across the Wide-Open Field that the freedom of broad individual rights creates allows all those narrow-minded bigoted jackasses you detest (the ones who don’t know you’re cool and who hate everything you think and love) to stand in their own place with their own issues and find their OWN path across the Wide-Open Field.

Probably well away from yours.

Maybe you don’t want them to have that freedom – the freedom to hate you from a distance.

Do you want the freedom to hate them from a distance, though?

Take a moment to consider that if the people you can’t stand are NOT forced by restrictive, field-narrowing laws to bow and grovel before what they hate or be criminalized for their THOUGHTS…

…the people who hate you (or at least what you stand for) might meet you in the field and come to like you, even if they discover you’re different, in whatever way you’re different. And no matter who you are, you’re at least different than someone, because odds are pretty high that whoever you are, you’re not like me.

And if those narrow-minded, bigoted, straight-gay-cis-trans-black-white-yellow-brown-red-rightwing-leftwing-middlewing-other-path assholes don’t like you?

Fuck ’em. Ignore them. Enjoy hating them in the privacy of your own unrestricted life.

As long as the rule is MYODBAKYHTY, and they’re following the rule, and you’re following the rule, and the government UPHOLDS the rule, the fact that they’re assholes doesn’t hurt you.

The Wide-Open Field gives freedom to everyone. Having a wide-open field lets you, me, and everyone else find our own way home to who we need to be, without having to fight through any laws, any restrictions, any punishment for being different.

‘Cause here’s the thing you gotta remember.

Everybody is different.

And when the Wide-Open Field is all locked down, EVERYONE gets locked up.

Contents © Holly Lisle. https://hollylisle.com All Rights Reserved

EVERY application of MYOB/KYHTY/OEis an idiosyncratic interpretation.

no, you're wrong, hm, but let's put your assertion to the test...
 

...concoct some devilish, convoluted scenario and let's see how subjective I have to get to make 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else' work.

I'm thinkin' you can't.

Say they aren't poisoning, they're just irrigating their land, but the river only has so much and now it's run dry for folks downstream.

Or say they poisoned it entirely by accident. And they really, truly didn't mean to, and now that they know, they've stopped immediately, but the damage is done. And it turns out there was someone else in town who knew that these two harmless chemicals made poison, and had maybe talked to a few people about it before, so it wasn't totally obscure knowledge, but the guy who made the mistake didn't happen to know. SHOULD he have known? Should he receive the same heaping of "or else" as the guy who poisons on purpose? What if 50% of the town says he deserves X amount of "or else," but 50% feels very strongly that he deserves at least three times that?

They can assess him three times "or else" and put two thirds of the assessment UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION.

You're an inspiration, Clod.

OR ELSE what?


Purely objectively, please.

clod
 

"Say they aren't poisoning, they're just irrigating their land, but the river only has so much and now it's run dry for folks downstream."

Who is irrigating? Why are they irrigating? The folks downstream, were they aware of the irrigating operations upstream when they located where they did? who settled the area first. And, on and on, etc. etc.

I asked for scenarios: you give me a fill in the blank exercise.

In court (even the court of last resort you'd find in my minarchy) you'd have to do a damn sight better in presenting the facts.

#

"Or say they poisoned it entirely by accident. And they really, truly didn't mean to, and now that they know, they've stopped immediately, but the damage is done. And it turns out there was someone else in town who knew that these two harmless chemicals made poison, and had maybe talked to a few people about it before, so it wasn't totally obscure knowledge, but the guy who made the mistake didn't happen to know. SHOULD he have known? Should he receive the same heaping of "or else" as the guy who poisons on purpose? What if 50% of the town says he deserves X amount of "or else," but 50% feels very strongly that he deserves at least three times that?"

Joe fires his gun into the air on July 4th. The falling bullet strikes someone two miles away. Joe didn't mean to hurt someone. He had no intent to harm someone. But he did, he's responsible. The penalty, the 'or else', is mebbe the only 'interpretable' part of the equation.

In your scenario (piss poor, but slightly better than the first): the inadvertent poisoners shoulda known better. Even today, ignorance is no excuse (and that's with 100,000 regs on the fed level). In my minarchy with one clear principle and a handful of regs extendin' out from it, ignorance is defintely no excuse.

However, while the principle (mind your business, keep your hands to yourself) is plain & unambiguous, the consequence (the 'or else') is subject to interpretation, so...

I submit to havin' to kiss tw's keister (c'mere, you hunka man and let's get this over with).

hm
 

"OR ELSE what?"

Depends on the particular circumstances of someone 'not' minding their own business, of someone 'not' keeping their hands to themselves.

As I say, while the principle is sound, the penality is subject to some interpretation (that is, every circumstance is individual [there'd be no formal precedents in the night-watchman's court of last resort), so...

Again: I'm ready to plant one on tw's butt (bring that big sexy thang over, guy, and let's get 'er done).

Purely subjective, then.

Common law would levy the requirement of proportionality of punishment to offense. The Golden Rule would essentially be in effect.

People performing a lynching typically aren't capable of putting themselves in another's shoes, which is a requirement for implementing the golden rule.

And the State (we the people), with all of its laws and judicial procedures, has incarcerated and executed innocent people for crimes they didn't commit. Other than no system is perfect, what's your point?
.
.
.

"Purely subjective, then."
 

The 'or else'?

Subjective: to a degree, yeah.

Purely: no.

Justice, by definition, is the balancing of scales.

Eye for an eye; not eye for a pinched candy bar.

Yes it did and that let people with money and connections run roughshod over the commoners, from slavery, to indentured servants, to the company store.
Worse yet these robber barons and their friends caused depressions where people actually starved to death, repeatedly. After the one leading up to WW I, then the one in the 1930's, FDR said fuck this, I'm tired of you fucking the people, shit's going to change.

He passed laws to protect people by regulating abusive businesses, then WWII got the economy moving. After the war the rise of regulations and labor unions(for all their faults) raised prosperity for all... except them negroes, and Mexicans, and Chinks, and lowlife musicians.

It's been proven over and over if a violation has to be adjudicated, the one with money/power/connections wins. The only way to stop the bastards is to spell it out, chapter and verse, so you have them dead to rights.

Right, you can't make people like people they have already decided they don't like. That's human nature. But you can sure as hell make it illegal to attack them, burn their house, refuse them services of a public store or real estate rental.

Historically that's led to mob rule.
Hey Jeb, that guy done me wrong and the law won't do nothing, so let's string him up.

As I said, as a country, been there, done that, didn't work.

Wait, the golden rule is do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Who says I wish they would lynch me??


Hey Henry, I got one for your side.

In 2008 Chicago collected $28,3 million (@ $3 and hour), from 36,000 parking meters.
Starting in 2009, Mayor Daley leased the meters, $1.16 Billion for 75 years, half the meters going to the Abu Dhabi Government. In 2013 it was up to $6.50 an hour. They have collected $1.2 Billion so far, $1,72 million in 2018 alone, and another 62 years to go.
Oh, and the city has to get permission to close a street for a parade or block party.

You're welcome. ;)

Indeed. Mob rule does not indicate that the golden rule is in effect.

Began a lengthy response, but: what's the point? Here, instead, is my close...
 

Putting things on a scale (safety at one end, freedom at the other), most folks look for a sweet spot between the two.

It's a mistake of course cuz the sweet spot gets shifted slowly and surely over to 'safety' by those who look to profit (in one way or another).

These profiteers don't have to work very hard cuz most folks, it seems, are easily hoodwinked into trading off autonomy in an effort to preserve autonomy.

Me: I skew heavily toward 'freedom'.

Hyper-aware of even the smallest encroachment, folks like me rage and stew.

We see the bars of the cage and hate them and we hate 'you' cuz you defend the cage.

I believe that cage ultimately will open to the chute leading to the abattoir.

I believe 'you' will walk calmly, mebbe even happily, to the killing floor cuz you simply don't know any better.

As you like.

What? You don't want to trade your privacy for the illusion of security? ;)

Arnold Kling, in his book "The Three Languages of Politics", published in full at this Cato link, says that, basically:

Liberals see the world as a battle between victims and oppressors.

Conservatives see the world as a battle between civilization and barbarism.

Libertarians see the world as a battle between freedom and coercion.

I have not read the full book as of yet.

Everybody has their different frameworks. All three of these are important. The tendency is to pick one and see everything else along that viewpoint. My guess now is that all of human governance doesn't actually solve for just one variable. And that it's human nature itself that won't permit it.

~ but that's just a guess, carry on ~

My view is red hot,
Your view ain't diddly squat.
:lol:

This rings true.

Random thoughts; Does this explain why Republicans, who appeared to liberals to get virtually everything they wanted out of Obama, are still pissed off? That alliance between conservatives and libertarians is untenable especially if both thoughts are in the same head. The disappearance of good government types might be explained.

Virtually everything they wanted, no. During Obama, cultural conservatives finally lost the previous culture war; and then, cultural liberals dunked on them, and then did a little superior dance and victory lap. That's why they are still angry and why they like it when Trump makes the liberals apoplectic

From the liberals perspective, Obama pushed through a center-right (progressive Republican?) healthcare program for his sole victory. He then saw same continuously attacked after losing Congress. He stabilized a collapsing economic system pleasing almost no-one. The culture war dunk was style not substance. Obama said nice things about previously shunned people but in the end lost the Supreme Court for a generation. As soon as he left, the Ryan/Trump tax victory made sure we'd never pay down his and W's bills creating a benefits cutting imperative threatening Social Security etc.. So style wise yeah the GOP had to look at a black woman's shoulders for eight years but our judicial branch remains firmly in the hands of right wing culture warriors. The only reason the "Deep State" also known as the Executive Branch isn't hammering through major right wing regulatory changes is that Trump didn't actually have sensible ideas and was too stupid to put a transition team in place two years ago. The professionals are still doing their jobs following Obama era directives absent actual leadership.

"I have not read the full book as of yet."
 

I did. Kling muddies the water.

His 'three axes' model folds neatly into this...

communitarian--------------------libertarian

'progressives' & 'conservatives' both sit on the communitarian end of the scale. championing victims and bringing down oppressors, and, preserving civilization from barbarians, amount to the same thing (straightjackets all 'round!).

"I have not read the full book as of yet." expanded post
 

I did. Kling muddies the water.

His 'three axes' model folds neatly into this...

communitarian--------------------libertarian

'progressives' & 'conservatives' both sit on the communitarian end of the scale. Championing victims and bringing down oppressors, and, preserving civilization from barbarians, amount to the same thing (*straightjackets all 'round!).

Simply: you progressives want them oppressive conservatives hobbled, and the conservatives want you barbaric progressives hobbled and folks like me want all of you to just leave us be. Folks like me don't wanna oppress you or your counterparts and 'we' don't wanna break whatever it is your counterparts (or you) think of as civilization. Folks like me try real hard to mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves. Least you folks could do is leave us alone as you go about your dumb lil 'culture wars'.

But: you won't.


凸(-_-)凸








*in other words: all them regs and laws most of you folks think are so keen

You're a splinter group, and splinters always keep festering until that part of the whole becomes incapacitated, unable to work in coordination with the rest of the whole. Then the paralisis spreads until the whole is unable to defend itself from the creeping crud which will devour everything including splinters.

If that's your choice, then that's your privilege, but that's no reason to be rude in the mean time. Kumbaya, baby, kumbaya. ;)

"You're a splinter group, and splinters always keep festering until that part of the whole becomes incapacitated, unable to work in coordination with the rest of the whole. Then the paralisis spreads until the whole is unable to defend itself from the creeping crud which will devour everything including splinters."

Nuthin' would give me more satisfaction than bein' the cancer in your midst.

#

"If that's your choice, then that's your privilege,"

It is.

#

"but that's no reason to be rude in the mean time."

Fuck you, bruce. You dismiss me and mock me pretty much every time I post.

tw, jackass that he is, is at least honest about his distaste. He never gets up to all your affable passive-aggressive, neutered garbage.

Go peddle that 'rudeness' twaddle to somebody elde, eunuch.

You're wrong, I certainly disagree with you and will argue my position at every opportunity, but never dismiss you. I'm fascinated because you're obviously intelligent and willing to doing the research to strengthen your position. You're the first person I've encountered who feels the way you do, who was willing to explain exactly what they believe and why.

I don't expect to change your mind, nor do I think you expect to change mine.
It's the others who read our exchanges, who might be swayed a little one way or the other.

"It's the others who read our exchanges, who might be swayed a little one way or the other."

In this place: most are on your side of things, you don't have convince any one of anything.

And me: I never try to convince. I just remind you folks from time to time that folks like me are around (I'm the cough the laudanum won't supress).


And: I'm sorry I called you eunuch (however, the 'fuck you' stands :angry: )

Well thank you, that's more action than I was getting.
Yes, most of the people who post here lean left, and some right, but what about the millions of lurkers watching from the shadows, silently judging us. :unsure:

what about the millions of lurkers watching from the shadows, silently judging us"
 

I'm not much of a salesman. No doubt: I've put far more people off than I've convinced. Nuthin' I can do about that.

In other words...
 

...cuz of my poor marketin' skill, 'millions' of fence sitters have turned away from the bright light of individual autonomy and embraced the collectivist nightmare.

Me, a natural rights libertarian, I'm a friggin' poster boy for the commies.

irony

I don't know if you're really a poster boy for the cause, seems to me there are some who are more hardline than yourself. I feel I'm closer to center than most of what you call "commies". No, wait, I see now, you're saying left and right don't matter, anyone who tries to work within the existing system is complicit, is a commie. Being an outlier isn't enough, one must not play at all. Man, that makes life awfully difficult doesn't it? Or is one allowed to swing through for provisions? I don't think divorcing oneself from the government and "commies" is possible without physically moving out.
But no matter where people live, somebody else is boss, even if it's a boos of their choice.

The libertarians in South Africa are banding together. They feel cryptocurrancy is the way to avoid being controlled.

The Kling point comes down to this, for me;

When you study basic Physics, you get questions like,

A ball will run along a 20 foot track, which sits at a five degree angle. Assuming the ball is perfectly round, the track is perfectly straight, and there is zero friction, how long will it take for the ball to reach the bottom of the track?

In Physics 101, you can say "only solve for gravity" because you're learning about gravity, one particular force. But in the real world, that won't tell you anything.

In the real world, you can't say "only view it from the freedom/coercion angle" because the problem you are trying to solve is... I suppose... the best approach to human cooperation, into its yet undetermined future.

Culture. The foundation of morality. Evolved human nature. All that has a lot of fuckin' variables!! Humanity runs deeper than any of us knows.

If someone came up to you and claimed to have that solved to nine decimal places, wouldn't you be skeptical? You should be, there are a lot of people who make that claim.

I think the part both commies and libertarians miss about cooperation is that different humans thrive better using different systems. Some are open floor plan muther-fuckers, some hole up in a dark corner, some are better in a field with a dog, some work best in a big organization, some need military regimentation, the "system" has to leave room for choice. Having a remorseless top down system limits choice as does the no system system.

Which is why physics teaches one to break a problem down into parts. Then solve the bigger problem by first solving it part by part.

Those who want to add emotional variations into the physics could not even solve the physics part. They get frustrated, angry, and confused.

Trick to life is to break problems down into parts. Then address each part separately. The art is knowing how to / where to do the breaks.

Amazing how henry throws everything into a big pot. Has no idea what is in there. And then immediately knows from observation (using only political biases) how to explain it all.

bruce
 

"you're saying left and right don't matter, anyone who tries to work within the existing system is complicit, is a commie."

Half right: left, right, pretty much the same, but folks workin' in the system aren't neccessarily complicit, just terminally niave.

#

"Being an outlier isn't enough, one must not play at all."

Wrong. You gotta play (by your own rules).

#

"I don't think divorcing oneself from the government and "commies" is possible without physically moving out."

Why would a body do that, be obligated to do that? I'm an American. I like living here, working here, would like to see America improve. I ain't goin' nowhere.

#

"But no matter where people live, somebody else is boss, even if it's a boos of their choice."

Wrong. I work for me: I have customers, not bosses. As for government: it's supposed to be peopled by employees, not bosses. That so many view elected and appointed folks as 'bosses' is a big friggin' part of the problem.

#

"The libertarians in South Africa are banding together. They feel cryptocurrancy is the way to avoid being controlled."

I can't get the page to load: cut & paste it, will you?

-----

I'm startin' a topic over in 'philosophy'...any one who wants to play: feel free.

griff
 

"I think the part both commies and libertarians miss about cooperation is that different humans thrive better using different systems."

Oh, I get that, encourage that. If Stan is most comfortable in a collective, then Stan ought to work for that. But that ain't right for me, so Stan needs to be mindful that I'm not gonna play nice with him and his. Surely: I don't expect Stan to play nice with me and mine as we work for sumthin' loose & raw.

Ideally: we'd leave each other alone. I'm willing. Is Stan? Doesn't seem that way. I wanna de-regulate life. Even if I'm successful, Stan and his comrades can still voluntarily regulate their bodies, minds, souls to whatever degree they like.

Does Stan reciprocate? No. He, instead, demands I submit to the same regulation he wants for himself.

In short: I wanna be left alone, to leave Stan alone; he wants to wrap a leash (or noose) around my neck.

#

"the "system" has to leave room for choice."

But it doesn't, and that's Stan's doin', not mine.

tw
 

see my user title, my sig line

It's a pretty longish article on Wired, with a bunch of pictures.
I tried to get there on IE but wouldn't go, said this page can't be displayed and kicked it over to my search engine which is Google.
Googled found it, first on the list, but when I clicked on it IE refused to hook it up.
Damnifino? Chrome goes right to it.

https://www.wired.com/story/inside-a...ryptocurrency/

The 50 state solution mitigates some of this but I take your point. "Stan" and his opponent "Bob" both have grievances. Bob feels that Jesus shows his favor in a bank account and since he will be returning soon all environmental regulation is a farce. Stan wants a return to a "natural world". Is it fair to say that Henry wants to stay out of their argument so as not to be a nit-picker? Griff would suggest that decent science paid for by taxes could inform our decision making process and proper engagement with the regulators in the executive branch could lead to a reasonable outcome.

Bruce
 

I should have access to a chrome machine today. I'll give the piece a look-see then.

#

Griff,

"Is it fair to say that Henry wants to stay out of their argument(?)"

Yep.

So both of them believe in a mythical apocalyptic outcome based on everyone's collective bad behavior not bringing about a correct condition?



*apologies for the thread drift

I also wanted to be on Nixon's enemies list. Can you also arrange that?

Adults don't use those expressions. Children do.

I wanted to show two extreme positions, held by irrational types. We each may find ourselves agreeing with one or both on occasion but a system to keep either from running roughshod seems sensible.

tw
 

"Adults don't use those expressions."

In your entire adult life you never gave another soul the finger.

You're a liar (and your pants most certainly are on fire).

凸(-_-)凸

Never did. And peers never did either (except in comedy). My peers are educated - not children.

I cannot even recall any peer in a bar fight. Adults never resort to childish antics. Adults who are still children do. It says so much about the mentality behind all those Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Fox News, and Pravda inspired beliefs.

Patriotic Americans are moderates. Wackos (anti-Americans) fly your fickle finger of fate. The intelligence behind that finger was mocked by Laugh-in. You could not learn even from Rowan and Martin?. Even Goldie Hawn demonstrated better patriotism.

Sorry. I did not mean to make this too complicated. Please feel free to continue 'wrecking shit'. It is what you do best.

It's a little odd that you insert the "even" before the concept of a bar fight, as if that is less bad than flipping someone off.

"I've never left my garbage cans out after pickup day--hell, I've never even murdered anyone!"

That's because tw has no peers.

There is no difference. Both demonstrate antics of adults who are children.

I beg to differ. I have flipped off my child, but I have never punched my child. My incarceration rate reflects this.

To be fair, tw said "I cannot even recall any peer in a bar fight."

The word "even" modified his "recall" and not the bar fight.

Had he said I cannot recall any peer even in a bar fight.; then, your analogy may have been valid.

You should stop flipping off your child. Failure to take proper care in addressing a child is negligence; however, repeated negligence can constitute abuse. Being an adult acting like a child will not get you juvenile offender status.

BTW: I too have never flipped anyone off or been in a bar fight. I've always considered those things to be the purview of little girly men and little boyish women.

This thread was getting boring. I hope this provocative post livens it up a little.

It's an uncanny valley situation. I flipped him off when he was an infant and too young to know what was happening. Now that he's a teenager, I expect to resume flipping him off shortly, because his attachment is fully developed and he understands that my love doesn't hinge on whatever snarky thing causes me to flip him off. Rest assured, when it happens he will have deserved it.

One has to be careful not to raise a Boston Bruins fan.

Obviously one does not mean the other. But both are characteristics of adults acting as a child. You have completely reversed the logic to obtain a conclusion that was never stated or even implied.

henry demonstrates what an adult who is a child typically does (ie a Trump supporter, Dice Clay, Timothy McVeigh, suicide bombers who kill in the name of some pagan god, or the type of people that Hitler preached to). Each do things completely different and unrelated. All share a common factor. They are not operate in an adult manner.

Flying the fickle finger of fate was done by adults who actually mock adult children. Only an adult acting like a child does that. Also irrelevant that you did not yet learn. Relevant is that one would teach their child to act in a childish manner. That is unfortunate.

That comedy remains as good today as it was way back then

Yeah, bud. I'm the one who's reversed logic. :rolleyes: Did you know that black-and-white thinking and arguing in hyperbole are both childish behavior?

Henry, time to expand our vocabulary.

Kakistocracy = A system of government that is run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.
The word was coined as early as the seventeenth century. It also was used by English author Thomas Love Peacock in 1829, but gained significant use in the first decades of the twenty-first century to criticize populist governments emerging in different democracies around the world.

Kleptocracy = A government of thieves who are stealing everything they can get their mitts on.

You're welcome. :beer:

OK. I get it. You only want to argue. Message received.