Bizud

Objective reality really doesn't exist, at least as far as humans are concerned.

Just this one actually.

Socialism isn't about altruism. It's about recognizing the collective nature of human existence. All wealth in our society is socially produced, and people are paid based on their position in the power structure. That's the cause of social and economic disparity. In fact, there's nothing natural about property ownership at all. It's a social institution, designed by humans and always open to redesign by humans. But I'd love to hear how someone could think "socialism" in our government causes economic and social inequality. This is such a ridiculous straw man argument. As for the GST cut, it's a bad idea that will cost the government a lot of money, won't even produce the economic benefit of an income tax cut, and won't even save most people that much money. Tough shit. I'll explain it to you. We are all part of a community and we have an obligation to take care of each other. Without the community, you don't exist and neither does "your" money. When people are hurt, by violence or powerlessness (institutional violence), we are all diminished. Independence is a myth - humans are interdependent and have been for as long as the species has existed. What kind of existence did pre-"civilization" humans lead for millenia? Essentially communistic. edit: this is not to say that individuals should be subordinated to the will of the collective. I don't agree with that. Rather, we need to conceive of wealth differently, recognizing that it is socially produced. Humans are social creatures after all. And your property is not an extension of your body.

I need a 26 of vodka and three hits of acid.

Since when do courts have any moral legitimacy anyways?

I've seen nothing to indicate she has a substance abuse problem. Drug use is not drug abuse. I've seen lots to indicate that other people think she has a drug problem, but since what constitutes a "problem" is entirely subjective, only Britney Spears can decide if she has a substance abuse problem.

The reason is that Kevin Federline sued her for custody in response to her filing for divorce. Don't forget that's the essential character of this episode. She would not be being put through this if they would work their shit out. She may well not even want primary custody, but I'm sure she wants the right to see her kids. Courts aren't to be respected anyway (but they are to be avoided at all costs). The whole process was stacked against her from the beginning. I didn't realize that to be a parent you had to be fucking sober. Plenty of parents are never sober but not necessarily bad parents, and nobody takes their kids away because their shit isn't caught on camera. Having children does not mean you are no longer entitled to a life.

Um, most four year olds know more than a couple sentences. I'm curious why you think she seems to be losing her mind though. Especially since you went off about how I don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe you're getting your information from Entertainment Tonight? I don't watch that so that would explain it. I think the kids should be allowed to have visits with their mother. Of course I know they haven't had any say in the decision because I know how custody battles and child protection work, and they don't ever give a fig about what the kids think or how they feel because kids' subjective experiences are not valued.

People should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own body. Yes, I know they're not. It's an injustice. It's called bodily integrity and it's a psychological need. It's not psychologically healthy not to have it - you need to be able to decide what happens to your body and that includes what goes into it. I'm sure they have the capacity to understand whether they want to be allowed to see their mother or not. That's not the reason. The reason is that kids' subjective experiences are not valued. Nobody cares how they feel.

You sure are. What the court is saying to Britney Spears is that her life and her body do not belong to her and she can't do whatever she wants with them. I can't believe more people aren't appalled. She's not so dangerous she can't be allowed to see her kids under supervision, the court is just punishing her for flouting its authority. Is anyone else curious what the kids think of all this? It's pretty funny that this is supposedly all about them (it's actually not) and nobody knows what they think.

All this stuff is good. Also it's Song 2!

Nothing wrong with laziness. Sometime I'll extoll the virtues of laziness. Anyway, you don't need to be smart or informed to know how you feel about something. How you feel is important - it's unhealthy, for the spirit and the body, to be subjected to something that makes you feel rotten on a regular basis. As for television, nobody wants to do nothing but watch tv and eat candy - that just doesn't ever happen. But if that's how my kid wanted to spend a saturday, or a week, or however long, I'm not going to prevent it. Taking Children Seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_Children_Seriously Not sure why that would discredit me, but I'd never even consider running for political office. I think we need to abolish political offices. I think all people, not just kids, should expect food and shelter and a whole host of other things without having to get a job, because I'm a communist and I think working for someone else is as degrading as being a student in a school. ;) Ideally I'd like to see non-coercive (democratic) workplaces give people the opportunity to earn a living without having to sell their labour to a capitalist.

There are non-coercive ways to teach children about sleep. You don't have to regulate their sleeping patterns for them to do it. As for school, as I said, I think it's a draconian institution that no-one should have to attend. There are alternatives. I wouldn't want my kid anywhere near a school because I don't like anything about them, but if he wanted to attend one for whatever reason, I wouldn't stop him. This is a decision individuals can make for themselves. Now that is a notion I flat out reject. Yes, I get this! I'm saying these are fine things to base that decision on! "I hate it" is definitely reason enough. Lots of people hate school because they are degraded, humiliated and controlled. And I think that can be considered a form of harm - it is injurious to the spirit. School is where people are trained to serve capitalism - learn to obey the arbitrary authority figure, do boring work that has nothing to do with your needs and interests, and the authority figure will be grading your performance. To reiterate, I would not want any kid of mine in one. Teachers would be contradicting everything the kid had learned at home anyway.

oh so seriously.

I never said parents shouldn't nurture, protect and educate young children. I did say that the state should not enforce parental coercion by making minors literally second class citizens (can't vote, drink, or make decisions legally), and that parents should encourage children to be involved in making decisions about their lives (like what school to attend, or whether or not to attend school, or whether to enroll in some kind of extracurricular activity or not), and that parents should not use physical force (violence) to coerce their children. Obviously there are exceptions - we talked about using physical force to stop someone from running out into traffic. The point is any authority, any coercion, must be justified - "I'm the adult and I said so" is not a justification, it isn't any better than "because I'm bigger than you." A child of 4 surely doesn't have the same decision making capabilities as a person aged 25 does, but that's totally irrelevant - why shouldn't a 4 year old be able to decide whether he wants to go to pre-school or not, based on whatever he wants to base his decision on? "I like it" or "I don't like it" is enough! Similarly, I see no fault in not setting bedtimes for children - they will learn that they are responsible for their own sleep schedule.

I think that it's just a little bit sillier to suppose that all (or even most) parents are good parents who make decisions in their kids' best interests than it is to suppose that kids are capable of making their own decisions. What kind of special knowledge do kids need to make decisions? You acquire knowledge and experience by making decisions and experiencing the consequences.

What is it about Chomsky's writing that's so unintelligible. I find him pretty readable.

Nah. 5678

Statistically, most marriages will end before one of the spouses dies. But I'm pretty sure dead people can't have relationships.

Google safe search does let a lot through.

I've got no problem with kids having access to porn - though most porn is sexist, bad ideas should be contradicted, not censored. Besides, if someone wants to look at porn they're going to find a way whether they're "allowed" to or not. Also, access to the internet can be very empowering and if I had kids I would definitely want to ensure they had access - and privacy.

True to a point - I most certainly could be faced with the option - but putting social expectations aside, I don't understand the psychology that goes into a decision to change one's last name for a husband. Especially considering that every marriage ends, eventually.

I don't get the appeal of changing your last name for a husband.

Of course, I haven't even touched on the issue of LGBT kids dealing with homophobic parents - and almost all parents perpetuate gender roles that are themselves a form of oppression.