high school shenanigans

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Eh, Bacon's alright. I think he and I probably agree a lot about right-wing things that we don't like (the war in Iraq sucks, Guantanamo Bay is a disgrace, George Bush is an embarassment, etc.), we probably just don't agree very much on what the solutions to those things are. For instance, on war issues, I would expect Bacon to propose something like a global ban on war and throwing all bombs, guns, knives, & rocks into incinerators, whereas I would maybe propose a more realistic and well thought out foreign policy than the current, primarily neoconservative one.

 

Smitty-->liberal

Bacon-->socialist

[cbacon 0]

Hey! Teacher! Leave those kids alone!

 

It goes without saying that better teachers will get more respect from their students. However, lets look at ways to improve the quality of the teaching (and the accountability of teachers) rather than strip them of the option of exercising their authority.

 

And this 'ageism' thing is sheer bullshit. Children are inexperienced in the world and lack certain skills, which makes parenting, guidance and education a necessity. Children are not any lesser for their naivete, they are much richer. Children are wonderful, and I hope to have a couple myself some day. However, that doesn't mean they're equal. I think adults should avoid talking down to children, they can sense condescention. That doesn't mean I'm going to let a five-year-old drive a car, or drink, or have sex. If all ages were trully equal, no one would bat an eye at pedophilia. Kids need some guidance in their life, sometimes against their wishes. This shouldn't be a radical concept to anyone.

 

Isn't an age-based insult as bad as a racially insensitive one? That ought to set off some alarms, shouldn't it? That's an expression of our society's contempt for young people, which comes from fear of young people. That's why we deny adulthood to kids, because we as adults have been socialized to identify with "adults" and not "children," even though adulthood and childhood and adolesence are social inventions.

 

When you talk about them running around doing whatever they want, again the unstated premise is that what they want is bad. Children are not inferior beings. Why is it immoral for young people to do something adults do? In some places it's seen as immoral for 19-year olds to drink, but we all think that's crazy, don't we? Children learn about morality the same way they learn anything else, they do figure things out themselves. The idea that people need to be shaped by coercion into complete members of society is fundamentally based on violence. People need to be free to develop as individuals

 

Sure, kids don't always do what's in their own interest, but neither do adults. The point is that nobody is in a better position to know what's best for a person than that person. The fact is that nobody has any idea how to parent, but all parents do the best job they can based on what they know, and what most people know about child-rearing is that when they were kids they were always told what to do.

 

Good place to start: http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/

 

Here's a good example of an area where conventional wisdom says parents need to impose a certain way of doing things on their children:

 

http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/learning_to_sleep:

 

Deciding when to go to sleep is a special case of the sorts of decisions people have to make all the time about how to manage their lives. Parents should not impose their particular vision of when it is and is not appropriate to sleep on their children. Instead they should help their child to explore the costs and benefits of different policies on sleep so that he will be able to make rational decisions about sleep instead of adopting a dogmatic and self-denying attitude towards it.

 

And not all people are equal in general. The law should treat them equally, but that does not, in fact make them equal. Some people are smarter, or kinder, or better-looking, or more athletic, or more ambitious than others. Where you attach your values is your own decision, but that's just the truth.

 

Your not equal to someone who is better looking than you? Are you fucking serious? Who do you think you're better than? Better than you?

[cbacon 0]

Floyd:

 

It's amazing to see a thread with C-Bacon where he is the one who hasn't been acting like an ass...for the most part.

 

You are just fucking with us at this point, aren't you?

 

Seriously, someone please ban this guy from the CE folders.

 

hay u gehs lets ban the guy cuz of his CRAZY ideology!!!

[cbacon 0]

Eh, Bacon's alright. I think he and I probably agree a lot about right-wing things that we don't like (the war in Iraq sucks, Guantanamo Bay is a disgrace, George Bush is an embarassment, etc.),

 

tru

 

we probably just don't agree very much on what the solutions to those things are. For instance, on war issues, I would expect Bacon to propose something like a global ban on war and throwing all bombs, guns, knives, & rocks into incinerators, whereas I would maybe propose a more realistic and well though out foreign policy than the current, primarily neoconservative one.

 

Heh, maybe not so much incineration, but i'd advocate disarmament, drastically reducing military and defense budgets, and actually adhering to international law.

[cbacon 0]

An anarcho-socialism society might sound ideal, on paper. The fact is that we started out with such societies. Society evolved into monarchies, republics, democracies etcetera for the simple reason that such society is not feasible on a large scale. The natural process of a lawless society is to form order.

 

And look what that order has left us with.

 

Some anarchist/socialist ideals may sound completely impractical but in the 18th century you could have argued that ending slavery was impractical. And that's precisely what conservatives argued at the time, while defending the rights of the powerful to maintain their power and dominance. Domination can only be maintained through violence - remove this and power collapses, leaving all as equals.

 

I like the progress humanity has made so far, in the last hundred years especially we have made tremendous progress and dismantled a great deal of oppression, but we have a long way to go to realizing an egalitarian society. How many people here would disagree in principle with the idea that society should be organized along egalitarian lines?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

An anarcho-socialism society might sound ideal, on paper. The fact is that we started out with such societies. Society evolved into monarchies, republics, democracies etcetera for the simple reason that such society is not feasible on a large scale. The natural process of a lawless society is to form order.

 

And look what that order has left us with.

 

Some anarchist/socialist ideals may sound completely impractical but in the 18th century you could have argued that ending slavery was impractical. And that's precisely what conservatives argued at the time, while defending the rights of the powerful to maintain their power and dominance. Domination can only be maintained through violence - remove this and power collapses, leaving all as equals.

 

I like the progress humanity has made so far, in the last hundred years especially we have made tremendous progress and dismantled a great deal of oppression, but we have a long way to go to realizing an egalitarian society. How many people here would disagree in principle with the idea that society should be organized along egalitarian lines?

It depends on your ideal model of society. The concept of liberalism is that each person in society enjoys equal opportunity. The question is how far you go to ensure that equality. Personally, I do not see how you can remove violence from the equation. Create a classless society without war, and someone is bound to take advantage of it and try to assume power. Want to stop them? What right do you have to tell an equal what he can and can not do? The logic of the idea falls flat on its face. Beyond that and you have the experience that every civilized nation in the world has progressed from an egalitarian society. Even the third-world, with tribes and nomadic peoples, have leaders and rituals that add up to an experience surprisingly similar to the western world.

 

And beyond all that, a society in dire straits would produce some civil unrest desiring a change. There is NO serious underlying current desiring to overthrow our government.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Eh, Bacon's alright. I think he and I probably agree a lot about right-wing things that we don't like (the war in Iraq sucks, Guantanamo Bay is a disgrace, George Bush is an embarassment, etc.),

 

tru

 

we probably just don't agree very much on what the solutions to those things are. For instance, on war issues, I would expect Bacon to propose something like a global ban on war and throwing all bombs, guns, knives, & rocks into incinerators, whereas I would maybe propose a more realistic and well though out foreign policy than the current, primarily neoconservative one.

 

Heh, maybe not so much incineration, but i'd advocate disarmament, drastically reducing military and defense budgets, and actually adhering to international law.

 

I'm cool with nuclear disarmament, not total disarmament. The other two are okay with me, too. Although I think the US should do more for veterans--I don't know if that counts as part of the defense budget.

[snuffbox 0]

Doing more for veterans would embolden the enemy.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

An anarcho-socialism society might sound ideal, on paper. The fact is that we started out with such societies. Society evolved into monarchies, republics, democracies etcetera for the simple reason that such society is not feasible on a large scale. The natural process of a lawless society is to form order.

 

This reminds me of all the smarmy left-wingers who love to point out "You know, America isn't a real Democracy, right?"

 

Yes, we're a Republic, because it's not so practical to have 300 million people gather in public squares like in ancient Athens to discuss the issues.

[Special K 0]

Your not equal to someone who is better looking than you? Are you fucking serious? Who do you think you're better than? Better than you?

 

You missed the point entirely. different people prioritize various qualities differently. Some people will be treated differently their entire life because of how they look. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, or putting any moral value to it, that's just fucking REALITY C-Bacon, which is seemingly the hardest thing for you to grasp. Assigning a moral value to everything and getting all upset when things aren't completely ideal and groovy just clouds the issue. (And no, I don't think that good-looking people are 'better')

 

I wish everything was as ideal as you make it out to be, and we could just live in sustainable communes and no one was ever cruel, that there was no war or injustice. However, history doesn't bear this out as a viable option. I wish communism could be implemented so that everything was fair and just. But it doesn't work, and it never will. Human nature being what it is, a society where no one rules just makes it easy for tyrrany to take hold.

 

And children need guidance. If you read what I said, I said that doesn't mean talking down to them, or insulting them or treating them like shit. Do you think, honestly, that we should let a five-year old drive or drink, or screw, after we've carefully and gently explained the pros and cons to them, all in the name of not appearing 'ageist?' If you honestly do, your are a fucking lunatic.

 

Again, recognizing a difference in the ages isn't ageist, and you can recognize that children need guidance without despising them. On the flipside, my grandmother's in a nursing home, because she simply can't take care of herself any longer. It's not like we're screaming 'fuck you old lady!' It's about recognizing she was a danger to herself and others. I wish things were different, but that's just REALITY.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Your not equal to someone who is better looking than you? Are you fucking serious? Who do you think you're better than? Better than you?

 

You missed the point entirely. different people prioritize various qualities differently. Some people will be treated differently their entire life because of how they look. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, or putting any moral value to it, that's just fucking REALITY C-Bacon, which is seemingly the hardest thing for you to grasp. Assigning a moral value to everything and getting all upset when things aren't completely ideal and groovy just clouds the issue. (And no, I don't think that good-looking people are 'better')

 

I wish everything was as ideal as you make it out to be, and we could just live in sustainable communes and no one was ever cruel, that there was no war or injustice. However, history doesn't bear this out as a viable option. I wish communism could be implemented so that everything was fair and just. But it doesn't work, and it never will. Human nature being what it is, a society where no one rules just makes it easy for tyrrany to take hold.

 

And children need guidance. If you read what I said, I said that doesn't mean talking down to them, or insulting them or treating them like shit. Do you think, honestly, that we should let a five-year old drive or drink, or screw, after we've carefully and gently explained the pros and cons to them, all in the name of not appearing 'ageist?' If you honestly do, your are a fucking lunatic.

 

Again, recognizing a difference in the ages isn't ageist, and you can recognize that children need guidance without despising them. On the flipside, my grandmother's in a nursing home, because she simply can't take care of herself any longer. It's not like we're screaming 'fuck you old lady!' It's about recognizing she was a danger to herself and others. I wish things were different, but that's just REALITY.

 

Yeah, exactly. My grandmother is in a senior residence now as well, because she needs to be. My parents and uncle made the choice for her. She didn't want to go, but she couldn't recognize anymore that she couldn't properly take care of herself. It is reality.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Speaking of disarmament (and I'm not trying to derail the thread towards this direction, though I may make a new one,) the McCarthy bill (which hasn't been voted on yet) would ban virtually all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, or any other weapon "originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

 

That's fucked up.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Not sure what's so bad about that, but I don't know a lot about firearms to begin with. I guess I don't see why you need a semiautomatic weapon for self-defense or hunting purposes.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

How many people here would disagree in principle with the idea that society should be organized along egalitarian lines?

 

In terms of equal rights and protections as far as the law is concerned, yes. Economically, absolutely not.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Not sure what's so bad about that, but I don't know a lot about firearms to begin with. I guess I don't see why you need a semiautomatic weapon for self-defense or hunting purposes.

 

Need shouldn't even be an issue, but anyway.

 

A semiautomatic just means there's one shot with each pull of the trigger, without reloading. The wording regarding "originally designed for military or law enforcement" is what royally sucks. What about handguns "originally designed for law enforcement"? For all the slippery slope arguments conservatives tend to make, this one is a slippery friggin' cliff.

[EricMM 0]

Semi-Automatic means that you can fire repeatedly without cocking the gun, correct? Automatic means it fires as long as you hold the trigger down...

 

So I guess this would mean the only legal weapons would be pistols / revolvers or click-clack shotguns?

 

And need certainly IS an issue. There is no assumption that anyone needs an automatic weapon, for example. Nor would it be reasonable that your average joe on the street would be able to control one if he did use it. I just don't like the people saying, "second amendmant means ANY GUN I WANT" because there is a limit.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Among others, but yes.

 

Ah fuck it, I'm making a separate thread.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Speaking of disarmament (and I'm not trying to derail the thread towards this direction, though I may make a new one,) the McCarthy bill (which hasn't been voted on yet) would ban virtually all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, or any other weapon "originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

 

That's fucked up.

 

Absolutely idiotic and it's going to kill the Democrats out west if it passes. But, from what I've read, I don't think it will.

[cbacon 0]

Your not equal to someone who is better looking than you? Are you fucking serious? Who do you think you're better than? Better than you?

 

You missed the point entirely. different people prioritize various qualities differently. Some people will be treated differently their entire life because of how they look. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, or putting any moral value to it, that's just fucking REALITY C-Bacon, which is seemingly the hardest thing for you to grasp. Assigning a moral value to everything and getting all upset when things aren't completely ideal and groovy just clouds the issue. (And no, I don't think that good-looking people are 'better')

 

The point i'm making is that all people have innate equal worth.

 

 

I wish everything was as ideal as you make it out to be, and we could just live in sustainable communes and no one was ever cruel, that there was no war or injustice. However, history doesn't bear this out as a viable option. I wish communism could be implemented so that everything was fair and just. But it doesn't work, and it never will. Human nature being what it is, a society where no one rules just makes it easy for tyrrany to take hold.

 

On the contrary, it has worked quite successfully. The revolutions in Hungary and Spain didn't fail because nobody worked, they failed because they were destroyed by outside military force.

 

And obviously you can't organize a nationwide referendum on every economic and political issue. So you abolish nations. Start at the base levels - the neighbourhood and the workplace - and work your way upwards through federal arrangements. A neighbourhood council would send representatives to a city council, and then to a regional council, and so on, and decision-making authority would be kept as local as possible.

 

Want to learn more? ParEcon is a proposed economic system constructed on anarchist principles

 

Wiki article because i'm lazy:

 

Anarchist social organization

 

Anarchists see anarchism more as a mediation, and way for a group, or groups of people to come to a consensus on how to run their society. In this way, no real hardcore blueprint for an anarchist society can be created, although we can look back on past anarchies, and learn from their examples.

 

Schools, social centers, and workplaces are all seen as things that are needed to be turned over and run by the people through systems of direct democracy and self-management. Anarchists point to the fact that many areas of our lives are already communal and anarchistic; a barn raising, sharing recipies, group childcare, city parks, etc. Anarchists simply want to expand this communal space, and community self-management towards all walks of public life. Social services (such as teaching and medicine) would be carried out by interested people, and because in an anarchist society people would be working for themselves and their communities, they would be open to more time to work on bettering themselves and their communities. Indeed, if the modern medical field was treated like the open software movement, more people would have access to work on cures for diseases, and other problems that threaten society. Anarchists often point out the success of the postal system, which despite being hierarchically organized with a boss, has no central postal leader, simply various autonomous postal outposts. Federations and networks of doctors and other workers could follow this method as well, and apply anarchist principles to it's organizational structure. In some degree, anarchists have begun to construct these alternatives, starting in the 19th century with the Modern School movement, which was a anarchist run school for youth working class children (author Jack London taught there).

 

Much how anarchists see industry and economics working, with councils and federations of worker organizations in various trades, anarchists see assemblies and councils of nieghborhoods coming together, further linking up in more larger groupings until reaching a national, and even international level. These councils would decide day to day issues, resolve problems, begin work on roads and projects, and work to further advance the community. Anarchists point to the success of the community council system in Chiapas Mexico, under the Zapatista autonomous communities. Further examples of the neighborhood council system can be seen in the ongoing popular uprising in Argentina, where neighborhood councils meet weekly, and then in larger councils with other groups to discuss various issues.

 

In regards to solving issues of crime and settling disputes, anarchists generally are in favor of councils, courts, and assemblies of community mediation and discourse. In a society lacking private property, anarchists assume that social crimes will be the problems to focus on, (i.e. rape, murder, etc). Anarchists are generally skeptical of the prison system, which they see as simply authoritarian, and not working to fix problems within society, and only manifesting new ones.

 

And children need guidance. If you read what I said, I said that doesn't mean talking down to them, or insulting them or treating them like shit. Do you think, honestly, that we should let a five-year old drive or drink, or screw, after we've carefully and gently explained the pros and cons to them, all in the name of not appearing 'ageist?' If you honestly do, your are a fucking lunatic.

 

Again, recognizing a difference in the ages isn't ageist, and you can recognize that children need guidance without despising them. On the flipside, my grandmother's in a nursing home, because she simply can't take care of herself any longer. It's not like we're screaming 'fuck you old lady!' It's about recognizing she was a danger to herself and others. I wish things were different, but that's just REALITY.

 

The examples you listed are not realistic, we would not expect a five year old to desire such things. Parents should provide guidance to such matters in a way that educates them rather than dictates what they should or shouldn't do. And no, I wouldn't say the situation with your grandma is an example of ageism.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

we would not expect a five year old to desire such things

 

Cuz 5 year old kids never, ever want to do things that they're not capable of doing. Nope. Not ever. A 5 year old child will never, ever ask you, not once, if he/she can do something that will probably kill them if they try. Not ever.

 

Parents should provide guidance to such matters in a way that educates them rather than dictates what they should or shouldn't do.

 

So instead of telling young children what they shouldn't do, you want parents to just suggest to their children that they not do certain things, and hope that they listen?

 

So you would just suggest to your child that maybe he/she shouldn't pull on those cords because they might be attached to something that could fall on it's head and injure it, and hope that the kid listens, rather then just telling the child not to do it because it'll hurt, and making sure that they don't?

[Ripper 0]

Dear lord I hope you never have kids.

 

Kids need to be told what to do. Its called authority. Once again, this teaches you life lessons that you are going to need to be a productive adult. Your boss isn't going to suggest you do your work. A cop is not going to suggest that you slow down in the residential area. If you want to create spoiled brats that think that they are equal to everyone then go ahead. But truth is, they aren't equal. They are stupid.

 

It sounds mean, sure, but the fact is they are completely stupid. Children are stupid little people that haven't experienced enough to make rational decisions on alot of issues. And you know why all adults aren't fundamentally equal? Because there are stupid adults that can't make rational decisions and yes, those that choose to make rational decisions are better than them. Some fucker in my complex thinks there is nothing wrong with doing 60 when there are kids that play around here. No I will not call that idiot my equal because I have the foresight to say "Hey, me driving this fast is going to kill someones child. thats not worth me getting to the front of this complex 30 seconds faster."

 

Children are the same way. Left to their own devices they will start having sex as soon as puberty hits. No my 11-12 year olds will not have active sex lives because I suggested that they shouldn't but the decision is up to them. You think a slight buzz wouldn't feel cool to a 6 year old? but no he won't be able to take a shot of vodka because I suggested that he shouldn't but he felt that only a little would be okay. That is bad parenting and any parent that would do that is not my equal. They are lesser than me. Call it what you want, but I will not put myself on an equal plane as every degenerate on the planet. Every pedophile, mysoginist, racist, every person that decided a crime filled easy money life was better than earning a honest living, every thug, criminal, fuck them all. I am better than them all. And hopefully you can say the same. There is no fundamental equality. You earn equality by being a productive member of society.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well said, Ripper.

[Special K 0]

Hear, hear.

[snuffbox 0]

Black athletes should still get free passes, right?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I think they do either way.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Ripper pretty much said what I wanted to say, but couldn't. Thanks Rip.

 

At this point, I'm starting to think that Bacon doesn't actually believe some of the things he says, and that he's saying all this because he knows it will get a reaction. If not, then he really is an idiot.

 

Seriously Bacon, you actually think some form of "anarcho socialism" will work? News flash, this is an issue with kids needing to learn how to behave in class. It's not some kind of oppression, like you seem to think it is. Not every issue is black and white. And contrary to your beliefs, Capitalism isn't the great evil. Hell, you live in Canada, which is run with Capitalism, yet you still rant about it like a teenager "fighting the system." And you are 24. You are 24 and still acting like a teenager who complains about the evils in the world because mom and dad make you do chores. What hardships do you have to endure? You don't live in a third world Country. Hell, if you care so much about those in other countries, at least get off your ass, quit complaining on the internet about the issues, and actually do something. As obnoxious as Che Guvera shirt wearing hippies are, I at least have respect that they actually get up and do something besides sitting on their computer chairs telling people about why they think the U.S. is a horrible imperialist nation like you do Bacon.

 

Finally, quit making threads. In fact, just quit posting in the CE. Every time you do, you prove how clueless you really are. I've seen your other threads (asking if other Countries should be allowed to vote in American matters) and comments (saying Bush winning the 2004 election is worse than 9/11. And I hate Bush, may I remind you) so I can safely say you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

In short, shut up C-Bacon. Just shut the fuck up.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Ripper responded well to the problems with children. I again repeat that an anarchistic society simply can not work. C-Bacon mentioned Hungary and Spain that were overthrown by military force. First, certain elements of anarchy in action do not add up to an anarchic society. Besides, the fact that a few anarchic governments occurred for a few months is certainly not an indication that such a government is better than others. Second, if military force destroyed them the first time, what is to prevent that from happening again? Again, examples in history indicate that in a power vacuum, someone will rise up to fill it. If you create a military to defend it, you first create a system of an army that violates your principles, and then you place a person in power with the means to exploit your system. Third, setting up community councils IS a system of government. The catch is that the natural order of society is to progress to a higher system to cure problems with the other system. This is what happened in virtually EVERY society in recorded mankind.

 

If anarchy is such a great idea, why hasn't anyone done it?

[Gary Floyd 0]

If anarchy is such a great idea, why hasn't anyone done it?

I've ripped on hippies in the past, but I really think that they are much better than the "anarchists." I wanted to start a thread about the riots caused by anarchists in Copenhagen, but I didn't because I knew Bacon would somehow try to defend them while ignoring the most basic things in the situation (like the fact that they had 2 fucking weeks to move out, but refused to.) He really makes this place nearly unbearable.

[Mike wanna be 0]

Parents should provide guidance to such matters in a way that educates them rather than dictates what they should or shouldn't do.

 

So instead of telling young children what they shouldn't do, you want parents to just suggest to their children that they not do certain things, and hope that they listen?

 

So you would just suggest to your child that maybe he/she shouldn't pull on those cords because they might be attached to something that could fall on it's head and injure it, and hope that the kid listens, rather then just telling the child not to do it because it'll hurt, and making sure that they don't?

Kids learn by doing. If they have opportunity and desire, they're really not going to care what "you", the adult, has to say on the matter (if you're in a girl's room, and you can fuck, are you really going to go "No, mommy/daddy told me not to fuck" or are you going to go "Eh, they'll never know..."?). If they can, and they want to, they will, barring the knowledge of the result not being to their liking.

 

C-Bacon would probably opt for "Let it fall on his head; he'll learn in a hurry not to do that shit again", while others would opt for "Smack the shit out of the kid, he'll learn not to disobey".

 

The difference is that C-Bacon's option teaches the kid to listen; if your parent says "Don't do that, it'll fall on your head and hurt like a bitch", you ignore it, do it, it falls on your head and hurts like a bitch, a) you're not going to do that again, and b) you're going to be more likely to listen to what this parent suggests because the last time they said something would happen, they were right. The second option just teaches "Parent doesn't want me to do that"; for the most part the kid doesn't know why they aren't supposed to do it, and they'll probably try it out at some later time when the parent isn't right there to stop them and smack them again.

 

Again, people learn differently at different stages of their lives. Factory work isn't for everyone. Office jobs aren't for everyone. Manual labor isn't for everyone. Why should there only be one educational method for everyone?

[Ripper 0]

Because suggesting things to your kids will lead to them being spoiled idiots.

 

Parents said don't touch the hot stove, it will hurt. How many of you have a horrid stove shaped burn on your hand? You didn't have to find out on your own. Mom said it burns then it fucking burns.

 

By removing direct orders you are also making right and wrong turn into "Well, what do you think is right?" which is not how the world works. so yeah, you can avoid every factory job or office job you want, you can't avoid the law who will TELL you what to do or you are going to see that prison is not for everyone either.