Hmmm. I live in a Commonwealth STATE, and what you've said here certainly doesn't apply to Virginians. Anyone who is born here is legally considered a citizen of the state (if their parents were, at least), regardless of paperwork.

And there is no "abandoning" going on. There is no transfer of ownership.

But perhaps what you are bringing up is the idea of LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES, which in some ways mimic ownership, without actually being ownership.

One of the things that I have always been uncomfortable with, despite understanding it's function, is that although you CAN own land in the United States, if there are taxes to be paid on the land you own, and you don't pay them, your land can be taken away from you by the government. In a sense, there is no REAL ownership of land, therefore. Also, just because you own it, doesn't mean that you can do anything with or on it that you like. There are OBLIGATIONS that accrue with ownership.

The same concept applies with people. If you are married, even in places where marriage is still considered close to being ownership of one spouse by the other, there are still usually OBLIGATIONS involved that again limit the degree and scope of your "ownership."

Not quite. A lie is as you mention, something false said intentionally to deceive. What I'm saying, is that the statement given out AS a lie by whoever says it first, STAYS a lie, even if someone who is honest and innocent, repeats it unwittingly. The distinction I'm making is that I will not declare the person who repeats a lie that THEY BELIEVED TO BE TRUE, is guilty of intentional deception.

But I think it is entirely accurate to tell such a person that what they have said IS a lie, just not to call them A LIAR.

"President Obama was born in Kenya" is a LIE. No matter who repeats it afterwards, it remains a lie. The people who eagerly believe that and repeat it may be something else, but they are not necessarily liars.

It's a bit similar in logic, I suppose, to a situation where someone steals something, and gives or sells it to someone else (who does NOT know the item was stolen), who then sells it themselves. The person who innocently sells the stolen item would not be guilty as a thief, and if the law enforcement is good, will not be charged with knowingly accepting stolen goods.

But the thing they sold, IS still a stolen item.

Thus, a lie doesn't become, oh, say, an OPINION, just because it is repeated by someone who fails to check it out.

Where do you get the idea that "feminists and other extremists" have significant funding, especially in comparison to their opponents?

I agree very much with your core concern with this, but I think some more subtleties could do with being recognized.

In particular, something can be a LIE, independent of the intent of the speaker. You seem to halfway recognize that. If someone repeats something that originated as a LIE, the fact that they repeat it in ignorance doesn't mean it's no longer a lie.

I think that's a very important distinction, especially nowadays, when some of the worst propagandists use the careful accuracy of those who stick to the truth, to have their falsehoods accepted as POSSIBLY true.

This is where I become very frustrated with what I see as second or even third rate efforts to be "unbiased."

When news people repeat accusations and falsehoods, in order to "tell both sides" of an issue, and fail to identify the false statements as false, more people get tricked into believing lies.

In a way, suppose I am supporting the distinction between saying someone has told a lie, and accusing them of being a LIAR.

I tend to think of "argument" as referring to something active, and "disagreement" as referring to the current status of a situation that has BEEN argued.

However, I am well aware that the term argument in particular, has some specialized applications, particularly in mathematical operations. Both there, and in the disciplines of history, rhetoric, and formal discussion, the term "argument" can refer to the formal statement of a proposal or idea, whether anyone disagrees with it or not.

One popular recent saying related to this, is people who say "Let's not bother to argue, let's just agree to disagree."

I'm sorry to say, I don't think there is any possible reliable solution to this. At least, not until and unless we discover some new technology that allows us to completely replay entire events back, for after the fact judgments to be made.

At most, what I support, is to increase education for everyone, as far as teaching everyone how to do a better job of reasoning through accusations and actively understanding the differences between accusations and actual occurrences.

One of the biggest challenges, is that we have, and must maintain, freedom of the press. Despite the fact that there is no way to insure that a free press, will be a responsible and wise press.

And as well, we do want leaders who speak out forthrightly on issues of the day, including this area, but again, we can't easily prevent the careless, or even worse, the intentionally misleading speakers from taking the forum.

Finally, we have to accept and TRY to deal with the fact that there are very real incentives for all the participants to behave very badly. In particular, professional news people and politicians, derive personal advancement and income benefits, from reporting both nasty accusations, AND reporting suspicions of FALSE accusations, with a lot of irresponsible speculation, and incendiary language.

All of which, again, makes education in REASONING, of the highest importance.

I've been to a therapist, as well as participated in a few psychotherapy college courses (which were designed around everyone actually going through therapy sessions as a group, and through experimental interactions with each other).

I gained a tremendous amount from it all, but only indirectly. That is, although none of the various therapeutic approaches and "tricks" and techniques were of ANY DIRECT benefit to me at all at the time, and gave me no insights into myself or my life, the overall PROCESS of working and dedicating myself to trying to grasp it all, very much did result in my building up my own personal "tool box" of tricks to use to get around MYSELF, eventually.

Between what I've done directly, and going with others through their sessions, the main thing a new client should expect, is for the therapist to start by asking you to try to make your therapy GOALS clear. Do you want to stop smoking? Start smoking? Get over a bad relationship? Figure out why you can't get one going? Get a better handle on why you THINK you want to do things, but keep on diving in, and then running away in fear, disgust, or abject boredom?

And so on.

Then, they will likely describe some possible approaches they are most familiar with using, and perhaps pick one to start on. Some people want classic talk-about-stuff-and-get-expert-analysis approach. Some may do better with direct experimentation. Some might want to try completely off the wall things, such as having you perform entirely weird, silly or crazy actions, just to sort of shake yourself out. Heck, some therapy actually works by getting the patient to be furious with the therapist, and more or less battle to prove them wrong...and through the battle process, they learn to fight more directly for themselves.

All kinds of things CAN work.

One of my greatest personal insights came about, because my therapist was intent on figuring out why I felt oppressed by my father, as therapists before her had also tried, to no avail. She chanced to ask me to do a sort of play act, pretending that a chair in the room was my father, and have me try to complain to the chair, hoping that I would blurt out some insight that we could follow up on.

Instead, I rebelled, and realized that I REALLY wanted to ask a completely unrelated question, to myself. No need to go into it here, but as you can see, the therapy did work, just not as the therapist was trying to MAKE it work.

And frankly, as long as you get where you want to go, the fact that you get there by turning the wrong direction several times, really doesn't matter. Right?

I personally have no fanatic or extreme opinions on this subject area, but I do suggest for your consideration, that not all people who oppose something, are opposed to it for exactly the same reason.

A lot of the people I've known, for example, who object to real fur products, are opposed to the way that most fur product manufacturers do NOT get their supplies by personally going out into the wild and hunting. Instead, they keep the animals they cut up to make decorative clothing items, in small cages for their entire lives, before one day killing them. They just don't like that whole idea of a living creature, that obviously does have a sense of it's own life, being treated as though it doesn't.

I also know some people who are opposed BOTH to the use of real fur, AND to the manufacture of plastic fur, for the very reasons you give.

But you are right, that some people invest themselves in self-righteous posturing and insults against other people, without completely thinking things through. One of my favorite individual and specific "gotcha" moments, was a while back now, when some famous person was at one of those so-called Red Carpet events, and was complaining carelessly about the use of animal products for fur coats. The interviewer let them say a few fairly self-righteous things about how making clothing out of innocent animals was horrible, and then asked them "So, what are your very expensive looking shoes made of?"

Personally, I just plain don't care for self-righteous posturing, no matter who does it or why. I think it's probably related to my midwestern American heritage, wherein even though I am not religious myself, I still agree with the basic idea behind "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

I wouldn't choose the word "balance" to talk about government deficits and debts.

The problem I have with all the talk about this which comes from people in a position to do things about it, are better described using words like "dishonesty," and "refusal to recognize and deal with obvious reality."

One rather obvious bit of foolishness, shows up as the periodic fad that people take up, saying the budget should ALWAYS be balanced, and that we should amend the Constitution to prevent Congress from spending more than we take in, ever. Anyone who thinks clearly and honestly for more than a few minutes, would realize that a limitation like that, would mean that should the United States ever be attacked by anything over the size of a local motor club, would result in instant capitulation, since Congress would be prohibited from paying for any increase in Defense spending. That, or we'd have to pay all the time, for enough forces and material to be at the ready, that the defense budget would always be at the highest level that a large scale, worldwide international conflict would require.

Another bit of nonsense, is the idea that we can deal with large concerns by ignoring them. This is VERY popular these days, with people who want very low or no taxes at all on businesses, the higher incomes, and anyone who makes money from investments. It's the "Ignore real costs, and let someone else deal with them later" philosophy. Whether that means pretending that there is no climate change happening, that pollution isn't destroying our source of food for the future, or just ignoring the fact that most people who do work, are paid as though they sprang from the earth at the moment they are needed, and will return there each day at quitting time, it's just as dishonest, and just as delusional.

I think I understand it. Not because I personally want to live alone, I just have worked on understanding why people come to what conclusions they come to. It's the central skill, or discipline that is at the very core of being an Historian.

One particular crystallization of an insight about this kind of thing, turned up in an Agatha Christie novel of all things. Her Hercule Poirot character was explaining to his sidekick, what the reasoning was behind a particular nutty bad guy they were trying to find. The sidekick was expressing exasperation about how hard it was to make sense of and thereby predict the behavior of an obviously insane person.

Poirot explained in turn, that crazy people DO make complete sense, it's just that they only make sense from INSIDE their crazy vision of the world.

I'm not suggesting she's mentally ill, though depression would very likely be the primary diagnosis of any therapist you involved. What I'm saying, is that from INSIDE of her present day conceptualization of the world she inhabits, not being married to anyone is a LOGICAL CHOICE for her to make.

The main suspicion that I would have, is that the logic she followed to arrive at that "solution" to her situation, went something along the lines that she had spent her first five decades trying to fulfill the common American story of adulthood, marriage to a reasonably fun mate, house, career, and so on. Having reached the stage of life (forties and fifties ARE the most common point at which human Americans stop and check to see if they are Doing Married Life Right) where she expected to have everything happily resolved, and finding she did not, she would look around at her options.

Look at her life right now, from inside, from what she sees. She is in a job where people tell her what to do, whether she sees the point of it or not; she's in a marriage where there are the usual expectations for her to fulfill, whether she feels any sense of purpose in them or not; and she doesn't see any indication that those things are going to change.

More than anything else, I'd bet that she wants to divest herself of OBLIGATIONS. That is the PRIMARY reason behind why almost every one of us bothers to stop being children, after all: we get the (false) idea that being a Grown Up means you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, and so we work like crazy to get older, to get our own income, to get sex partners, to get toys, and so on.

Only to find again and again, that no matter what you do, being a "grown up" just isn't nearly as much of an accomplishment of freedom as anticipated.

Therefore, the best she can do, to get SOME sense that she's doing whatever she wants, is to arrange so that as few people as possible, have any call to tell her what to do. And the number one obligation she has to deal with, on a moment to moment basis, is an official MATE.

That's why trying to push her into therapy or any other "fix you" concepts, just makes things worse. It's trying to take someone who just wants to be left the hell alone, and telling them they are OBLIGATED to behave as though they have the same motivations and desires we are all SUPPOSED to have.

When the person KNOWS they are doing this kind of transference or dishonest stuff, I agree with you entirely.

Sometimes people don't realize that they aren't actually upset about the thing they are griping about, though. It's one of those "things to watch out for and check on" items.

Something I came to about this a very long time ago, was the recognition that some people who become argumentative (especially within an officially serious relationship) don't care whatsoever about the subject or content of the argument itself. They have other motivations entirely.

Sometimes they know they are fussing over something other than what their words are about, and sometimes they don't know. There a number of variations in the patterns.

One obvious variation, is when the person is arguing because they want to break up with you, but they want YOU to be the one who gets in a huff and leaves. I usually suspect that motive, whenever the person shifts to another gripe, the moment I resolve the immediate one (through apologies or repair actions of some sort). People who are already actively chasing or even "having an affair" with someone else, tend to do this.

Another variation, is in relationships where the person griping fears that they are stuck accepting something about life that they don't like. Especially about themselves. This is a sort of "transference" argument situation, where they fuss at the other person, perhaps in the hope that they can prove to themselves that it really IS their fault after all.

And of course, within oneself, there's always the possibility for the flipside of that second one. I may have a real defect in me, at least relative to the other person, that I want to deny, and so when they try to coax me into behaving more rationally or thoughtfully, I convince myself they are just making up reasons to fuss out of nothing.

Well, one thing you MIGHT consider, is how the mechanics of human interactions work.

What I mean is, that when one waits to be approached, for example, the people MOST likely to push forward, are the most aggressive, the most greedy, and the ones with the least compunctions about offending or abusing you.

And in general, even while a person is actively looking, again, the most easy to find people, will again be the ones most likely to have the traits you've mentioned that you so dislike.

That means that no matter where any of us looks for people to meet, we are likely to find the people at the head of the line, are the pushiest; not the most thoughtful.

The only way to deal with that fundamental, is to accept that you'll have to say "no" more often than you would prefer.

And keep your spirits up as best you can. One recommendation I've heard a number of times, is that when you are in a place where you are likely to be seen, for example, that you practice a pleasant or positive "resting face." That way, if by chance a prospect happens by, instead of instantly seeing your displeasure at all the nasty men you've been through in your eyes, he'll see your hope for the better man, that he happens to be.

As I said, just a thought or two.

It rather depends on HOW it is that you wish to know them. What sort of "knowing" that you are referring to.

Getting to know someone for business purposes requires one sort of approach, for basic friendship another, as an otherwise uninvolved neighbor,yet another, and as a romantic interest yet again another.

Also, what media you want or need to use is significant. Getting to know someone slowly through online talk, such as happens here, requires a different thinking and approach than if you get in more direct contact, and speak to them on the phone or in person.

Generally, as with any endeavor, your methods will be dictated by your goals, and by the nature of the particular person who you want to get to know.

The challenge of living up to "freedom of religion" has always been that many religions include making very anti-free demands on literally everyone else on the planet.

It's a problem we've been having yet again recently, where some religious people have demanded the right to treat people whose beliefs they disagree with, differently than they deal with fellow believers, including everything from refusing to serve them in public situations, to refusing to allow them access to government services, even to permitting them to break laws that others are held to, as an expression of their religion.

There are some interesting Youtube videos about these too.

You can take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1cLubV7vuc which describes a rather involved procedure to redo the liquid in a lamp that isn't behaving, but which used to.

I've never done this, but being a do-it-myself kind of person since birth (midwestern parents), it's certainly something I'd try.

Doesn't look expensive, just temporally involved.

I forgot to link the article I was talking about!
Here it is in case it's illuminating.

It starts out talking about someone recently trying to get the age changed, but down the body of it, it gets into why those ages were chosen to begin with.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-a-presidential-candidate-need-to-be-35-years-old-anyway

The main reason I'm not worried about Trump refusing to leave quietly if he loses in 2020, is because one of the many powers he DOESN'T have, is the power to stay in office, physically or otherwise, after losing.

One of the things he's already had to learn the hard way, is that being President does NOT empower a person to order illegal acts to be committed.

And there is no legal way he can prevent the election from being held, either, in case anyone is worried about that.

My understanding is that the lammps work the same way that easy baked ovens did. The heat from the bulb, melts a ball of wax inside the fluid, and starts the rise and fall of the stuff you see.

Definitely try a different bulb before you do anything else.

Using age as a way of trying to deal with concerns about a given individuals capabilities in ANY situation, has always been less than ideal.

What would be ideal, is to have some reliable way to determine if a given person is capable of dealing with whatever it is that needs to be dealt with. Whether that's being understanding and psychologically balanced and personally knowledgeable enough to watch a scary film, or being ready to take the reigns of leadership.

Age restrictions have always been a stop-gap, "quick fix" fallback.

As for the Presidency, so far, the youngest person who has ever become President, was already 42.

I think many of us know people younger than 35 who we would imagine could handle being in a top position, and that most of us also know plenty of people who shouldn't even be allowed to decide how to dress on their own, at any age.

I found this article just now, that seems cogent on describing some of the known thinking behind the age limits for President and Congress. I especially like where one person in particular avowed that he supported the age limits, because he knows that HE was too immature to have been given any power when HE was below the ages chosen.

Someone else actually seems to express your own concern, about losing out on the creativity of youth this way.

My thinking is that like many things in life, it's less about age or even experience, than it is about the individual and what they've MADE of their age and experience. Difficult to measure, and even tougher to codify for something like a Constitution.