I read YouTube's policy, and I don't think it will affect video games at all, HOWEVER, Germany and other places have Gewaltverherrlichung and Strafgesetzbuch laws that prohibit glorification of violence,

I am a big fan of Marshall Rosenberg, and nonviolent communication (NVC) is the central part of my approach. I'm new on Steemit, but I am building resources and guides to see if I can help people learn

so i think we are on the same page for regulations that outlaw cookies and ice cream (personal health risk), but your concern was that part of the effect of jaywalking was harm to others (risk of causing

I don't want to appear as a troll. You are not a troll. I like when people tolerate my pedantic psychobabble. The statement assumes that I already agree that peaceful people are currently being forced

All hypothetical. Your anti-jaywalking law (and other laws against peaceful people) allow for NO liberty under any hypothetical. That is the point of liberty: I make my decisions about my risk or enjoyment

If I force adults to cross the road only at pedestrian crossings, how does that harm them? loss of liberty greater harm for those who don't obey (jail, shoot-out with the cops, police brutality for someone

Hi adigitallife, Forcing someone to do something doesn't necessarily harm them only ethical people should be allowed to define harm. Your example was of a baby. I usually confine my discussions to sane

My first question is, why do you make so many assumptions? I'm not sure which assumptions you mean. Next, do you expect voluntarism to just be a switch in society with an overnight shift in personal and

So what you are saying is the rich should stay rich and the poor should get poorer until they are so poor thru are homeless, and all because you believe it harms the rich to pay more taxes Those are related

Maybe my analogy was a distraction. I was addressing your claim that nobody suffers from implementing a universal basic income. If everybody volunteers to pay into the system, that is fine, but every UBI

So, who suffers? Well, no one really You suffer because you are selling your commitment to the most basic principle that underlies any system of ethics: you ignore the principle of not harming peaceful

Giant UpVote for your conclusion: . Everyone need to begin making changes from themselves first before pointing finger at others .

Yes. I see this as a big problem, but I'm not sure what the best response is. You can talk about Steemit, but the truth is that kids today live on YouTube, and they will not have a chance to be exposed

So, going to the meetings is just an exercise in frustration They are frustrated and angry and focussed upon what they think is the problem. They are not receptive to radical shifts of perspective. I have

A huge percentage of my time and energy over the past two decades has been focused on changing people’s minds, via articles, videos, public talks, my books Would people here oppose thousands of people

Governments at all levels are such a colossal mess, and the ongoing social welfare programs have created such a colossal problem, that I suspect that nobody can devise a philosophical pure way to dig us

I see now that you were not trying to use your observations as justifications to do things against the will of other peaceful people. I made some big edits above and put notes in what and modified. There

I suspect that you will find my post here to be frustrating, foreign, and confusing. These are some of the things that I experienced when I tried to work through the rationality of my enviornmental beliefs

I have never heard of psychological time. Some things that I can think of that are related to time and psychology: the perception of time time passes when you are thinking you can think about the past,

Much of your reply indicates that you interpret the "should" in this sentence differently from me: Rather, the individual should be free of oppressive influence which may hinder the individual