All Episodes
Previous Next
July 14, 2013 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
33:43
2431 After The Verdict: George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin

Stefan Molyneux responds to questions and criticisms regarding the George Zimmerman trial and Trayvon Martin situation.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, everybody.
This is Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
I hope you're doing very well.
This is responses to questions about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
Two days ago, I published a video detailing largely unknown facts about the trial of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin.
On Saturday, 13th July 2013, as of 10 p.m.
EST, the jury's verdict coincided with my assessment, finding him not guilty.
Before the verdict was returned, I received a large number of powerful, passionate, interesting, and critical questions regarding my video, which I will attempt to answer here.
As usual, I will do my best to make sure my answer is as relevant to future situations as possible, since we surely have not seen the last of this kind of disastrous circus.
Before we get to the questions, however, there are a few additional thoughts I would like to share about this whole mess.
The child victim.
Referring to Trayvon Martin, who was 17, as a child is low-life propaganda at its most obvious.
Can you imagine a 17-year-old actor being referred to as a child actor?
Given that most teenagers are allowed to drive at the age of 16, have you ever seen the media condemn the modern horror of allowing children to get behind the wheels of cars?
You can join the U.S. military at the age of 17 with signed parental consent.
Have you seen many articles raging against the U.S. Army for recruiting children as soldiers?
When a 17-year-old American soldier is killed overseas, do you see articles reporting the death of a child?
Of course not.
The word is only used to inflame prejudice and provoke a base of the brain, parental protection instincts.
The Unarmed Victim With dull, monotonous, metronome repetition, the mainstream media refers to Trayvon Martin as unarmed.
Only hyper-liberal victim-mongers completely unaware of the reality of gun ownership could imagine that the word unarmed invalidates shooting an attacker in self-defense, or that the word unarmed somehow translates into harmless.
One of the main purposes of gun ownership is to protect yourself from people who are going to attack you without a gun.
I mean, come on, just think about it for a moment.
How many people buy a handgun to protect themselves from snipers?
Well, no one.
Because if someone is going to shoot you from a distance without warning, your handgun isn't going to do much to protect you now, is it?
If Trayvon Martin was in possession of the handgun he was reportedly trying to acquire, and if he had decided to kill George Zimmerman, he would have shot him from the bushes without warning, and Zimmerman's gun would have done nothing to help or save him.
Yes, Martin was in fact unarmed.
So was Mike Tyson when he bit someone's ear off.
So were Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and Richard Speck, all serial killers who didn't use guns.
So were the little old lady poisoners in the movie Arsenic and Old Lace.
So what?
Self-defense does not require that your attacker be armed with a gun, a hand grenade, a rocket launcher, a bag of killer bees, or have the ability to call in an airstrike.
It only requires that you believe with reasonable justification that you are in imminent danger of severe bodily harm or death.
The capacity of human beings to cause bodily harm to each other did not magically appear with the first handgun.
As propaganda goes, the worst part about it is it's all so pathetically transparent.
Personally, I prefer my neuro-linguistic programming just a little bit more sophisticated.
This stuff is all sort of on the level of...
Monkey want a banana?
Okay.
Here we go.
Listener questions.
Stefan, on your point on how are whites making blacks beat their children, you as an advocate for child safety can surely understand how the day of emancipation from slavery was the worst mental health crisis in American history.
These dehumanized African captives were just expected to get a healthy child-rearing culture.
Nobody cared how we raised our kids till they started shooting people.
This plantation culture is just now making it to the light.
If abuse begets abuse, then how is it?
A captive non-immigrant POW population's fault.
The transgenerational trauma, repeated systemic denial of upward mobility, which you acknowledged, a prison system which removes the father from the home en masse, suddenly has dysfunctional babies?
Nobody said, here, Negroes, are therapists for the dehumanization you faced for 250 years.
Go raise healthy families!
We did not ask to be here.
When Garvey tried to take us back 100 years ago, he was destroyed.
How can you judge?
Well, this is a great, powerful, and essential question, and kudos to the writer for his honesty and passion.
History casts great light and great shadow over us.
We have inherited reason and science and property rights and the separation of church and state and other wonderful things through the courage and virtue of our ancestors.
And we have also inherited the darkest and most evil abominations our species is capable of.
Long-term, human abusers are almost nowhere more victorious than when their evils are used as excuses by their victims.
When we lower our standards because we were victims, the abusers win.
Even if long dead.
Those who have experienced evils can best overcome them by refusing to reduce their expectations to a lower standard because of a personal or collective history of victimization.
This is a most essential point and really it can't be repeated often enough.
Abusers want attention and impact most of all, and living like they don't exist, and in terms of personal integrity and morality, like they never did exist, is the only way to truly drive a metaphorical stake through their evil hearts and walk free of the graveyard of history.
If African Americans excuse hitting their children because of slavery, To any degree.
Then the long-dead slavers might as well be hitting their children.
In my opinion, slavery will be over.
Truly over.
When it is no longer used as an excuse or justification for anything.
Hello, Stefan.
I agree with a great deal of what you say in this video, but portraying TM as a drug addict hoodlum isn't right, assuming things goes against the principle of truth, which this video is erroneously titled.
For me, this boils down to the question, who reached for the gun first?
If it was Zimmerman, then it was manslaughter.
But if it was Trayvon, then Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
But again, we won't know for sure.
Thus, this would all be considered reasonable doubt, plain and simple.
Okay, first of all, and again, I'm no legal expert, but it doesn't matter who reached for the gun first.
The requirements for self-defense were met the moment that Martin straddled Zimmerman and pounded his head against the concrete, and possibly beforehand.
You don't have to even be touched in order to justifiably claim self-defense.
You only have to fear imminent grievous harm or death.
Secondly, I certainly did focus on some of the more negative aspects of Trayvon Martin's life.
There were two reasons for this.
First of all, it was to correct the 12-year-old cherub impression created by the mainstream media.
And second, it was not only I who had a great deal of difficulty finding positive things to say about Trayvon Martin.
Martin's prosecution team faced similar difficulties in that they were unable to provide a single credible character witness who had anything positive to say.
About Martin.
I'm sure that a large number of his friends and acquaintances were interviewed, but none of them were put on the stand as character witnesses, which means that either they had nothing positive to say, not good, coming from a young man's friends, or they had positive things to say but had no credibility as character witnesses, probably due to their own character flaws, to say the least.
Everything is child abuse to Stefan.
Nonsense.
Well, if you're arguing with yourself about something I never said, I'll leave you to it.
On the other hand, although we know almost nothing about Martin's childhood, there are some unconfirmed reports that Zimmerman experienced vicious beatings at the hands of his mother while remaining unprotected by his father.
I suspect, based upon his drug use theft and history of violence, that Martin's childhood was no bed of roses, to say the least.
If you think That early childhood experiences are completely irrelevant to teenage and adult violence, then you lack the basic scientific knowledge to involve yourself in adult discussions of these issues and come across like a tarot card reader at a physics conference.
you're not even informed enough to be wrong.
The real issue here is not so much the issue of the crime, but the idea of strapping guns onto an idiot and letting him play out his childhood games of cops and robbers while the so-called civil servants mace the shit out of civilians protesting and exercising their civil liberties and constitutional rights. but the idea of strapping guns onto an idiot and There are much bigger issues to be concerned with.
There will always be crime, and this is something to take your attention away from much bigger issues.
This is media manipulation.
So I did see a lot of responses like this which claimed to have deep psychological knowledge about George Zimmerman's motives.
The wannabe cop shot because he was losing, and it almost always came from people who rejected actual physical evidence.
Making up psych stories is not the same as making a coherent argument.
They can't be proven or disproven, i.e.
contain no null hypotheses, and therefore have about as much relevance to those of us studying facts as a soft fart in the next room.
Sure, the Zimmerman story is media manipulation, but it's obvious and powerful media manipulation, so it's worth examining.
What I find fascinating is the amount of investigating and research some people are willing to do to dig up blemishes about this young man's past.
None of the things that this guy is saying about Martin's past had any relevance as to what his actions were that night.
It's sad that he's willing to spew so much hate about this deceased kid when he, Martin, didn't deserve to be murdered by this man, Zimmerman.
I realize that facts are facts, but this hatred is really unnecessary.
It's a really interesting formulation, this issue, of whether Martin deserved to be shot by Zimmerman.
I'm not sure what it really means, so I have no idea how to address it in any rational or empirical manner.
It's an emotional manipulation tactic, of course.
I mean, who wants to say that someone deserved to be shot?
Who knows what that even means?
I'm sure just about everyone would rather live in a world where Martin did not get shot, but Not at the expense of Zimmerman getting murdered or brain damaged.
As a philosopher, I am always on the lookout for emotionally manipulative language.
You know, the stuff that shows up with such monotonous regularity that you almost forget it at times, like the noise of airplanes under a flight path.
We all heard them shoved down the throats of the American people, spewing hatred, blatant misogyny, etc., etc.
In this case...
It's sad that he's willing to spew so much hate about this deceased kid when he, Martin, didn't deserve to be murdered by this man, Zimmerman.
I realize that facts are the facts, but this hatred is really unnecessary.
It's sad is not an argument but an emotional manipulation.
It assumes the conclusion.
I'm angry that you beat your wife focuses people on the anger rather than on the unfounded accusation.
Deceased kid, same.
This hatred is really unnecessary.
Again, not an argument, but a pretend conclusion based upon the previous emotional manipulations.
Of course, unjustified hatred is unnecessary, but the hatred has not been proven.
So, I have no idea what the word deserved means here.
It smells like a trap, no facts are involved, the ad hominem is clear, so I'll just wipe my feet and move on.
This guy is clearly racist.
You don't have to be blatant when a racist.
You only have to do what this guy does, present only the facts you find relevant to fit your view.
Not one good thing about that boy and all good about a man that ignored the 911 operator and shot a 17-year-old boy that was forced to defend himself from an armed pursuer.
George is a murderer, regardless of anything else, the wise ear, whatnots.
He should have avoided it, but he chose not to now.
He must be removed from society, period.
I fixed a few of the previous errors, but some of these gems seem to emerge from some prehistoric broken-voiced robot and are worth preserving.
Although I don't really mind being described as "raciest." What's wonderful about this little speech is that the person accuses me of doing something without evidence, which is almost always a precursor to that person doing exactly the same thing himself but without the least interference from, say, the slightest shred of self-knowledge.
So he accuses me of presenting only the facts that I find relevant to fit my view.
Then he says that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator, unproven, was an armed pursuer of Martin, obviously false, and that I only said positive things about Zimmerman, false, I reported his arrest records, and also says that Martin was forced to defend himself, again, completely false.
But I really should be careful about presenting only the facts that I find relevant to fit my view.
I don't recall eyewitness testimonies claiming that Martin jumped on top of Zimmerman, but Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and another witness claimed she saw Zimmerman on top of Martin.
Remember, none of the witnesses saw who actually started the fight, nor did the witnesses see Z get punched in the nose.
That is true.
No one saw how this fight started.
Which is why we have to go with the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony.
Zimmerman was badly beaten.
Martin was uninjured except for his knuckles, and at the end, the hole in his chest.
Remember, it's reasonable doubt, not godlike certainty.
Steve, thanks for bringing all of this about.
As a person who doesn't live far from ground zero, should riots occur in the event Zimmerman is acquitted, the media and black community leaders should be held accountable.
As far as I'm concerned, the media and black community got what they wanted, which was for Zimmerman to be arrested, charged, and a trial to be held.
The fact that they're in front of the courthouse shows they want Zimmerman to be found guilty.
The whole thing appears to be a witch hunt.
Of course it's a witch hunt.
It's not a random witch hunt.
The focus on the Zimmerman trial allowed the Obama administration to push through its healthcare legislation with less press scrutiny, and also allowed America to navel-gaze and obsess about race again, right before Obama's re-election campaign, rather than focusing on his rather disastrous performance as president.
It takes a government to turn collective victimhood into a profit center.
This would never happen in the free market, and whatever you pay for generally is provided.
Stefan at 6.29, the last bullet point.
Nah, but he ain't breed enough for me.
Only his nose.
You have misinterpreted what was said.
Martin is saying that the person's race, or breed, isn't enough for him, in that only his nose is.
The person Martin referring to is most likely a mixture of races, and his nose is the only characteristic that is full breed.
For instance, half white, half black is considered half breed.
Really?
You seem very sure.
Deciphering some of this stuff is like listening to an old movie on a beach radio through two yogurt cups on a piece of twine in a rainstorm.
But yes, perhaps Martin was a racist as well as a sadist.
I'm not willing to plant a deep stake in the ground either way.
There is a lot of biased statements and allegations in this video.
It is very easy to throw judgments when someone is not alive anymore to defend themselves.
The most important part of the puzzle, in my opinion, is this.
The 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow the guy.
He did anyway.
And then the young guy was dead.
How is that okay?
Oh, and he is self-appointed community watch captain.
Also, see something, say something application expired after he made the 911 call.
Throw judgments is a way of dismissing an argument without having to check the sources which were posted right under the video.
People's sense of causality is very confused, which is generally sure evidence of confirmation bias.
"'If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, Martin would still be alive today!' Sure, and if Martin hadn't been caught with drugs, he would not have been suspended from school, his mother wouldn't have sent him to Florida, and he would still be alive today.
And if a giant asteroid had obliterated Florida in 10,000 BC, America wouldn't have a penis.
This kind of breathless causality is always ridiculous to see, but fundamentally tragic since it shows a mind almost irretrievably broken.
Sam brushed his teeth with baking soda and then jumped out of the window!
We need to ban baking soda, don't you see?
If you're going to argue that Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had stayed in his car then you need to prove how Zimmerman getting out of his car directly led to Martin's death.
In other words, you have to avoid the fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
That, it seems to me, is a little bit more relevant to this catastrophe than the fact that Zimmerman got out of his car.
Why are you posting articles about black parents applying corporal punishment to discipline their children?
Do you have any evidence that the Martins used corporal punishment to discipline their children?
Absolutely not, otherwise I would have said so.
However, I bring all of this up because the Zimmerman case is a tragically teachable moment.
What truly annoys me is people speaking for black people and treating them all like they're part of the Borg.
This isn't an open and shut case of self-defense.
There were many inconsistencies in Z's reenactments, from the fact that it was odd for a neighborhood watchman to not know the major street names in his neighborhood, to the freaking fact that Zimmerman claimed that the confrontation started 20 or more feet from where the police found TM's body.
Really?
While under stress, in the rain, waiting for the police, afraid for his life, perhaps he might want to check some confusing street names?
Also, Young thieves change the street signs so that the police can't find them when called.
So this is how you try to pierce the overwhelming physical and eyewitness evidence about what happened.
Let's say that the confrontation did move 20 or more feet.
Well...
Zimmerman was knocked back, probably six or seven feet, and then attempted to shimmy his way to safety, seeking grass to have his head pounded on instead of concrete, and then there was a terrible shock, shot impact, knocking Martin back, and then Martin lived for one to three minutes afterwards, he may have tried to crawl.
I don't know what the definition is of an open-and-shut case of self-defense, but these objections are remarkably inconsequential, and once more show the confirmation bias so omnipresent in this case.
More blacks kill blacks than anyone else.
No shit, Sherlock.
When you are surrounded by nothing but members of your own race, you are more likely to kill members of your own race.
Why do idiots keep bringing this point up as if they revealed something original?
Most crime between people is interracial.
Most blacks who kill will kill other blacks.
Most whites who kill will kill other whites.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out why this is the case.
Well, it's not so clear to a lot of people that black-on-black violence receives the attention it deserves.
Most mainstream media outlets have a consistent policy of not identifying the race of black criminals.
And as I pointed out in the video, a writer for the New York Times said that he was terrified of his teenage black sons being shot by some white racist vigilante, which creates an impression quite in opposition to the facts.
Since we're talking about not viewing things through race, I'd say the reason certain forms of abuse are higher with black Americans and Latina Latina Americans would be that more black Americans and Latino Latina Americans are of the lower bands of income and wealth.
While it certainly isn't a trend, let's not pretend that less access to wealth, education, and other utilities doesn't influence mindsets like that which may be more likely to abuse a child.
Yes.
I understand that poverty can be an exacerbating factor in cases of child abuse.
But it is certainly no excuse for child abuse.
Blacks are poorer and abuse their children more.
But I'm sure the blacks understand that children cost money and that you shouldn't have children if you can't afford them.
Saying that poverty justifies child abuse is like saying that smokers are not responsible for the resulting lung cancer.
Sure, smoking can cause lung cancer, but smokers are still responsible for picking up cigarettes, and poverty can cause child abuse, but poor people are still responsible for having children.
I respect what you're trying to do, Stefan, but if this were your child, you would not be so quick to demonize him and cast his murderer in such a white land.
We all heard the police call the guy stalked, spooked, then killed a defenseless teenager.
Nothing more, nothing less.
My child will never violently attack a stranger, or friend for that matter, because she's being raised peacefully and reasonably.
I don't know in any specific detail what kind of childhood Martin had, and I doubt anyone will ever know, but I do know this.
Either his caregivers did know about his drug use criminality and violence and did nothing, or they did not know about these things...
Which is even worse.
Stefan, the one problem I have with your analysis is that you seem to be taking Zimmerman's quotes as fact.
When he claimed that Martin said, well, you've got a problem now, before allegedly striking him, we have no way of knowing if this is what actually happened.
The problem with this case is we have one side of the story.
For all we know, Zimmerman may have tried to apprehend or grab Martin, which caused Martin to fight back.
In that case, who is the person standing there aground?
I got this criticism with wearisome repetition, and it's unfounded.
I repeatedly said in the video, according to Zimmerman, and if we accept Zimmerman's account, and so on.
The great terror of modern society is that facts simply don't matter to the vast majority of people.
This is why we get a self-destructive political system, endless debt, a dying currency, wars, and zombie movies.
Damn, Stefan, you're obviously going out of your way to accommodate the actions of Zimmerman.
There are clearly facts in dispute, yet you have no problem absorbing them as conclusive facts.
I hope you have an epiphany about your not-so-soft internal racism.
Ah, the magic words.
Obviously and clearly.
So much easier than cogent rebuttals.
And if I did have racism, I would pretty much expect it to be internal.
I don't think it shows up like a wart or a tusk.
Although, that would actually make things easier for everyone.
Yes, Stefan.
I find this video quite disturbing.
I don't understand your motive, nor can I understand why you would present any sort of opinion on a subject that the authoritarians are dying for someone like you to chime in on, question, question, question, question.
Ah, the Concern Troll.
Truly, my favorite breed of troll.
They taste...
And act like chicken.
The guy in the media is making this just as much about race as the media.
Can't make the statement that if they're race-baiting, then end your point on a seven-minute presentation of how blacks are prone to violence due to spanking and beating children, asserting that's the reason this kid is dead.
The video has a convincing angle, but when you dissect it, it's totally riddled with flawed logic.
While the end of the presentation was about spanking or physical punishment of children, I never did say that spanking was the reason that Martin was dead, which would be a pretty shocking claim, requiring vast amounts of rational arguments and empirical evidence.
When you dissect it, oh, if only he had!
Nice arguments from exaggeration, too.
Totally riddled.
It's always funny to see people using rational terms while obviously having no idea how to construct a rational argument.
It's like teaching a toddler to say E equals MC squared and then demanding a physics scholarship.
Ah well.
Internet debates have almost always been a sober night at bad karaoke.
No offense, but the person that put this video together, no, it's not too swift.
You can't stalk someone and then shoot them dead when the fight you started goes south.
If we used your logic, why not stalk a woman at night?
And then when her mace hurts your eyes and she kicks you, you shoot her dead because you were fearful she was going to kill you.
Oh, that's right.
Easy solution.
Don't chase people at night.
That's what the police are for.
The omnipresent stalking argument.
Zimmerman was stalking, Martin.
Words, particularly legal words, have specific meanings.
Stalking has nothing to do with what Zimmerman did that night, and anyone who uses that term is either ignorant or transparently manipulative, or most likely both.
This was an interesting and eye-opening video.
However, Trayvon obviously is unable to defend himself in this situation.
You're only telling Zimmerman's side of the story, and he's going to say whatever keeps him from going to jail.
If Zimmerman thought Trayvon was suspicious, then why would he get out of his car to read a sign?
If anything, it'd be more legible with his headlights on, etc., from inside the car.
If I was being followed in a car and then the person got out, I'd be terrified and Trayvon...
didn't finish the thought.
Actually, I'm not telling anyone's side of the story.
How boring and irrelevant would that be?
But relying on facts and information and providing my sources for everyone to see.
It was very instructive to see, though not at all surprising, how few people actually tried to rebut the overwhelming physical evidence supporting Zimmerman's version of events, but rather accused me of repeating Zimmerman's versions of events.
Because, you know, looking up stuff is like...
Totally tough, man.
Can't think.
Must type.
Really, guy?
Marijuana?
Racist word, FYI. Impairs judgment, causes paranoia, and he may have been using it, but you're just reporting information?
Really?
If you keep asking questions, does it really look like...
You're dismantling my argument?
How about?
Now?
Well, some people who use marijuana sometimes have bad trips and get paranoid and perhaps just maybe think they're being stalked when someone is getting out of and back into a car.
It's not proof, but it's not irrelevant.
You fail to realize that after hundreds of years of abuse from the white race towards the black has torn the black race apart.
If I'm not mistaken, the black race could not even vote in America until the 1960s.
So when it comes to statistics, the crimes from the white race towards the black race far outweigh the crimes from blacks to whites or black to black.
If you think of morality in terms of giant historical collectives, you're already hopelessly biased and have voted yourself out of rational conversations about ethics.
A rapist sees a woman he wants to assault.
He follows her.
She is a drug addict and is paranoid.
He follows her and confronts her between buildings.
She is a martial arts expert and proceeds to beat the living shit out of him.
He pulls out his gun and shoots her dead 40 seconds after the assault.
He later claims he followed her because he thought she was a prostitute and wanted to stop her from doing any crimes.
This above scenario would be perfectly legal according to this explanation.
information.
You're begging the question by describing the man as a rapist and wanting to assault her and using the word confronts, which sounds antagonistic but is fundamentally meaningless.
Yes, if a woman initiates felony assault against a man and he has reason to believe he is in imminent danger of grievous bodily harm or death, then he can shoot her in self-defense.
You can get upset with me about this if you like, but there are thousands of years of common law tradition in almost all civilized societies detailing and justifying the conditions necessary for self-defense.
So, take it up with history, not me.
Great video on Zimmerman.
I was wondering what your response would be to many people who I hear ask how Zimmerman could pull a gun out while his head was being bashed in and he was being straddled.
Many people believe that Zimmerman already had the gun out before the shooting.
Zimmerman claims that Martin noticed his gun when his jacket rode up It seems a little unbelievable to me that Zimmerman has his gun out prior to being attacked.
What crazy person, faced with an armed and angry man, would decide to walk up to him and punch him full on in the face, and then start a felony assault on him, without first getting the gun away?
Anyway, I really do want to thank everyone who wrote in and who has commented on the video.
Well, almost everyone.
A bunch of vile racists from almost all camps you could imagine.
But I'm glad that people are watching it.
I'm glad that people are absorbing the information.
I certainly do appreciate people spending the time to watch that and to watch this as well.
Of course, if you'd like to know more about Freedomain Radio, you can go to freedomainradio.com.
We've got more than 50 million downloads, and I'm in fact beyond TV this week to talk about this.
I'll post more about that as we get more information.
I guess the last thing that I really want to say is it really does, I think, come down to the kids, to what it is we want to do with childhood.
We have a society that only survives by not treating children as human beings in terms of 70, 80, 90% of parents are still hitting their children.
You can't hit anyone else in society, only the kids, right?
Because we dehumanize the children.
If we treated children as human beings, we'd never have a national debt, right?
We wouldn't be piling them out of birth with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and millions of dollars on unfunded liabilities.
We just wouldn't do it.
It's primarily the young who go off to fight wars.
We wouldn't be shoving them in disastrous public school systems to keep peace among adults.
The very idea that we should organize society primarily by treating children as full human beings, as the most necessary, important, and essential human beings to protect, because they're the only ones who don't choose their relationships.
If you get married to some asshole, you got to date, you got to ask that person to marry you, you got to be engaged, you married, you can leave at any time.
It's all choice-based.
You don't choose the family that you're born into.
You don't choose whether you have nice or bad parents.
And you can't leave.
So children have the least choice.
They are the subject to the least voluntarism in our society.
And what do we do?
Well, we hit them.
We put them in shitty schools.
We lay them down with debt.
We order them around.
We lecture them.
We give them timeouts.
We control them.
We indoctrinate them.
Superstition and other forms of patriotism.
So what if, you know, instead of having society that survives only through its predation upon children...
What if we were thought of a society where the needs, independence, choices, and preferences of children came first?
Well, I can tell you this.
There would not be these kinds of tragic murders in the rain.
▲
Export Selection