Tuesday, April 24, 2018


I get occasional criticism for the things I write, and sometimes a bit of praise. I actually get more praise, I suspect because the critics don't keep coming back (maybe because I won't endlessly engage dumb or misguided criticism), so the pool of readers kind of selects for those who are more likely to praise.

Praise is probably as "bad" for me as criticism-- or worse. But it sure feels nicer.

Praise just means I said something that someone agrees with. We might both be wrong. And, tomorrow I might say something they hate just as much as they liked what I said today. Praise is fleeting. And it doesn't educate as much as criticism does.

But praise sometimes comes with donations or subscriptions attached; criticism rarely does. So that's a plus for praise.

Either way, I value feedback, whatever its nature. Otherwise it feels like I am talking to myself.

Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Follow me on Steemit and Medium


  1. You're not talking to yourself. Preaching to the quire a little maybe, but you are not alone.

    We've had many conversations. I have read your blog for a long time. I praise you because you are very consistent in your principles and are peaceful. You are always working toward the peaceful answer, whatever it may be.

    I cannot do that the same as you, as my thought process is very utilitarian and goal oriented. I have to weigh the peaceful answer against the logical answer that gets results. That is how I come up with solutions like abducting the children of the child welfare kidnapper if/when they steal your children. Their laws and weapons and authority and judgements would mean very little when they receive their child's eyeball in the mail after the terror of wondering what happened to them for a while. I'm thinking of results and solve the ethical dilemma with an argument of responsibility; They started it, it's their terms by force, my responsibility is my child.

    You probably come up with a different answer that does not include cutting a child's eye out, and it probably has something to do with ethics. And that is what I am trying to figure out about you; How do you do that? How do you consistently weigh decisions to produce a goal that is a peaceful answer?

    1. How do I do that? I don't know. Maybe because, even in the case of people doing things I know are evil, I can still see/feel things from their point of view. I don't like seeing it that way, but I can't not.

      I also know that I am not responsible for other people's bad choices, so I wouldn't want to have my eye cut out just because some relative does something I know is wrong. As an adult I can publicly distance myself from their actions, but a kid isn't likely to.

      Part of liberating myself has been that realization: if someone I know does something wrong, something I wouldn't do and would be ashamed for doing, they aren't me. I don't control them. That has been HARD for me.

    2. "I also know that I am not responsible for other people's bad choices, so I wouldn't want to have my eye cut out just because some relative does something I know is wrong. As an adult I can publicly distance myself from their actions, but a kid isn't likely to."

      Yes, I have considered that their child has done nothing wrong. It is the part of the whole thing that bothers me. How very unfortunate.

      My counter to that is that neither has mine, and their child is not my problem. My problem is getting my child to a safe a stress free environment, and I know that, not only are the terms being forced upon my child/family, but that it will get results in a hurry.

      I conclude that this is the answer to the problem they present me with. So be it. I am not responsible for these terms. Then I start hunting their children. The ultimate result is they comply and my child is safe, but I am in deep shit, which is better than I am safe but my child is in deep shit. Fuck them and their children. Everything was fine until they got violent.

      What I am doing is resolving the ethical dilemma with responsibility, the goal being the lesser of two evils.

      Somewhere in the same place in your head, you are weighing the rights of their child as equal to you and yours, therefore not a fair play to target the child.

      I can't argue with that. The child is not at fault, and thus not deserving of consequences.

      My only response is to question why the child welfare people would put their children on the table like that. Are they not basically offering their child as a trade by forcing those terms?

      How does that work?

    3. Maybe there needs to be a way to clearly and credibly communicate exactly what their actions will set into motion-- and get them to understand it's not negotiable and there's no way to hide from the consequences if they choose to pursue that path. Then, I would be more willing to agree it is on them if they refuse to stand down, knowing what it will mean for them and their kids.

    4. So I guess the argument is that the terms need to be established before acting in any such way. My response to that is their actions establish the terms already, regardless of what has been said or whatever justifications and legal BS. They put children on the table like chips. They violated your whole family. What is the ethical purpose of a warning?

      My gut instinct and basic sense of right and wrong, as well as whatever wisdom I have gained in life, tells me to never ever ever ever ever ever ever harm a child.

      But that conflicts with the logical as well as instinctual need to protect my own. My gut says green light on all paths to protecting my young, by whatever means necessary and available, up to and including destroying the universe and beyond, so help me god. (I don't even have children, at least not that I know of.)

      The overall goal is to protect my children. And the forced terms are to violate children, as has been established, which allows that as an appropriate response if necessary. ...if necessary.

      But is that necessary? Is that going to protect my child? How so?

      Well, probably. How do you circumvent all that state might? Should the kidnapper be the one to be abducted, as they are the ones ultimately responsible? Would the system respond the same as they would with a child?

      Why not abduct ALL of their children? How many eyeballs would it take to make the state obey?