... arbitrary line that caused a feeling of offense. In contrast, if a dictatorial community leader were to propose that everyone ought to hand over all of their possessions to the communal government and the people rioted, we have a non-arbitrary act of harm being used to counter a non-arbitrary act of deprivation. Since the deprivation includes every possession, the leader in question is bringing every person in the community into harm's way by taking away everything they had used to live up until that point. Thus violence as a tool can be used if it becomes necessary to remove the leader from power (provided the leader refuses to step down and attempts to solidify their political place).

Violence is not merely an expression of power. Feelings of power can come as a result of violent interactions, but that does not mean that violence necessitates power to come about. Violence can be most broadly defined as something that can lead to injury, physically or emotionally (if emotionally, the connotations seem to imply to the point past mere feelings of offense). Power is not involved in the definition, and rightly so, as any mobile organism is capable of committing violent acts.
.
To the question of whether threatening violence is acceptable as a retort-- in a place where the premise is to talk peacefully with no direct physical result, absolutely not. If one were to talk of the morality of pet owning in a coffee house and the listener were to suddenly propose to break a bottle over the speaker's head in response to any perceived insult, it would be reasonable to call the listener quite in over their own heads as they are using a non-arbitrary act of harm to respond to an...

Not for no reason. There's often a root cause, but it's just not practical or efficient to always try to dig that deep. Most people who look for a "quick fix" to clinical depression use medications to suppress the sensation just enough to function, and others look for long-term treatment by going to therapy sessions for as long as they need. And even then it's a long and arduous journey to recovery.

Thanks for the tip, I've heard that a few times. Though I do have a passion for math and want to eventually teach in it, so I'll have to go through the routines and work towards a masters or Ph.D. to even have a chance to pass on my enthusiasm to people who are testing the waters.

... different evidence will always lead to differing conclusions. The difference in his evidence indicates to me that there are untouched aspects of the arguments that need to be touched.
.
I don't believe that famousone is being ignorant or willfully intransigent. He hasn't yet denied all evidence, merely used his own evidence because social media arguments tend to exclude sources. And when you don't provide a direct source, the other person has every license to look up any other source on the topic and make their own conclusions.

I think I'll side with famousone. It doesn't hold that you should treat famousone differently because he fails to grasp your points. It's unfair to treat a microbiologist like a child because they can't understand quantum physics, and a quantum physicist like a child because they can't memorize the specific interactions of all the different enzymes and polymers. He may have opinions that are at odds with the ones we have, but he also has a wildly different kind of expertise. His specific judgements are a result of the kind of information that we don't necessarily interact with all the time. He concludes that Trump isn't so bad because specific improvements have been made under this current administration, whereas we can conclude otherwise due to his current attempts at sabotaging mailed ballots. He can conclude that Trump's actions aren't completely detrimental because it protects certain individualistic freedoms, whereas we conclude that he's a madman. In whichever the direction, ...

So yes, we can have such benefits... at a limit. Otherwise, we can continue with the current model of individualism that is admittedly very lax in terms of who can make use of it.

I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that all undocumented people aren't giving anything back, but since they are not required to, they may choose to use their income and care to provide for people that they care about. And often, those people end up being those who naturally fall outside of the U.S. jurisdiction. A legal system that always gives and takes nothing isn't sustainable, as many early governments quickly found out. There has to at least be some sort of payment, whether by taxes or by individual fees, to balance the cost of running the service. If we have people who are not obligated to pay those dues, we run into the issue of a system that gives more than it can handle, because its resources are at a deficit.

While I personally believe that having those three things would be beneficial to everyone's lives, we have to be careful about who it applies to. At the current moment, we have a very large population of people who are not citizens, but also not on visas or any other permit that would allow them to be legally within the borders. Do those benefits extend to them? If not, then the basic limitation of requiring a valid ID would be a great step to providing legally approved people the care they need. But what if we want to extend these benefits to anyone, regardless of adequate documentation? Then we run into the trouble of a growing population of people who use these services but often are not burdened by the need to actually give anything back. They might do so, but they are not required to do so.

You consider that the bare minimum, but in actuality the bare minimum is shared morality. A shared sense of morality is the bare minimum for safety and solidarity because it provides the common ground of acceptable actions people can take. Anything after that is improvement to quality of life.
.
In general, the three things listed (unemployment support, paid maternity leave, and health care) are not required or even at the very least something that governments have to have. It is simply by the nature of how we want our morality to be, namely as altruistic as possible. Those three things are appealing and consistent with the idea that we should reduce overall suffering, but are not required to do so. However, those three things cannot be accomplished for everyone on the individual level, so it is morally consistent to expect the "warden of the people" to take steps to providing those options.

I acknowledge what you're saying, but I reserve my right to be angry by the fact that multiple academic institutions in the U.S. continue to decide that they should hold Asians to different standards compared to other races, or outright deny people just because they aren't black or latinx or whichever other protected race you can count off.

It's a bit like looking at a very twisted playground. One kid tries to be like the popular kids and gangs up on the other unpopular kid, and then demands more attention from the other kids because they're going against the common target. Not surprising to me that it'll take seconds for institutions to be accused of being biased against black people, and yet it takes decades of operation and two years of investigation from the Department of Justice to come to the conclusion that one of the many offenders are in fact guilty of being selectively biased against people of Asian descent.

I mean, if France never killed all those cats out of superstitious fear, there would certainly be less rats to have spread the plague back then.

I disagree that the first photo merely shows disagreement (and neither show an actual argument happening), although I have to concur that this is not disconcerting. Attitudes don't change so fast in a society, not without a concentrated effort on "educating" children to politically lean one way (or brainwashing adults, though I'd like to exclude that possibility). The fact that these photos, separated by a little less than a generation, can be taken and put side by side is remarkable and a good indicator that we haven't reached dystopia levels of cognitive conformity.
.
I would say more, but I don't know enough context about the second photo to really say much for or against it.

For the point on the American perspective-- yes, American people as a crowd tend to overreact when their personal beliefs are challenged on a federal level. The civil rights movement (and today) show just that. We can't necessarily change that, but I do not believe that this should be protected or held in high regard. If the majority of people show support for a belief that we can demonstrate will bring physical or *very clear* mental harm to any group of people, there is an obligation on the governments' end to ensure that the targeted group is lifted from the spot of the scapegoat without retaliating against any other population under their jurisdiction. Simply requiring wearing a mask is by no means suppression. Any attempt to claim otherwise is mere dishonest leveling.