This is so funny to me because I feel like I'm debating myself. So I feel as if I'm playing devil's advocate. Like I said before I am not really about the use of violence or extreme force. I believe in leading by example and letting the pack follow. I also believe that if you force something on a person, although they may pick up the idea you forced for a while, they will ultimately go back to their original routine when the influence decreases. However, if you use a small amount of force to start the spark of interest..then at that point you will achieve a greater success rate of conversion. Sometimes people have to be forced to look at something or they would have never looked at it at all. Many opportunities are missed because people don't take the extra step to be persistent but not relentless.

I'm afraid you don't want to define force by my definition of force, and what I consider what we were talking about, or going against people's will.

You keep debating, in, abstraction, while I am debating about the reality of ideas, IE: Cup, Mathematics and their unfailing truth of being great in it of itself, while forcing such "great ideas" is counter productive at best!

Here is how, you're speaking in abstractions:

I also believe that if you force something on a person, although they may pick up the idea you forced for a while, they will ultimately go back to their original routine when the influence decreases.

The point, the only point is to follow the goldern rule, if you as you said " Like I said before I am not really about the use of violence or extreme force. " Taking that apart, you equate violence as different or not extreme force. They are the same thing, you are either for violence or you are not, and that is speaking in the context of NOT USING it for defense. There is no "a little bit of violence". So you either are not about that, not "not really", but simply not about that, or you are. We can say that you don't want to use force on people, unless they are attacking you or others. But in the sense of what I quoted above, you believe that others should force you to do things for your benefit, which makes you ok with letting others decide what the benefit is, admits that you are incapable of deciding your own benefit, and not even claim your own actions, an infant of a person," awww look at him/ he doesn't like it when you look at him/ yes you can hold the baby/ he likes it when you wipe his butt/ he cannot be bothered I like to say.". But you also believe that the baby won't necessarily wipe their own butt after you forced them to do it. These imbecilic harmless imbeciles that cannot even wipe their own butt. "chants of "equality/ equal force for everyone" into the horizon with a zillion SS behind him".

However, if you use a small amount of force to start the spark of interest..then at that point you will achieve a greater success rate of conversion.

But, in case I didn't just explain before that force doesn't work once force isn't applied, a little force works to force people into being interested in a good idea. So far that is logically sound.

no, you warned that force doesn't work, but a little force "works".

Again you are either for force or against force. If you can demonstrate what a little force is what a real world example of where such real force would be necessary to create interest into a good idea, then we can say that such a thing is possible, until then your speculation is that good ideas need force, and there is no evidence of that, after you've just argued that force stops working once force is applied, on the premise that good ideas don't get implemented simply because of curiosity, and interest into being better(moral), faster stronger, lighter, and the mother of all ideas, necessity, but also because it is forced onto people. Forcing good ideas is never necessary, not even to bring interest to them, how much force is moral? who decides that? the real questions aren't 'is force (outside the context of defense of self and others) moral', it's evident force is immoral, forcing people against their will is immoral, or you would have people force you against your will, FOR YOUR BENEFIT(theydecidedthatalreadyduh,nowgotosleepbaby). If that's the paradigm you ascribe to that's fine, but let me let you in on something, some people you cannot force, so will you kill?

Sometimes people have to be forced to look at something or they would have never looked at it at all. Many opportunities are missed because people don't take the extra step to be persistent but not relentless.

You're still arguing that forcing people is ok. We get it, that's your thing, if I come and force you you're ok with it, as long as I get to decide, it's a beautiful utopia where nobody really decides anything for themselves, unless they're deciding things for someone else. It's brilliant. Just have to stand away in awe. (I'd ask, what are such "sometimes", and why can they not chose the "times" themselves even?)

AWE.

The Zomia State does not have a written language and there is still division among the people and it is not a happy utopia that you are, to me, describing. From what I researched, it seems that the social building practices and social ties that the community imposes on it's people is what keeps the structure.

Where was happy utopia, the Zomia, is a REGION of the world, not a state.

The people of zomia are "divided" by that they practice different religions, they have different customs, but they don't get their structure from "social building practices and social ties", it's their ideology that has fought actively against the purpose of the state the reason they have no write en language to stop those that would attempt to censure and claim to be so and so protectors(see it's here on this here piece of paper, it's here it's FOR YOUR BENEFIT, yeah you wouldn't believe it how great we are, we all got together, for your benefit and decided these things, as they proceed to rape you.)

The ideology is simple, no "leader" has more authority than individuals, and people respect this, and I'm sure its survived for over two thousand years running rampant with vandalism, rape and murder, and more than anything lol in spite of having to live in the freaking hills and mountains where the governament would tax you for someone else's kids and kill you if you don't pay, so that fear and force can be used together to benefit.

In one article I read it stated that, "kinship systems are based on overlapping and redundant relationships that create a strong social network and limit the formalization of power."

I will concede that these people did leave many different areas to escape other forms of government, but I still believe they are just follow another rule system that forces them to limit power. In my opinion that is just power being used form a different angle.

Who's imposing this rule system onto them, and if you have just ceded your position, isn't it indicative that you chose to put a but in there and argue that consent and freedom is "forces them", kinda like cognitive dissonance, this is the only way that we stop murdering raping looting bands from forming:

The people that do the farming in the valleys consider the people in the mountains, of the already treacherous lands, as primitive and living ancestors.

Yeah, I'm sure they do, the ones in the mountains what do they consider the ones in the valleys?

But I do not believe in a society where one puts themselves over the community and still "doesn't believe in some are allowed to do what some are not allowed to do."

So you do not believe that if you put yourself over the community, you should be allowed to do what some aren't allowed to do.

If you guys want to partake in group sex, and you all agree that you everyone does as you say, and nobody can do what you do, that's perfectly fine to put yourself over the community. It's not fine when people don't agree, or when sex goes into parts that people don't want. get it. Then it's rape, in spite of what you initially agreed.

How can I put myself above the community but still say that I care about what everyone else is allowed to do. With that mindset why would you care what anyone in the community did? Or is it just a battle of "well, he did it too" in the the culture.

I don't understand that so I'll break it down to what I think it's asking:

You cannot put yourself over the community, and still say that you care about what everyone else is allowed to do? Because then why would you care what anyone in the community did or is a battle of "well, he did it too"?&? in the culture?&?"

How can I put myself above the community but still say that I care about what everyone else is allowed to do. With that mindset why would you care what anyone in the community did? Or is it just a battle of "well, he did it too" in the the culture.

Nothing is perfect, but it is the method of weighing pros and cons that helps the decision making process. If one does not have goal, then what is one living for?

Abstractions, we are talking about the reality of using force to impose good ideas on people, and how such a thing is right, not about what is one living for. The point being is that you can get to decide what you live for but it stops when you decide what someone else is living for, which you argued repeatedly that they are incapable of deciding what's best for them, that by extension is probably how every world leader and president justifies deciding to do something especially evil with the stroke of a pen "for their own good".

Some systems are more goal oriented and others are made for those who want to simply exist.

Simply what to exist, nice stab at a people that chose responsibility over themselves and didn't get hypnotized by fear of "who will decide if we don't elect a leader" to stop the invading raping murdering hoards that come and have come in places like zomia, where people of numerous cultures spanning over one hundred million are less "goal oriented" than the "the right amount of force will prevent people from raping and hoarding to pillage, or steal, we just need you to pay us to do it or else" than those people with all that orientation.

If you think about it, how many times a day do you have to force yourself to do something because you would rather be doing something that's unproductive or against what you had planned for the day?

Finally the last abstraction. We are speaking, again, about what ideas would require force, that are good.