Mentality? I call it anti-mentality.

These toddlers are not just economically and mathematically illiterate, they are morally repellent. Witness the smugness and conceit of insisting that they have a right to the contents of the pockets of the most financially successful individuals in this country, let alone, the world. Be amazed at their brazen sense of entitlement. This lunatic lives in a fantasy bubble and demonstrates her complete disconnection from reality. Thank you Neil, for exposing this nitwit and the prepackaged sham that she promotes. These toddlers are throwing the switches on the machinery of their own demise.

I think Sowell's books on applied economics are just the ticket here. They really emphasize going, as he puts it, "beyond stage one"; the understanding of which is sorely lacking here.

The answer is not to shirk away from objective reality. You can't solve a problem when you can't objectively define it. After all, I could easily argue you are not an adult based on your responses here. But what would that solve? Nothing. Just as you labeling someone over 18 who doesn't believe and act as you would want them do doesn't solve anything. Though it might give you some minor feeling of smugness in not being associated with them as adults, it does nothing objectively to alter the problem of lack of maturity and responsibility.

One of the key problems we have as a society is we isolate children and make this distinction. We stick them in environments they do not have influence in or over until they "get out of school" wherein they are thrust into a world absent the basic ability to be a part of something other than their age and class.

And we then play at being shocked when they can't handle it. Why should they be? They are raised in a peer group that includes only authority figure and people their own age. This lack of true diversity is a prime condition for the problems we see in this video, such as a lack of understanding of groups other than one's own. Notice this has nothing to do with adulthood.

You have your assumptions entirely backward, and your petulance is promoting that, preventing you from seeing the obvious and correct conclusions. Recognizing their status as an adult isn't about giving them permission to be adults, though that can be a side-effect, it is removing the permission to not behave as one. The mind is a slippery thing but there are things we do know about it.

The non-conscious mind has no temporal understanding. To it "someday", "when you are older", and "when you are an adult" do not translate the way they do for our conscious mind. To the non-conscious mind it is now or not now. If you are not "an adult", the non-conscious mind will not push you toward the behaviors we expect as an adult. It will put those "on the shelf" until you are "an adult". As long as you label them as other than an adult, you tell their non-conscious brain, which controls most of our behavior, they don't have to behave as one.

And to your final attempt at wit, no emulating anyone is not a requirement of adulthood. Being born at least 18 years ago is the sole requirement. What you do after that point determines what type of adult you are, not whether you are one or not.

This is similar in many ways to the modern attempt by feminists to rewrite what it means to "be a man" or what "male strength" means. Lacking objective definitions you will always face arbitrarily emotional characterization so. As the saying goes, try to build a bridge without rigid principles. With a subjective meaning to "adulthood", as you are asserting, I can easily define you as not an adult.

Once I have that definition I am than justified in denying you the rights of adults, while you are justified in refusing to meet the responsibilities of one. Much like bridges require rigid principles, if you want to build better adults, you have to have rigid definitions of adulthood, rather than emotional and ideological ones. Even a rickety rope bridge is still a bridge.

Now if all you want to do is continue to incorrectly label adults as non-adults because you don't like them, don't bother responding unless you also have a need to have "the last word". So feel free to have it. If you aren't willing to stick to objective facts and instead insist on ones interpretable by anyone in any way, you aren't worth any further typing on my part. We have more than enough of that outside the Gulch.

She went full retard.

You never go full retard.

Ya got THAT right!!!

I admit I didn't listen to this whole article on the computer, as I believe I already heard this conver-
sation on the radio. I mean with the same individu-
als being broadcast. (I'm not allowed unlimited time
on the library computers).--It's utter garbage on her part, of course. I remember a remark Ayn
Rand once made about altruists' thinking that
"'selfishness' mean[s] the sacrifice of others
to self"; well, here it is,in its conventional mean-
ing, loud and clear.--That girl(I don't know her
age, but she seems like such a spoiled child)
obviously has no respect for property (or probab-
ly any other individual) rights. She shows no
regard for the idea that the "one per cent" may
possibly have worked for their money, and earned it. In fact, she shows no respect for the
concept of "earn". Actually, I find it hard to be-
lieve that 1% of the American people have that
much more money than the rest of us. I don't
have much money; in fact, at this moment--
never mind--but I don't want to confiscate what
they have. I just want to earn more money my-
self. I think she is an insufferable b---h, but I
wonder about who conditioned her to think like
that. I find it hard to believe that she came from
a "working-class" home. I think that many "lim-
ousine liberals" think like that.

See e differ in what it means to be an adult. Whether one acts like someone's view of what an adult should act like or not, being of adult age still makes you and adult. I don't find value in playing word games around things which are objectively defined just because I don't like the association.

Adults have certain responsibilities, regardless of whether they meet those responsibilities. By saying they are not an adult you are giving implicit permission to not behave as an adult. Being and adult doesn't imply anything about you, it reflects an objective fact.

In essence you are engaging in the "no true scotsman" fallacy, where you excuse someone from an objective category for doing something you think they should as a member of said category, or not doing what you think they should. But nowhere in the definition of adult has there ever been room for subjective definitions. Just as a 16yo who "acts like an adult" is still not an adult, a 20yo being immature is still an adult.

Now if you want to label those who don't behave as an adult should immature that is a different situation. The sophists and collectivists play games with twisting words, that doesn't mean we should do the same.

Stormi: Excellent reply! You put it on her level. Even she could understand the comparisons that you made here. Nothing like hitting someone between the eyes!

Right?! "There's always going to be a 1%" sounds a bit like "1 + 1 = multiculturalism."

Stormi, interesting point you make. I realize now I haven't come across a person who spouts 1% nonsense who includes anyone in the entertainment industry to be of the evil 1%.

The sad thing is, she is so uneducated and naive, she has no idea she is the pawn of Marxists who would destroy the country which has been so good to her. She has no idea who comprise the 1%, which I think would surprise her. She likely believes Hillary is poor, when she has multiple estates. What if she feels entitled to attend a Taylor swift concert? Would she expect Taylor to sell one of her multiple $1,000,000 homes to make that happen? How many of her favorite liberal movie stars fall in the upper level category? She does not even question that her parents are not getting their money's worth in academic education, while she becomes further indoctrinated. She is the perfect example of what the Marxists wanted to create via the government school system, a way to speed up the demise of the US.

It's always unpleasant to watch a person make a fool of themselves. But maybe, just maybe, she learned a little.

The Constitution was written by men of a different era. Men who had character. They could not fathom that one person would have monies extracted to be given to another. IMO, this is not a flaw in our Constitution, it is a flaw in our voters that allowed this to happen.

...or Econ 101 has been modified from what you and I took years ago. Now it may be Economic Social Justice 101.

And like Neil Cavuto like totally set her up. She was like totally pathetic. It would have been funny if it weren't so sad. And like, isn't it the one percent who provide a lot of the jobs in this country.

Herb: Yes. By asking that one question.
+1

Gaiagal: Thank you for your most entertaining comments. In particular I love your last paragraph!

Your_Name_Goes Here: And you would be right!
It is just the beginning.

Term2: I do so agree with your statements.

That same 'mentality' exists in the congress and into every corner of governments world wide.