Your Personal Politics (Aside From Lgbt Issues)

[PhoenixGeoff]

On 12/11/2021 at 8:00 AM, BareLover666 said:

Discussions and debate with people who have other options than your own, is at the heart of democracy.

Thanks for you reply.  So 'Protection' is the the core value in your beliefs?

 

I'm honestly not trying to argue, I wonder if you mean that your and your family's welfare is another thing that's more important to you than other things.
I would get how liberal gun-laws and capitalism fit into that.

Is the death penalty important to you because of your sense of right and wrong, and punishment? Or do you feel it helps to stop people harming you and your family, because they fear to be killed themselves?

And how do you feel about abortion, in relation to protecting yourself and your family, and not wanting to be tyrannised? 

The gentleman in question didn’t respond, but I’d hazard a guess that it’s not so much “protection” that is his core belief, but “responsibility.”  Instead of relying on the state, or even a private security service, he would prefer to personally ensure the safety and security of his family and property with his own means of protection. 

Likewise, he probably feels that there are some actions that a human being can take that do merit death.  When we have determined that someone has acted in such a way, then capital punishment is an appropriate response. Or to put it another way, if we are genuinely responsible for the things that we do, then if we do commit an act that is truly heinous, we ought to responsibly bear the consequences that our choices bring about, even if it results in our death.

(My own thoughts on the question largely align with those of Gandalf)

Thus we see the position of conservatives in this country NOT to enforce any vaccine mandate. It is for the individual to take responsibility for the choices s/he makes and to bear the consequences of those decisions. Now, the flaw is immediately apparent: it’s all very well to make that decision for yourself, perhaps even for your family. But your actions do carry broader implications for the community at large, and so the community, via its governmental institutions, does have a right to take measures to promote the general health and welfare. 

Likewise on the question of abortion: if you fuck a woman, you both should be prepared to accept responsibility for the fruit of that action, in this case pregnancy. 

In our context, the consequences of our decision to bareback can be HIV. What does taking responsibility for that look like? Should we, like the pregnant woman, be exposed to the full ramifications of our decision? If that’s true, then just as the government should not mitigate unwanted pregnancy through abortion, then perhaps too the government should not take steps to mitigate HIV either. If there were no Ryan White, then perhaps people would be more careful about who they bareback with. 

Of course, consequences and responsibility can always be avoided if you’re wealthy enough. You can hire a legal eagle to get you off that murder charge. You can travel to wherever you need to go to get that abortion. You can afford to pay for your own medical care and pharmaceuticals if you contract HIV.  We’ve seen the results in the so-called “trust fund baby,” who are generally among the most irresponsible people of all. 

So should we all be thus shielded from the results of our actions? Your correspondant might well say, “No.” He might even deplore how the wealthy do evade responsibility for what they do (and to be sure, many conservatives have been up in arms over l’affaire Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell). But even, he might say, if some do get away with it does not mean that we all should. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, PhoenixGeoff said:

The gentleman in question didn’t respond, but I’d hazard a guess that it’s not so much “protection” that is his core belief, but “responsibility.”  Instead of relying on the state, or even a private security service, he would prefer to personally ensure the safety and security of his family and property with his own means of protection. 

Likewise, he probably feels that there are some actions that a human being can take that do merit death.  When we have determined that someone has acted in such a way, then capital punishment is an appropriate response. Or to put it another way, if we are genuinely responsible for the things that we do, then if we do commit an act that is truly heinous, we ought to responsibly bear the consequences that our choices bring about, even if it results in our death.

(My own thoughts on the question largely align with those of Gandalf)

Thus we see the position of conservatives in this country NOT to enforce any vaccine mandate. It is for the individual to take responsibility for the choices s/he makes and to bear the consequences of those decisions. Now, the flaw is immediately apparent: it’s all very well to make that decision for yourself, perhaps even for your family. But your actions do carry broader implications for the community at large, and so the community, via its governmental institutions, does have a right to take measures to promote the general health and welfare. 

Likewise on the question of abortion: if you fuck a woman, you both should be prepared to accept responsibility for the fruit of that action, in this case pregnancy. 

In our context, the consequences of our decision to bareback can be HIV. What does taking responsibility for that look like? Should we, like the pregnant woman, be exposed to the full ramifications of our decision? If that’s true, then just as the government should not mitigate unwanted pregnancy through abortion, then perhaps too the government should not take steps to mitigate HIV either. If there were no Ryan White, then perhaps people would be more careful about who they bareback with. 

Of course, consequences and responsibility can always be avoided if you’re wealthy enough. You can hire a legal eagle to get you off that murder charge. You can travel to wherever you need to go to get that abortion. You can afford to pay for your own medical care and pharmaceuticals if you contract HIV.  We’ve seen the results in the so-called “trust fund baby,” who are generally among the most irresponsible people of all. 

So should we all be thus shielded from the results of our actions? Your correspondant might well say, “No.” He might even deplore how the wealthy do evade responsibility for what they do (and to be sure, many conservatives have been up in arms over l’affaire Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell). But even, he might say, if some do get away with it does not mean that we all should. 

Thanks.
You offer a coherent summery of these political standpoints.

I am curious what the goal of the death penalty then is. Is it retaliation? Is it to protect the general public from someone ever being able to commit the crime? Is it to deter other's from doing the same thing by the treaty of death?
Or a combination of these things?
And how would the gentlemen say, we should deal with the risk of an innocent person being wrongfully convicted? These people are basically then taking responsibly for someone else's actions. 

I don't think your analogy between HIV-infection and getting pregnant really works. This topic was to be about non gay (barebacking issues, I think. Besides that, there is no ban on HIV medication even if people have to pay for it themselves.

If I understand the news correctly, there is now a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, about whether or not and in what degree the 'right' to abortions can be limited or denied. 
It could be that the gentleman you so kindly stepped in for, would advocate forbidding HIV-treatments then as well, if he is also in favour of forbidding abortions.

But I think the discussion about abortions centers around the question what constitutes human life and at what point the protection of innocent human life begins. With the catch being that when restricting the time-frame within which abortions are allowed; to a very short period that most women don't even realise they might be pregnant, this effectively forbids abortion in all cases.

I'm hesitant as a gay man to have a definite opinion about abortion as I don't have anything to do with it personally. I do however have trouble when people who are in favour of forbidding abortions do so, because of religious / metaphysical ideas about when a foetus receives a 'soul' as it's hard to have a discussion when the facts aren't scientifically proven or unclear.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Guest

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, PhoenixGeoff said:

  On 12/11/2021 at 10:00 AM, BareLover666 said:

Discussions and debate with people who have other options than your own, is at the heart of democracy.

Thanks for you reply.  So 'Protection' is the the core value in your beliefs?

 

I'm honestly not trying to argue, I wonder if you mean that your and your family's welfare is another thing that's more important to you than other things.
I would get how liberal gun-laws and capitalism fit into that.

Is the death penalty important to you because of your sense of right and wrong, and punishment? Or do you feel it helps to stop people harming you and your family, because they fear to be killed themselves?

And how do you feel about abortion, in relation to protecting yourself and your family, and not wanting to be tyrannised?

Yes, discussions and debates are at the very heart of democracy.  However, there is an underlying principle that these discussions and debates depend on, and that is: 

1).  An agreement within the body of the citizenry that the elected representatives to the Government will reflect the will of the voters, and make laws that reflect the views of the majority.  When those views are not reflected by the majority, the electorate can and should replace those lawmakers that have failed to enact laws reflective of the majority.  This also depends on respect for the Law, regardless of whether individual citizens agree with certain legislation.  Thus, the crucial points of action are elections, not merely deciding that it is within any single citizen's purview to respect certain laws, and ignore others they don't accept.  

2).  In the above topic (personal protection), when a citizen decides to "take the law into their own hands", as many in the US feel they are entitled to do, those people are chipping away at the rule of previously enacted Law by the people's elected representatives in Government.  Eventually, over many decades, this viewpoint results in an enormous number of citizens with increasingly powerful firearms, feeling entitled (via the 2nd Amendment) to use those guns in virtually any circumstance, since their self-perceived sense of when they need to protect themselves, and against what danger, is completely subjective.

3).  The death-penalty laws, still current in some States, hearken back to previous centuries when law-enforcement was riding round on horse-back, and not immediately available if needed.  These antiquated laws, based in the 2nd Amendment, have virtually no positive value, in my opinion.  The 2nd Amendment was created over 2 centuries ago, when the fledgling United States of America was in it's infancy.  There were no standing "armed forces", there were only individual citizens, armed with muzzle-loading rifles and pistols, associated not with the Federal Government, but with the original Colonial militias.  In effect, the Federal Government had only these State-militias to call upon for national defense.  Of course, at present the US has  more military power, standing armies, air forces, naval forces, far more than enough to burn the entire world into ashes.  My point being, the 2nd Amendment has far, far outlived it's original purpose, and should have been adjusted many decades ago. However, a certain political party has been pandering to those citizens that seem to believe they are capable of the necessary judgement to possess and use modern weapons of war at the slightest whim.  The 2nd Amendment - as it stands today - is the definition of insanity, codified into un-redressed Law.  

4).  Thus, today we in the US are bitterly divided into two opposing camps.  One believes that an antiquated law entitles them to become "citizen soldiers" at will, as all these shootings so clearly demonstrate.  While some gun-rights advocates actually enjoy the "sport" of hunting game, killing animals, etc, they are in the distinct and vast minority, and they should be able to practice their "sport" responsibly.  Obviously, this would be in rural "preserves", not the streets of our cities. Yet, in some parts of this country they hold sway in elections, and have representation in Government that pays lip-service to their "gun rights".  These are folks that believe that atrocities like the death penalty (based not in self-preservation, but only in hatred of "the other"), are appropriate in a modern Democracy.  These are also the people who believe that aborting the unborn is ungodly, while ignoring the fact that killing the living who do not support the depravity of white privilege is perfectly within their rights.  One would think these inward-focused citizens be able to draw the parallel, but many, myopically, cannot discern the breath-takingly obvious.  They profess belief in certain religious views, yet ignore completely the Message that religion conveys.

It is the triumph of un-reason.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

Yes, discussions and debates are at the very heart of democracy.  However, there is an underlying principle that these discussions and debates depend on, and that is: 

1).  An agreement within the body of the citizenry that the elected representatives to the Government will reflect the will of the voters, and make laws that reflect the views of the majority.  When those views are not reflected by the majority, the electorate can and should replace those lawmakers that have failed to enact laws reflective of the majority.  This also depends on respect for the Law, regardless of whether individual citizens agree with certain legislation.  Thus, the crucial points of action are elections, not merely deciding that it is within any single citizen's purview to respect certain laws, and ignore others they don't accept.  

I'd like to add a little nuance to this:
Although laws should indeed reflect the views of a majority, this gives any majority the democratic obligation to still listen to the minority and take into account their interests for a democracy to function. The 'winner takes all principle' hacks at the root of our Western idea of a respresentative democracy as it has been evolving over the centuries, and still is evolving.
What we create otherwise is sometimes called a 'dictatorship by the majority'.

Other principles - besides free discussions, debate and representation - have started with the Magna Carta in medeaval England saying for the first time, that anyone who rules is bound by his / her / it's own laws.
We owe a possibly even far larger debt of gratitude to the French for thinking deeply about how to curtail the people we put in positions of power or allow to rule over us.

Interestingly enough both the United States of America (US) and my own country (the Kingdom of The Netherlands) were founded at least partly in opposition to taxes levied on us by a foreign Sovereign. (The king of the Great Britain and the King of Spain respectively).
So although freedom and democracy were important principles in the founding of our nations, it was also partly a vulgar financial dispute.

 

53 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

2).  In the above topic (personal protection), when a citizen decides to "take the law into their own hands", as many in the US feel they are entitled to do, those people are chipping away at the rule of previously enacted Law by the people's elected representatives in Government.  Eventually, over many decades, this viewpoint results in an enormous number of citizens with increasingly powerful firearms, feeling entitled (via the 2nd Amendment) to use those guns in virtually any circumstance, since their self-perceived sense of when they need to protect themselves, and against what danger, is completely subjective.

Another democratic principle is the monopoly on using violence to be put in the State and I agree that freely allowing anyone to carry fire arms could possibly undermines this.
One could choose not to regulate violence, but you'd be creating a country where the strongest people get their way. That doesn't sound very democratic. 

But at the same time, when the laws allow the right to keep and bear those arms, it doesn't necessarily means that the laws are being chipped away at. It does mean that when a people have this right, it comes with an even greater responsibility to use that right wisely.
And I think that's where thing in practice turn sour. Not so much due to men taking 'the law into their hands' but people killing out of hate or because they are deranged. 

 

53 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

The death-penalty laws, still current in some States, hearken back to previous centuries when law-enforcement was riding round on horse-back, and not immediately available if needed.  These antiquated laws, based in the 2nd Amendment, have virtually no positive value, in my opinion.  The 2nd Amendment was created over 2 centuries ago, when the fledgling United States of America was in it's infancy.  There were no standing "armed forces", there were only individual citizens, armed with muzzle-loading rifles and pistols, associated not with the Federal Government, but with the original Colonial militias.  In effect, the Federal Government had only these State-militias to call upon for national defense.  Of course, at present the US has  more military power, standing armies, air forces, naval forces, far more than enough to burn the entire world into ashes.  My point being, the 2nd Amendment has far, far outlived it's original purpose, and should have been adjusted many decades ago. However, a certain political party has been pandering to those citizens that seem to believe they are capable of the necessary judgement to possess and use modern weapons of war at the slightest whim.  The 2nd Amendment - as it stands today - is the definition of insanity, codified into un-redressed Law.  

I have no idea what exactly your point is discussing both the death penalty and the right to bear fire-arms at once.

 

53 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

Thus, today we in the US are bitterly divided into two opposing camps.  One believes that an antiquated law entitles them to become "citizen soldiers" at will, as all these shootings so clearly demonstrate.  While some gun-rights advocates actually enjoy the "sport" of hunting game, killing animals, etc, they are in the distinct and vast minority, and they should be able to practice their "sport" responsibly.  Obviously, this would be in rural "preserves", not the streets of our cities. Yet, in some parts of this country they hold sway in elections, and have representation in Government that pays lip-service to their "gun rights".  These are folks that believe that atrocities like the death penalty (based not in self-preservation, but only in hatred of "the other"), are appropriate in a modern Democracy.  These are also the people who believe that aborting the unborn is ungodly, while ignoring the fact that killing the living who do not support the depravity of white privilege is perfectly within their rights.  One would think these inward-focused citizens be able to draw the parallel, but many, myopically, cannot discern the breath-takingly obvious.  They profess belief in certain religious views, yet ignore completely the Message that religion conveys.

The currently polarisation in politics isn't unique to the US, it seems to have been growing in most of our 'democratic' west. This is the opposite of a free and open debate that - as I said - is at THE heart of any democratic society.

It's being made even harder for our democracies to function properly when people don't agree on (scientific) fact and when populist leaders twist the truth around by presenting 'alternative facts' and using words like 'fake news'.

This apparently does appeal to a lot of people as a 'strong' leader is something they think is the only thing that will keep them safe, imo.

 

At the same time I think in reality differences in points of view on all above mentioned subjects exist across all party lines. So hopefully if people start trying understanding eachother a bit more and not feel they should join one party or the other, this bipartisanship in the US and the polarised and fractured political landscape in my NL will sort itself out.
But I am worried because social media isn't helping people getting in touch with other ways to see things, and in both our nations one way of getting elected is to represent oneself as a 'leader'. And leadership cults never resulted in well governed people.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Guest

[hntnhole]

4 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I have no idea what exactly your point is discussing both the death penalty and the right to bear fire-arms at once.

Second paragraph, response by Phoenix Geoff.

 

4 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I'd like to add a little nuance to this:
Although laws should indeed reflect the views of a majority, this gives any majority the democratic obligation to still listen to the minority and take into account their interests for a democracy to function. The 'winner takes all principle' hacks at the root of our Western idea of a respresentative democracy as it has been evolving over the centuries, and still is evolving.
What we create otherwise is sometimes called a 'dictatorship by the majority

Of course the majority party should negotiate with the minority party in a 2-party system.  Unfortunately, that is not the case in the US these days.  For instance, the minority leader in the Senate has blocked, through using his legitimate power, to block confirmations to the SCOTUS, and merely for partisan political purposes.  The fact is, we in the US are faced with an utterly craven minority party who simply refuse to negotiate.  At present, the Congress couldn't agree on which brand of candy bar to munch on.  To the "dictatorship" of the majority, we are experiencing the inverse of that situation.  The majority is being circumvented by the minority for political and financial purposes, not the will of the voting pubic at all.  

 

4 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

But at the same time, when the laws allow the right to keep and bear those arms, it doesn't necessarily means that the laws are being chipped away at.

Actually, it does.  When disrespect of the Law becomes the modus operandi of a decent number of citizens, then the foundational trust in codified, Constitutional Law does begin to lose it's weight.  The weapons of 1791 CE are one thing: the modern weapons of war are quite another.  Now, in the US, children can get hold of guns that can slaughter dozens in a matter of moments.  Imagine if someone shot up Congress, or Congressmen lost their kids because of a "mass shooting". That would be dealt with in the shortest of order.   The "dictatorship" of the minority, majority, or any fraction thereof would act in an eyeblink 

 

4 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

This apparently does appeal to a lot of people as a 'strong' leader is something they think is the only thing that will keep them safe, imo.

Of course it does.  Unfortunately, our public school system is a bit thin on teaching 20th Century European history.  What happened just to your East is underway here.  

 

4 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

So hopefully if people start trying understanding eachother a bit more and not feel they should join one party or the other, this bipartisanship in the US and the polarised and fractured political landscape in my NL will sort itself out.

My friend, I wish you all the best re: the above in your Country.  As far as the political problems in the US are concerned, it will take a lot more than luck and well-wishes.  Many disbelieve it could happen here, but then there's plenty of sand to play ostrich in too.  It's already starting to happen in a few places.  

[BootmanLA]

10 hours ago, PhoenixGeoff said:

The gentleman in question didn’t respond, but I’d hazard a guess that it’s not so much “protection” that is his core belief, but “responsibility.”  Instead of relying on the state, or even a private security service, he would prefer to personally ensure the safety and security of his family and property with his own means of protection. 

I think that's an overly generous reading of the situation. There are way too many guys out here in the US who could best be described as "ammosexuals" - they view guns as an extension of their (probably inadequate) genitalia and it makes them feel "manly" to own a powerful weapon they can use to punish people who they think deserve it. It's odd that the same people who are so intent on allegedly "taking responsibility" for safety are the same ones who refuse to get vaccinated. And if they're so intent on taking responsibility, you'd think they'd all have advanced home security systems with 360-degree camera coverage, to be able to identify threats and help identify lawbreakers. But no, all they want is a gun to shoot someone who threatens them.

10 hours ago, PhoenixGeoff said:

Likewise, he probably feels that there are some actions that a human being can take that do merit death.  When we have determined that someone has acted in such a way, then capital punishment is an appropriate response. Or to put it another way, if we are genuinely responsible for the things that we do, then if we do commit an act that is truly heinous, we ought to responsibly bear the consequences that our choices bring about, even if it results in our death.

Which might -MIGHT - make sense if we had absolutely foolproof ways to determine guilt - not just "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "without question". That is almost never the case, with the result that statistically, it's a virtual certainty that the government has executed people for crimes they did not commit. Those who support the death penalty, therefore, are tacitly admitting we're going to get it wrong sometimes and that's somehow an acceptable price to pay in order to get to kill some of the bad guys.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, PhoenixGeoff said:

(My own thoughts on the question largely align with those of Gandalf)

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." ?

[hntnhole]

On 10/27/2015 at 7:21 PM, Bottomhole said:

and too closely associated with religion.

which association is based not in spirituality, but in historical outrages perpetrated by Organized Religion since the 3rd century, CE.  

[BootmanLA]

20 hours ago, hntnhole said:

which association is based not in spirituality, but in historical outrages perpetrated by Organized Religion since the 3rd century, CE.  

To be fair, organized religion has been perpetrating outrages since the development of organized religion.

Mind you, I draw a distinction between belief systems like some (most?) of the eastern traditions, which focus on the individual's relationship with greater powers, and "organized" religions, which typically have canonical beliefs in a deity or deities. There are individual "threads" within some of these organized religions - think, for instance, some of the contemplative orders of Christians - that share this focus on the individual's relationship with the the divine, and do not seek conversions or conquest, but those tend to get drowned out. 

[hntnhole]

Actually, in the macro-sense of O.R., you're completely right.  I was thinking of the currently dominating Organized Religions, which - in the case of Christianity - began in earnest with Constantine "accepting" that belief-system on his deathbed.  Once Rome took control, it was off to the races.  You're completely correct that there are Orders that are devoted to "good works", observing the original message.  When the whole issue is boiled down to the nuts and bolts, it seems that what's valid is only that individual acceptance of the belief-system, and the resulting search for truth.  

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Actually, in the macro-sense of O.R., you're completely right.  I was thinking of the currently dominating Organized Religions, which - in the case of Christianity - began in earnest with Constantine "accepting" that belief-system on his deathbed.  Once Rome took control, it was off to the races.  You're completely correct that there are Orders that are devoted to "good works", observing the original message.  When the whole issue is boiled down to the nuts and bolts, it seems that what's valid is only that individual acceptance of the belief-system, and the resulting search for truth.  

Thanks for the clarification.

 

The reason I mention this is that if you look at organized religions earlier than 4th century Christianity, there's still a pattern of attacking the outsider. For instance, post-Exodus Judaism: the Hebrews claimed God told them to take Canaan for themselves, and they did, annihilating the residents in many areas until control was established. Likewise, there was a mixture of religion and civil authority in many other cultures of the Middle East, most of which spent centuries attacking one another trying to control people and territories. The Romans were (to a large degree, with exceptions) tolerant of local religions in areas they conquered, as long as the locals added imperial worship to the menu, so to speak, but even they went to extremes at times to eradicate religions they found incompatible with the Imperial cult - Druids, for instance.

So this isn't so much to excuse the militancy of early Christianity, post-Constantine; it's more to note it's in line with a long history of the state and religion merging, completely or not, and imposing both on others as a means of control.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

The reason I mention this is that if you look at organized religions earlier than 4th century Christianity, there's still a pattern of attacking the outsider. For instance, post-Exodus Judaism: the Hebrews claimed God told them to take Canaan for themselves, and they did, annihilating the residents in many areas until control was established. Likewise, there was a mixture of religion and civil authority in many other cultures of the Middle East, most of which spent centuries attacking one another trying to control people and territories. The Romans were (to a large degree, with exceptions) tolerant of local religions in areas they conquered, as long as the locals added imperial worship to the menu, so to speak, but even they went to extremes at times to eradicate religions they found incompatible with the Imperial cult - Druids, for instance.

So this isn't so much to excuse the militancy of early Christianity, post-Constantine; it's more to note it's in line with a long history of the state and religion merging, completely or not, and imposing both on others as a means of control.

Thank you for mentioning pre-Roman European religions and Druids. 🙏

On the one hand it's a shame the only written records that exist from that time are all Roman in origin; but on the other hand the absence of the written word for religious purposes was at the core of Druidism in Celtic culture. I'm not sure if the same restrictions were in force with the Nordic tribes.

It was a time when in large part of the Northern Europe peoples lived in a tribal-oriented society so government was probably not all-present and in any case smaller. We may think that how we worshipped back then was more tolerant or enlightened; Possibly there was less merging of leadership and religion, but the fact is:
We don't know or at least not for sure.

A little more flexibility and tolerance because there can't have been large debates on the precise meaning of 'Holy' books sounds plausible though. On the other hand all of us here as modern people probably wouldn't want to go back to living in family-groups, clans or tribes. Especially as we who identify as gay or bi are able to find eachother more easily now, than we could have back then.

What worries me though is that the influence of the main Religions, or the polarisation - and especially their unholy alliance - sometimes seems to have heralded the end of the European Age of Enlightenment and Reason.
I feel our societies' 'logic' is more-and-more based on bias, prejudice and fear. Although I may be reluctant to - within reason - have matters of the Heart only government by our minds, and by extension this goes for matters of the loin, things like government, science and law should not be governed by our underbellies. 

 

An open debate, discourse and even arguing is essential for how we have tried to come to the best decisions and I think it brought us much good. Having these particular kind of conversations with anyone who bases his or her ideas on a word of a god or number of gods can make them almost completely impossible. And this is what I feel is happening more-and-more on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, where other kinds of prejudices (e.g. new-agers being anti-vax and not basing this on medical science) may exist more on this side than on yours.

And at the same time there are two blocks of great power we need to relate to as our societies - at least nominally - have freedom as a core value: Russia and China. The first bases it's power predominantly on it's geographical position and size and the latter adds to this the immense number of the Chinese themselves  and more-and-more on their economic and financial capabilities. 

 

I think this is another unholy alliance we should be focussing on in our times. Even if we disagree on things like abortion, medical care, the limits we are allowed to use force or weapons, socio-economic subjects and how much influence we give our governments over our local and personal affairs:
Our disputes about these things are in itself ok and part of our enlightened heritage itself, but have gained a toxicity that is paralysing us, making us vulnerable against the autocratic forces in the world.

Just my two (perhaps three) cents.
(Sorry for being a bit longwinded and less concise).

Edited December 23, 2021 by Guest

[kinkatx]

Democratic Socialist generally. I don’t really align to either if the current US parities; we are too dependent on for-profit capitalism (neoliberalism) which both parties are heavily controlled by. 

The authoritarian-right corner of the spectrum is the dangerous at the moment and there is almost no left of center representation in the US.