being "binary"

[Peter Kropotkin]

given the universe has it is right now, a no-god,
order vs disorder universe, what values should we
hold or pursue...

we should be pursuing values like peace, love, and especially
justice/equality.. and not as much freedom....
for freedom is, as religions and the state understand it,
a danger to order... one of the arguments for religion
and the believe in god, is that it promotes order...
if there is no god, what to prevent the masses from
seeking out whatever they want? or to say it another way, to
cause disorder and chaos without a believe in god to prevent
that chaos/disorder....

one of the basic reasons that the state tolerates religions
is because religions work for and help create order...
and yet we have seen centuries long religious wars
between the Catholics and the Protestants... and between
the Catholics and the Muslims....and that war, between
Muslims and Catholics, is over 1000 years old....and still
ongoing...the religious path isn't always the path to peace
and order...

and one must ask, why justice/equality over freedom? as states
know, freedom can lead to chaos and disorder.. freedom
of speech is a relatively recent development...
and still restricted in many undeveloped places like
Iran and Florida.. one of the first steps a dictatorship
makes is to restrict and if possible, end free speech...
and once again, the poster child of restricting
free speech is Iran and Florida... dictatorship both.....
but one of the other steps of a dictatorship is to restrict and
and end justice/equality...which both states, Iran and Florida,
are doing...
but I will stand by my contention that justice/equality is more
important than freedom...because freedom, by its very nature,
is limited.. whereas we can, if we so desired to, create a much
more just/equal society.. just treat people the same, legally,
socially, politically and philosophically and as I have mentioned
before, economics.... we don't think about justice in terms of
the economic system, capitalism, but we should...
part of the failure of the capitalistic system is in its
failure to be just/equal...and that means that CEO's and
management don't get the pay, but the ones actually doing
the job, they get the pay, the real money...and some will
say that disincentivizes people from going into management...
and that is the point.... the ones who do the work are the ones
who should get the bulk of the pay.....return the value
to being a worker, to the worker, and let management become
far less valuable to get into... management supports the workers,
not the workers support the management... and that what justice/
equality is about..

virtually everything we can contemplate, can be thought of
in terms of as, is it the path to order or to disorder/chaos
and does it embrace the value of justice/equality?

and we can now remake the world into something more just,
and fairer because we have something to compare and contrast
our present world to....

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

It's like he seems to have read my post and makes this sort of a response without really dealing with any of the points made.

He couldn't admit that disorder bad, order good is a poor oversimplification.

So, he now says that justice equality is more important than freedom, rather than addressing all the ways that order can be bad that I pointed out.

Well the goal of justice equality can lead to all sorts of horrors, the large state communisms are examples of this.

Good old Kurt Vonnegut had a bit to say about how seeking equality can lead to problems
https://www.tnellen.com/westside/harrison.pdf

But this shouldn't be taken as valuing equality is bad.
Just as valuing freedom is necessarily bad because, as he says, it MIGHT lead to something bad.

One person's order is another person's disorder.

If you understand entropy, the creation of order necessitates the creation of disorder somewhere/somehow else.

Just like his rich neighborhood's order is not just a contrast to poor people's neighborhoods disorder, but causal.

But, again, the call for order is generally a right wing call, though the further out you go on the Left - say to the repressive communisms, yes, there you find calls for order also.

Therein lies the irony of the thread.

Criticism of his positions and way of not really responding does not entail I think he is a bad person.
I wish this could be assumed unless I actually assert that he is.

[Dontaskme]

“When there is the awareness of the tree there is no evaluation. But when there is a response to the tree, when the tree is judged with like and dislike, then a division takes place in this awareness as the “me” and the “non-me”, the “me” who is different from the thing observed. This “me” is the response, in relationship, of past memory, past experiences. Now can there be an awareness, an observation of the tree, without any judgement, and can there be an observation of the response, the reactions, without any judgement? In this way we eradicate the principle of division, the principle of “me” and “non-me”, both in looking at the tree and in looking at ourselves.”

[Peter Kropotkin]

as I have been speaking about ''freedom''
and order/disorder/chaos in a general sense,
not in any specific sense, as in a individual goal/purpose
to achieve, but we can, if so desired, shift the conversation
to include thoughts about order/disorder in terms of
the social, legal, political, philosophical, economic, world we live in

that those who crave order in a political sense, quite often
use this search for order as an excuse to create a dictatorship...
Listen to the village idiot, IQ45 and one would have thought
that the BLM had burned down entire cities or that the inner
cities of America were a wasteland of anarchy and crime....
and that is simply not true...but their argument revolves
around the use of order as a means to gain power and subvert
democracy...

and we who now live in a post-pandemic society, have seen the
issues/problems regarding disorder and chaos....vs order.....

I think it is important to note that chaos and disorder are inherent
within the universe...order/chaos is not something out there,
but within us and the universe... the best symbol I can think
of showing us that truth is the Yin/Yang symbol of the Chinese...
I am technological challenged thus unable to post that
symbol of the yin/yang that is so common.... but you know it....
and it means, that within any structure or system, the order
and disorder reside as opposite but interconnected forces...
within order lies disorder and within disorder/chaos lies
order.... we don't need to search out disorder/chaos, it
reside within us, within every single system we have,
within all our political, social, economic, legal and philosophical
systems, lie both order and disorder.... the trick is not to
have too much disorder or chaos within our systems...but as
entropy exists within every single system we know about,
we cannot escape it...

now we can surmise that human beings function far
better within an orderly system than a disorderly/chaotic system,
for within an orderly system, we can better meet our needs,
the biological, physical, the psychological needs of human beings....
within an orderly system, we can better meet our needs for food, water,
shelter, health care, education... and we can better meet
our need for love, esteem, safety/security, and that sense of
belonging that we all have.....
and this is why we pursue order over disorder/chaos...
and this is also true of our various systems we human beings have...
our legal system, our political system, our economic system
all operate better under an orderly system rather than an
chaotic or disordered systems...

Now it is true that dictatorships claim the high road on the pursuit of
of order...but this call for order over disorder/chaos isn't about
order, but it is about the gaining of and keeping power....
IQ45 call for order is really a call to gain power... as is the call
for order from the Nazi's were a call to power, and not actually
about order/or disorder per se....one has to be clear as to why
someone is making a call for order....I have framed it within
our basic necessity to meet our fundamental needs of all
biological beings.. all biological creatures have needs,
dogs, cats, elephants, tree's, plants, and if those
needs not being met, that biological entity dies...

but we can certainly make the social and political and even
economic argument that order benefits those aspects of our
lives better, if we have order as opposed to having disorder/chaos...
now do people, organizations, political parties use this
need for order to gain power? yep.... but that
still doesn't negate the fact that we human beings
function better within an orderly universe than
within a disorderly universe.. but remember that the ratio
of order within a universe is said to be 80% order and
20% chaos/disorder... there is no chance ever, of
any system being 100% order or 100% disordered....
recall that within any given system, that system is
inefficient, unable to produce with a 100% efficiency...
for example, the automobile is only about 25% efficient
and that we human beings are roughly 25% efficient...
that means we cannot reduce or eliminate disorder
within the universe... and I don't even propose to
eliminate disorder/chaos within any human system...
or any system for that matter...

as I have said, within every single system ever created,
human, mechanical, biological or even the systems of
outer space, they are all very inefficient, very much
riddled with disorder/chaos...and why? because disorder/chaos
is inherent within every single system ever created...

and within this knowledge that chaos/disorder is a fundamental
aspect of existence, we can better understand what it
means to be human...disorder/chaos is found within that
idea of existence by its randomness/chance within any
given system...we fail to understand how much a factor
that randomness/chance plays within our lives, our systems,
our very universe... so randomness/chance/disorder are all
part of the rules of the universe... if it is random, of
chance, that is disorder/chaos...in another form...

so think about every possible system we have, social,
biological, mechanical, political, economic,
and within each system, not only does randomness
and chance play a role, but that is part of the disorder
and chaos every system has....

and we can apply these rules to any system, be it the democratic
party, or the solar system, the court system, the presidency,
the IRS, automobiles... that chance/chaos/disorder/ randomness
plays a part within every single system we can think of...

or said another way, every single system has buried within it,
entropy.. and the universe has but two directions, one to order
and the other to disorder....

there is an ebb and flow to the universe that we human beings
miss...at different rates and times, we are moving towards
either order or we are moving toward disorder/chaos...

and so the call for order by say, the village idiot IQ45,
is an rather empty one.. as it is a call for order for
the express purpose of seeking and gaining power for IQ45
and his party.. it has nothing to do with the actual
purpose of limiting or controlling chaos/or disorder...
as chaos/and disorder are inherent with every single
system in the universe (as far as we know today, that may
change at some point) we cannot hope to end disorder/chaos/
chance/randomness within the universe.. it is there, whether
we approve or not...or we cannot escape disorder/chaos
within ourselves or within any given human system....
that too is inherent within all human systems...
so what can we do?

build within all our planning and understanding of what it means
to be human, to build or know that chaos/disorder/chance/
randomness is inherent within us...this is a fundamental
shift in the way we must think about who we are and what
it means to be human...

and that is my entire point.. to refocus us on thinking about
ourselves and our lives, as part of the disorder/chaos/
randomness/chance that exists within the universe...

the idea of god and religions is to think about how to create order
within the universe... but our universe is actually about
disorder/chaos/chance and randomness... and we are too...

Kropotkin

[Toppsy Kretts]

is this "Binary" we speak of the essence of sexuality? or thinking?

[Iwannaplato]

is this "Binary" we speak of the essence of sexuality? or thinking?

He is responding to my earlier accusation that his thinking is binary. He is content to say things like order good, disorder bad. Or conservatives bad, liberals good.

Another way to look at what I see as the problem in his posts is to say it is a false dichotomy. Order, good, disorder bad. But it depends on what kind of order, not just order. It depends on what kind of disorder. There are also degrees and overlaps. And with conservatives vs. liberals there are also positions that get left out. It is as if we must choose between two options and there are no other options.

So, yeah, thinking.

After being pressed on this point he sort of concedes some points, but never does this formally.

He won't, for example, look at sexuality in light of his order/disorder simple dichotemy. Here we literally have liberals arguing things are not binary. That sexualities can be all over the place. This doesn't mean they are wrong, but compared to conservative nuclear family, heteosexuality, men are men, women are women, tendencies towards sex in marriage, the polyamorous, wide range of sexualities, sex being absolutely critical (trans operations) to sex being absolutely a construct, there is more disorder with the liberal version. And this is brought out in the name of justice. Everyone should have the right to do and be as they like related to sex and sexuality.

When I pointed out that freedom is disorderly, he said that justice is more important that freedom (how convenient to bring this in). But when it is a liberal freedom that creates more disorder, his criteria change.

Or one could look at the disorder caused by having a multicultural society as a opposed to a mono-culture. I grew up in a multicultural milieu. I prefer it. But it is clearly more disorderly than a monoculture. You always have to negotiate norms in all facets of life, from lines in stores, to how loud one speaks to how near you get to other people to how one uses public spaces, to office communication, to....it goes on and on from trivial issues to extremely important ones. There are all sorts of different ways of doing things. Differing norms. That's more disorder or more variety or more freedom since a variety of norms offers people more ways to do things and still have a supportive subculture around them. I am pretty sure PK views multiculture as good, but cannot acknowledge that it leads to more disorder.

I think oversimplifying issues is a problem. And then cherry picking examples to support the oversimplification is damaging not only to this argument and thinking around the issue, but to rationality in general.

I am sure he and perhaps others will assume where I come down on these issues, but actually my point is we do not want to live ina society that thinks order is good, disorder is bad, period. We may differ over what kinds of order are bad and what kinds of disorder are good and so on, but none of us want such a simple criterion to be used.

Unfortunately he is incapable of conceding a point.

[Agent Smith]

"Let's bounce!"

"Do let's! Wait! Where are you going, it's this way!"

"No, it's this way!"

"No, it's not!"

"Tom, Tom, Tom. Where are we?"

"We're in ... we're in ..."

"Yes?"

"In Istanbul!!"

"Wearing?"

"Aaah!"

"This way! Let's go!!"

"We're coming Detroit! We're coming!"

[Iwannaplato]

we should be pursuing values like peace, love, and especially
justice/equality.. and not as much freedom....

I realized this is also a false dichotemy. Without freedom, you cannot have equality. Or, perhaps, more specifically. In Western nations not having freedom and the attendant disorder, you cannot have equality. And the people fighting for civil rights have always known this because they have been denied the freedoms other people have.

[Peter Kropotkin]

we should be pursuing values like peace, love, and especially
justice/equality.. and not as much freedom....

I realized this is also a false dichotemy. Without freedom, you cannot have equality. Or, perhaps, more specifically. In Western nations not having freedom and the attendant disorder, you cannot have equality. And the people fighting for civil rights have always known this because they have been denied the freedoms other people have.

K: as I have noted, freedoms are automatically limited...
politically, socially, legally and economically...

for example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater...

economically, you are forced by capitalism to work
and at slave wages...questions about this, see Marx....
the freedom you have is to work or starve to death..
not much freedom there....

socially the attacks on gays and trans are a attack
on the freedoms of people to be who they are....
the entire culture war since the 1980 has been an attack of
some sort on the freedoms of people to be who they are....

scientifically, your freedoms are limited by such things
as the laws of gravity, evolution and thermodynamics...
you can't fly, you can't become a pig, you can't grow young...
there are strong limits on your freedoms by science...

legally, you can't punch someone or shoot someone unless
you live in a red state and then you pretty have a right to
shot anyone who doesn't look like you...minorities or people of color....
but is the freedom to violence really the freedom you want?

you might say, I have the freedom to speech, ahhh,
in Florida, if you write something critical of the governor,
you can be fined... and those sorts of laws will start creeping
up in IQ45 America... libel laws that protect newspapers/media
are being watered down to allow them to be sued by people
which is a limit on the media, and any limit is a limit on
freedom...

You can make the argument that America is less free today,
then it was before 9/11.. we are rapidly losing our freedom
in the name of security... and as good old ben used to say,

"Those who would give essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

"Those who would give essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

This might be of interest to some:

One of America’s favorite liberal phrases has been sent through the political spin machine and polished into a Frankenstein of sorts, thus rendering it inaccurate and far from its original intention. You might have heard that American founding father Benjamin Franklin said something like “Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.”

The quote has been the siren song of anti-war protesters and, most recently, the banner for mass online protests against the NSA’s surveillance program. For instance, here was Reddit’s front page two days ago, when it officially joined the fight against Internet and phone spying.

As the Brookings Institute’s Benjamin Wittes observes, “Very few people who quote these words, however, have any idea where they come from or what Franklin was really saying when he wrote them.”

Despite its many (many) variations, this is the actual quote:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

According to Wittes, the words appear in a letter widely presumed to be written by Franklin in 1755 on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor. “The letter was a salvo in a power struggle between the governor and the assembly over funding for security on the frontier, one in which the assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family,” he explains.

The letter wasn’t about liberty but about taxes and the ability to “raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him.”

https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-t ... -security/

[Gary Childress]

"Those who would give essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

This might be of interest to some:

One of America’s favorite liberal phrases has been sent through the political spin machine and polished into a Frankenstein of sorts, thus rendering it inaccurate and far from its original intention. You might have heard that American founding father Benjamin Franklin said something like “Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.”

The quote has been the siren song of anti-war protesters and, most recently, the banner for mass online protests against the NSA’s surveillance program. For instance, here was Reddit’s front page two days ago, when it officially joined the fight against Internet and phone spying.

As the Brookings Institute’s Benjamin Wittes observes, “Very few people who quote these words, however, have any idea where they come from or what Franklin was really saying when he wrote them.”

Despite its many (many) variations, this is the actual quote:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

According to Wittes, the words appear in a letter widely presumed to be written by Franklin in 1755 on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor. “The letter was a salvo in a power struggle between the governor and the assembly over funding for security on the frontier, one in which the assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family,” he explains.

The letter wasn’t about liberty but about taxes and the ability to “raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him.”

https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-t ... -security/

Who gives a shit what Benjamin Franklin wrote EXACTLY back in his day? If you want to canonize his every word and the order in which he placed them alongside those of Plato and Aristotle et al, then knock yourself out. I have no problem with liberty and freedom if it can be done without killing an enormous number of people in the process. Otherwise, let's worry about shutting down some of the arms industry in Benjamin Franklin's country to more sane levels so that we're not devoting our best geniuses to finding better ways of killing people.

[Iwannaplato]

K: as I have noted, freedoms are automatically limited...
politically, socially, legally and economically...
for example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater...

And so is order. Order is limited. Our time cannnot be completely controlled. No one can tell use what accent to speak in or what film to rent or who to hang out with and so on.

Further, it's as if you can't understand that I am not saying the opposite of your position is correct. I am not saying, for example, all disorder is good. Or all freedom is good. Or equality doesn't matter.

But you respond in a continued binary way. Nothing I have written would indicate that I think people should be free to do anything at all.

Yet, you respond here as if I have said this.

You have an all or nothing position. Order is good, disorder is bad.

I think that's radically oversimilified. To the extent that it is a problem.

economically, you are forced by capitalism to work
and at slave wages...questions about this, see Marx....
the freedom you have is to work or starve to death..
not much freedom there....

This has nothing to do with what I wrote. I've read Marx. I'm extremely critical of corporate america, wall st. and bankers. You're just hallucinating relevance here.

socially the attacks on gays and trans are a attack
on the freedoms of people to be who they are....
the entire culture war since the 1980 has been an attack of
some sort on the freedoms of people to be who they are....

Uh, huh. Well, it's you prioritize order and equality. I pointed out that without freedom you cannot have equality. We can and should discuss the degree of those things, but for some reason you just want to put everything in separate boxes.

scientifically, your freedoms are limited by such things
as the laws of gravity, evolution and thermodynamics...
you can't fly, you can't become a pig, you can't grow young...
there are strong limits on your freedoms by science...

Same thing. Nothing I have said indicates I think we have total, infinite freedom. So this is what's called a strawman.

legally, you can't punch someone or shoot someone unless
you live in a red state and then you pretty have a right to
shot anyone who doesn't look like you...minorities or people of color....
but is the freedom to violence really the freedom you want?

Same thing again.

You can make the argument that America is less free today,
then it was before 9/11

Yes, I think it is. This is certainly not a counterpoint to any point I made.

.. we are rapidly losing our freedom
in the name of security... and as good old ben used to say,

"Those who would give essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

I don't think you read what I wrote. Or perhaps you made a lot of assumptions about me an my politics so you think what you wrote here makes sense.

I was always against the Patriot act for example. I believe gays and the rest of LGBTQ should not be treated differently when it comes to jobs, housing and the rest.

I think the way you respond here shows you binary thinking. Iwannoplato disagrees with me about something. This means he is right wing. So, instead of actually respondign to what he wrote, I'll attack points he never made and criticize right wing positions and trends and that means I responded to him.

Well, you didn't

[Toppsy Kretts]

is this "Binary" we speak of the essence of sexuality? or thinking?

He is responding to my earlier accusation that his thinking is binary. He is content to say things like order good, disorder bad. Or conservatives bad, liberals good.

Another way to look at what I see as the problem in his posts is to say it is a false dichotomy. Order, good, disorder bad. But it depends on what kind of order, not just order. It depends on what kind of disorder. There are also degrees and overlaps. And with conservatives vs. liberals there are also positions that get left out. It is as if we must choose between two options and there are no other options.

So, yeah, thinking.

After being pressed on this point he sort of concedes some points, but never does this formally.

He won't, for example, look at sexuality in light of his order/disorder simple dichotemy. Here we literally have liberals arguing things are not binary. That sexualities can be all over the place. This doesn't mean they are wrong, but compared to conservative nuclear family, heteosexuality, men are men, women are women, tendencies towards sex in marriage, the polyamorous, wide range of sexualities, sex being absolutely critical (trans operations) to sex being absolutely a construct, there is more disorder with the liberal version. And this is brought out in the name of justice. Everyone should have the right to do and be as they like related to sex and sexuality.

When I pointed out that freedom is disorderly, he said that justice is more important that freedom (how convenient to bring this in). But when it is a liberal freedom that creates more disorder, his criteria change.

Or one could look at the disorder caused by having a multicultural society as a opposed to a mono-culture. I grew up in a multicultural milieu. I prefer it. But it is clearly more disorderly than a monoculture. You always have to negotiate norms in all facets of life, from lines in stores, to how loud one speaks to how near you get to other people to how one uses public spaces, to office communication, to....it goes on and on from trivial issues to extremely important ones. There are all sorts of different ways of doing things. Differing norms. That's more disorder or more variety or more freedom since a variety of norms offers people more ways to do things and still have a supportive subculture around them. I am pretty sure PK views multiculture as good, but cannot acknowledge that it leads to more disorder.

I think oversimplifying issues is a problem. And then cherry picking examples to support the oversimplification is damaging not only to this argument and thinking around the issue, but to rationality in general.

I am sure he and perhaps others will assume where I come down on these issues, but actually my point is we do not want to live ina society that thinks order is good, disorder is bad, period. We may differ over what kinds of order are bad and what kinds of disorder are good and so on, but none of us want such a simple criterion to be used.

Unfortunately he is incapable of conceding a point.

firs of all, Loki in Avengers was not completely wrong in the sense and I understand how you presume a specific type of order needing to be established before said accusation such as his can be made. Though, with this not i leave with the thought of- Liberals equal change, to become something different in the sense to make things better for everybody. Republicans equals tradition, what a group of members called founding fathers stood on that worked and have still worked ethically for hundred years or so, and there ways were demonstrated long before there time, thousands of years back. They simply established the essence of it into a newer form of realization.

if that makes any sense, im doing this in the mist of a bo3 match.

My views are simply this...I believe in God. God gave us free will. God gave us choices, to make choices. In these choices we can choose bad things or we can choose good things its all up to us. In the ways of man sense the first family there was violence/murder. There was bloodshed. Throughout history this has not changed, only grown more deliberately.

We must govern ourselves and take actions amongst each other. Rules are the only thing that separates us from the animals, besides awareness. A group of men who were considered the wisest within the walls they housed came together and brought a group of ideas to a table that were decided within a house of people if morally right, or morally wrong. The words decided upon that day now stand as the Constitution.

I believe the wisdom forced that day that was valued and held dear to the people, has slowly faded away and extracted from the context it was meant to be exhibited in.

I would much prefer to speak of such things in person cause lips move faster than hands.

Transgenders-abomination, for they have no mind worth reasoning with, and radiate a way of living that is disgraceful to the potential of the human race.
Gays- abomination, for love is found were it lays and that is understood, though you must become strong enough to resist these temptations and see the truth in what is truly right for you. lesbian's may be hot but u must become hypocritical, hate one love the other does not exist in the true essence of life.
Abortion-abomination, when does life begin and when does it become human? some say this, some say that. i say all life is preciouses and must be treated as such and respected as such. Only to kill when deserving of death. Animals have to consciousness therefore we are justified to consume. Humans become deserving of death when they prove insufficient and harmful tot he living resolution of another being.
"accepting" everyone-I accept you yes i do, do i love you? sure. i must to know the truth of life and the best of God. Do i agree with your reasonings and stand by and choose to live by them? Absolutely not, because in your liberal world ( not specifically you, unless you believe these things I've mentioned), these opinions and life choices you choose in the long run become fatal to the human race and potentially catastrophic to our survival.

Republicans stand on tradition because one day we fount of a group of rules that work and give everyone around us a fare chance at living and surviving. We fount the essentials of becoming a more stable and stronger race of man and ethically and morally right with justification of the people.

Liberals wont to change these rules becuase they see things more fit for comfort.
I hate to break it to you but life doesnt care what you want. and this veganism and masculinity extraction that is spreading rapidly through this world and nation as a whole is absurd and will become the downfall of us. what happens a hundred years from now when we need men who can fight and stand strong for the family's? when the militia of various nations realize weve become weak and docile to gowning with potential?

This world is failing, if i was God, id look down and ask the kings at my feet...what have i done?

[Gary Childress]

bi-thinkers and bi-sexuals is not a good way of looking at people all the time, I think. Sometimes it's ok I think to say, hello-thinkers and hello-sexuals. Of course, if there's no particular place on a "spectrum" where EVERYONE ought to be, then that would get rid of the need for governments to make sure we all conform to some overall plan. The next question is, would just one large amalgamation of private individuals--doing whatever they want--be any less likely to turn the earth into a graveyard or landfill?

Thoughts?

[Agent Smith]

First off, there's nothing wrong with binary thinking despite it being labled a fallacy (black-and-white thinking).

Secondly, the simplest solution is in the public domain, has been for ages. Note to shepherds: dogs are wolves albeit tamed, which is a win in me book!



Confession: I never understood duality and I still don't. I'm an adherent of advaita philosophy, hence, to the extent possible in a world of myriad things.

Deus Magnus Est.