possible solutions to our current problems

[Peter Kropotkin]

Historically, there are 5 or 7 topics within philosophy...
(depending on who is doing the counting, it can be 5 or
it can be 7... and in no particular order)

Metaphysics..
Epistemology..
Aestetics...
Ethics...
Logic...
and again, depending on who is doing the counting,
Axiology...
political philosophy

I hope I don't have to lay out what each branch is or does...
that is why we have the internet...

Now the average person has a series of beliefs...
''there is a god'', for example would be one such belief..
Or perhaps this... ''America is number one''...
maybe this, ''Abortion is evil"

so we have the average person holding onto a series of beliefs...
and we ask an "epistemological" question, on what basis does
a person "know" these things? epistemology: theory of knowledge,
especially with regards to its methods, validity, and scope..
how can we "know" that there is a god?
that is an epistemological question, not a theological question..

to say "god is" is an theological question and a epistemology
question...to say, "god is good" is an moral/ethical question,
but it is also a theological question and an epistemological
question... How do we "Know" that god is good? on what basis
can we actually know this fact?

depending on how we look at a question, it can be an
ethical/or epistemology/theological/or a political question..
depending on what part of ethics do we think about in terms
of our question, gives us our answer...

"god is good" well, that is an ethical question, for what is good,
and it is a epistemological question and it is a theological question...

part of the value of having categories like epistemology
or theological or political science, is to help us work out
our questions... by putting our questions into the right category,
we can better answer our questions..

once again, let us look at an average person viewpoint,
that ''there is a god''.. it is an epistemological question
because on what basis do we know that "there is a god"..
but part of the problem comes from the fact that for
most people they haven't spent 5 minutes thinking
about the validity of that statement, "there is a god"
epistemological, most people never engage with that
aspect of philosophy while thinking about the existence of god...
it is assumed, that god exists... and for most people,
they get that "information" from their childhood indoctrinations..
habits, superstitions... our parents tell us ''there is a god"
the church tells us there is a god, the media tells us there
is a god, the state tells us there is a god....if we hear many
different voices telling us something, we tend to accept that
statement without thinking about it...it is assumed to be
knowledge.. indoctrinations are assumed knowledge..
that may or may not survive an true search for knowledge
regarding the idea that ''there is a god" if an honest person
were to engage in an epistemological study of god, and if
they were honest, they would come up with the answer that
there is no god... there is no rational epistemological reason
to hold that belief in, ''there is a god"

but and this is important, we can hold a belief based on other
reasons beside epistemology... we can hold to the idea that
''there is a god'' based on ethical reasons or political reasons...

''to help maintain order in a society it is better for the state
for people to believe in a god''

that is a political argument for the existence of god....
it is not an theological argument, and it is not
an epistemological argument...it is a weak argument
regarding political theory that we make the
argument about government wanting order by promoting god/religion...

for most people, they hold beliefs that are often in conflict with
other beliefs if not actually contradictory with other beliefs....
the pro-life person who favors the death penalty engages with
one such contradictory belief... I don't see how one can hold
two such contradictory beliefs... but we moderns quite often
do hold such contradictory beliefs.. how is this possible?

for starters, we carry much of our own beliefs systems into
our adulthood without ever engaging in a reevaluation of values,
we don't work out what our actual beliefs are and what
beliefs we have, that were indoctrinated into us....
for most people, they hold indoctrinated beliefs
as if those beliefs are actually beliefs they worked out....

to engage in the task of working out the question, is there
a god? most people simple answer yes, but that is based upon
their childhood indoctrinations... not on any actual
engagement with the idea of a god... there is no overcoming/
reevaluation of values.. to see if the beliefs I hold are really
my beliefs or are the beliefs I hold just indoctrinations from
my childhood.... few is any actually engage in that question...

and there lies the value of philosophy... we can use the various
categories of philosophy to help us work out or understand
that the beliefs we have are actually our beliefs or what
beliefs we have that are our childhood indoctrinations....

so let us work out another belief....
we hold that murder is wrong, morally/ethically...
on what basis can we hold that view?
for most people, they hold to that ethical belief
that murder is wrong, because it is written in the bible....
ethics/morality is usually based on religious principles,
that is the basis upon which "pro-lifers" base their objections
to abortions...it is against the will of god....
and the problem is that for most people, they have never
thought about this question of "is there a god?" it is assumed
that there is a god, epistemologically they don't ask on what
basis of knowledge, can we "know" that ''there is a god''
and that knowledge about the existence of god is not
anything but an indoctrination from childhood...
how can we engage in, think about the existence of god,
who has created ethics, if we don't ask ourselves about the existence
of god?

the modern world seems lost and confused, but I hold that
the reason that the world seems to be lost and confused is
that the modern world hasn't really engaged in a reevaluation
of values, examined it values to see if they are the actual
values it holds or they are just the assumed values of
tradition...which is just another means of indoctrinating people

we humans in the modern world hold onto contradictory values
and beliefs because we haven't engaged in a reevaluation
of our values....and this contradiction is, in part, why
we seem to be lost and confused...

our values and beliefs are not set upon solid, unquestionable
grounds... our current values/beliefs are set upon values and beliefs
given to us, and never thought about...thus the part of the problem
of the modern world...we hold beliefs/values as part of our
indoctrinations/and traditions..... for traditions are simply
more indoctrinations...our father and their father did this,
so it must be right.... that is an indoctrination...

you want to make our world a better world, we can begin
by an reexamination of our values.. a overcoming of our
values brought to us by indoctrinations/and a belief in
traditions....

to put our values and beliefs on stronger, firmer grounds
will help us to a better world.... to hold onto values
and beliefs that are traditionally held or indoctrinated into us...
means we are holding onto values/beliefs that no longer
have any meaning for us because we live in a different
environment... and living in a different environment means
we have to hold values/beliefs that match our current
environment...

does the religious values/belief that "there is a god"
help us in the modern world? How does a statement,
not examined to see if it is epistemological true, going
to help us into the future?

think about this modern world... part of the world holds onto
a set of values/beliefs that are from indoctrinations/traditions...
a set of unexamined beliefs/values and part of the world
holds onto values/beliefs that are not based on traditions/
indoctrinations.... and thus we have conflict between
those who hold unexamined values and those who
have examined/overcome their childhood indoctrinations/
traditions..... we are not fighting over gold or land or money,
no, the modern world conflicts are based on values/beliefs
being held by different groups of people....

peace in our time can come if, if we actually engage in
this question of a reexamination of values/beliefs....
and by doing so, we can have more people on the same
page philosophically... thus we can find peace through
more people sharing/holding the same values/beliefs....

this is not to denounce or practice dogmatism in regards to
values/beliefs... we can have a diverse, varied, and even
contradictory beliefs/values if we can practice tolerance
and acceptance of all values and beliefs...

you say, I believe in god, and I say, I don't believe in god...
and we accept each other's values... we practice toleration...
and that is another step to having peace and quiet in our
modern world, by having toleration of other people values/
beliefs...as long as the values/beliefs practiced are
honest values/beliefs... I can respect an honest person
values and beliefs, as long as they don't force me to
practice their values/beliefs... and thus we have
another problem child in the modern world....
forcing others to practice one's own values/beliefs...

you can't have abortions because it violated MY OWN
personal values/beliefs... that is the entire abortion
argument in a nutshell... forcing others to practice
values and beliefs that are contrary to their own values/beliefs...

and we will continue to have strife and violence in the world
if we continue to practice/preach values that are contrary to
to others... in other words, forcing others to practice
our own values/beliefs... part of the current strife and violence
within the world today comes from the rightwing dogmatism
that says, the only values worth having are my values/beliefs...

these are three possible solutions to our current problems...
what are your possible solutions to our current problems?
and how does philosophy play a role into this?

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

if an honest person
were to engage in an epistemological study of god, and if
they were honest, they would come up with the answer that
there is no god

Lots of intelligent rational people have done this and come to the conclusion that there is a god.

this is not to denounce or practice dogmatism in regards to
values/beliefs... we can have a diverse, varied, and even
contradictory beliefs/values if we can practice tolerance
and acceptance of all values and beliefs...

Acceptance of all values and beliefs is equivalent to having no values and beliefs.

part of the current strife and violence
within the world today comes from the rightwing dogmatism
that says, the only values worth having are my values/beliefs...

The same can be said about left-wing dogmatism.

[Peter Kropotkin]

to continue our thoughts...

the search in philosophy has been the search for the

"the final, single universally valid principle of all
philosophy''

as Fichte put it....

as I have previously argued that there is not such things
as a "final, single universally valid principle" where does
this leave us? I hold that us having no possibility for
a "final, single, universally valid principle" means
that all of our values and beliefs are really just a series of
"ad hoc" beliefs and values...of the moment, transitory
beliefs/values that have no lasting value because
they are transitory...of the moment...

how does one successfully hold two beliefs as right-wingers
do and still have them be a "final, single universally valid
principle" if they are in conflict, contradictory to each other?

an example of this is the contradictory beliefs of
being "pro-choice" and still believe in "capital punishment"..
these two beliefs, common beliefs are in contradiction to
each other...if ''all life is sacred" then one must oppose
capital punishment with all the zeal of those who oppose
abortions....

they only way two contradictory beliefs can be held in
this way is by one, a failure to have a serious
reevaluation of values to see if my values are actually
my values and not the values I was indoctrinated with/
educated with...and the second way is through the use
of "ad hoc" values/beliefs.... "ad hoc" values can be
contradictory, totally opposed to any and all values
because those values, is of the moment, transitory...
there is not attempt to connect or attach different values
to each other.. the values are not connected because they
are temporary, of the moment... and there is no need to connect
values that are of the moment, transitory...

if the situation dictates the values/beliefs, then we need not
connect any of our values or beliefs...if the situation dictates the values,
that cannot be a "final, single universally valid principle".....

in which a "final, single universally valid principle" would still
be the same regardless of the situation...but we don't do it
that way.... the situation dictates the values/beliefs..
so we have situational values/beliefs...or said another way,
our belief system is "ad hoc".. of the moment, transitory...
which is clearly not values that are final, or universally principles
that are valid at all time, in all place, with all people....

so in the future, we might be forced, because of disease
or environmental reasons, to force all women to have abortions,
and given that the reason given is of the moment, transitory...
it is a "ad hoc" decision...and as most people have
only "ad hoc" principles, not permanent or universal
values/beliefs, most people would accept this new situation
and have an abortion...and so we ask ourselves, given
the possibility that in the future, we may be forced to
have all women have an abortion, and to those who
have values/principle that demand that they hold to
those values/principles, to prevent abortions,
who would be right?

the person who bends their values/beliefs to fit the situation
or the person who cannot bend to the situation and
belief in the "final, single universally valid principle"
of having no abortions regardless of the situation?
and one might say, well, it depends on the situation, doesn't it?

and thank you for proving my point...

so, what values/beliefs can we hold that are "final, single
universally valid principles?"

and therein lies the question.. what values are really the
"final, single universally valid principle" that all people
in all time, in all places can hold to?

or are our values/beliefs really just "ad hoc" beliefs/values?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

if an honest person
were to engage in an epistemological study of god, and if
they were honest, they would come up with the answer that
there is no god

Lots of intelligent rational people have done this and come to the conclusion that there is a god.

this is not to denounce or practice dogmatism in regards to
values/beliefs... we can have a diverse, varied, and even
contradictory beliefs/values if we can practice tolerance
and acceptance of all values and beliefs...

Acceptance of all values and beliefs is equivalent to having no values and beliefs.

part of the current strife and violence
within the world today comes from the rightwing dogmatism
that says, the only values worth having are my values/beliefs...

The same can be said about left-wing dogmatism.

K: part of my answer lies in my post just made, (before I read
your post)

so, ''how is acceptance of all values/beliefs'' is the
equivalent of having no values/beliefs?

two: please share with us the "left-wing dogmatism"
you are referring to?

Kropotkin

[Alexis Jacobi]

Question : why are all PKs posts formatted so strangely?

[Peter Kropotkin]

Question : why are all PKs posts formatted so strangely?

K: strange for you, just right for me....
and who is right? is your answer ''ad hoc"
or is your answer dependent on some
''final, single universally valid principle"

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

so, ''how is acceptance of all values/beliefs'' is the
equivalent of having no values/beliefs?

Having values and beliefs is a rejection of other values and beliefs. It's discrimination ... "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". The ones you hold are better and more valuable than the others.

two: please share with us the "left-wing dogmatism"
you are referring to?

Look at the news ... wokism, race, gender, sex, ...

New research provides evidence that left-wing authoritarian attitudes exist in the United States. The preliminary findings, published in the scientific journal Political Psychology, suggest liberals could be just as likely to be authoritarians as conservatives.

“Political ideology in general is one of the most important and predictive variables in human psychology,” said study author Lucian Gideon Conway, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Montana.

“I became interested in left-wing authoritarianism in particular because some people have said it isn’t a very real or likely phenomenon — and yet I know people I would describe as left-wing authoritarians. So I was curious to figure that out.”

Conway and his colleagues developed a measure of left-wing authoritarianism, which was adapted from the right-wing authoritarianism scale developed by psychologist Bob Altemeyer.

The RWA scale asks participants how much they agree with statements such as: “It’s always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubts in people’s minds” and “Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.”

The new LWA scale, on the other hand, asks questions such as: “It’s always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in science with respect to issues like global warming and evolution than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubts in people’s minds” and “Our country desperately needs a mighty and liberal leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical traditional ways of doing things that are ruining us..”

Both scales were tested on a group of 475 undergraduates at the University of Montana and a group of 305 U.S. adults who were recruited online from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

The researchers found that left-wing authoritarianism was associated with liberal views, dogmatism, and prejudice among both samples of participants, suggesting it is a valid concept.

“Our data suggest that average Americans on the political left are just as likely to be dogmatic authoritarians as those on the political right. And those left-wing authoritarians can be just as prejudiced, dogmatic, and extremist as right-wing authoritarians,” Conway told PsyPost.

However, the research does have some limitations.

“Our two studies should be viewed as just an opening foray in what we hope to be a lot more research on the topic,” Conway explained. “We aren’t claiming definitively that left-wingers are just as likely as right-wingers to be authoritarian in all (or even most) contexts, or that left-wing authoritarians are just the same as right-wing authoritarians in every regard (in fact, I’m pretty sure they aren’t, and we’re doing some work on that).”

“There are good reasons to think authoritarianism aligns more with right-wing than left-wing ideology, and we are interested in those reasons, too. The point is, it is a further question to better define the similarities and differences in right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism.”

“Also, our data only cover a few topic areas that are relevant, and only very specific samples (college undergraduates, MTurk workers) of Americans. Thus, we certainly don’t claim these data to be all inclusive for all people at all times — but every search has to start somewhere, however small.”

“I would like to encourage anyone interested in this topic to get involved — there are a lot of proverbial low-hanging fruit and we have already developed and published a viable LWA questionnaire for people to use,” Conway added. “It’s an exciting area to be involved in!”

The study, “Finding the Loch Ness Monster: Left-Wing Authoritarianism in the United States“, was co-authored by Shannon C. Houck, Laura Janelle Gornick and Meredith A. Repke.

https://www.psypost.org/2018/01/study-l ... ight-50674

[Peter Kropotkin]

so, ''how is acceptance of all values/beliefs'' is the
equivalent of having no values/beliefs?

Having values and beliefs is a rejection of other values and beliefs. It's discrimination ... "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". The ones you hold are better and more valuable than the others.

K: two: please share with us the "left-wing dogmatism"
you are referring to?

P: Look at the news ... wokism, race, gender, sex, ...

K: we will hold off answering the first question in favor of dealing with
second question...and we will put off the entire "study" till later too...

so, phyllo believes that "wokism" is a left wing dogmatism"
ok, let us work with that....

"wokism" is this week's right wing bogyman.. just like CRT was
yesterday's bogyman and prior to that was right wing war
on education... every month or two, we get another right
wing hysteria scare about something that doesn't EVEN EXIST...
please define to us, what exactly is "WOKISM".. don't give
examples, give us what it means... recently on live TV,
a women who wrote an entire book on "wokism" was unable
to define what "wokism" is... and I am sure you will have the
same success...so, let us start there...
define "WOKISM"

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

this is not to denounce or practice dogmatism in regards to
values/beliefs... we can have a diverse, varied, and even
contradictory beliefs/values if we can practice tolerance
and acceptance of all values and beliefs...

1) tolerance and acceptance of all values and beliefs is a value which not everyone shares. So how do we tolerate intolerance. And the truth is, left, right, middle...No on accepts and is tolerant of all values. I mean, look at the way you judge conservatives. You read their minds. Psychoanalyze them. Generalize about them and their beliefs and values. Never deal with them as if there were any nuances, complexities or good points that they are making. So, you might want to start with your relationship to conservatives and show some acceptance and tolerance.
2) I do think the truth in this is that people often blow up meaningless stuff: clothes music holidays and other cultural practices.
3) that said, how does on accept and tolerate pedophilia? or a war for oil? or racism? or seeing racism everywhere? Or silencing and banned people? and so on.

Perhaps PK could explain what tolerance and acceptance mean to him?

[phyllo]

define "WOKISM"

Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination".[1][2] Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.[3][4][5]

The phrase stay woke has history in AAVE as far back as the 1930s, in some contexts referring to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans. The phrase was uttered in lyrics of recordings by Lead Belly in mid 20th century and post-millennium by Erykah Badu.

The term emerged in the 2010s and, increasingly, it also meant not only racial consciousness but also that of gender as well as other discriminated identities, originally in the American context. During the 2014 Ferguson protests, the phrase was popularized by Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists seeking to raise awareness about police shootings of African Americans. After seeing use on Black Twitter, the term woke was increasingly used by white people, often to signal their support for BLM, which some commentators have criticised as cultural appropriation. Initially this wider adoption spread primarily among the young or the millennial generation. As it spread internationally, the term was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017.

By 2020, however, members of the political center and right wing in several Western countries were using the term woke in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as overzealous, performative, or insincere. In turn, some commentators came to consider it an offensive term with negative associations to those who promote political ideas involving identity and race. Since then derivative terms such as woke-washing and woke capitalism were coined to describe for example companies who signal support for progressive causes as a substitute for genuine change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

[Alexis Jacobi]

this is not to denounce or practice dogmatism in regards to
values/beliefs... we can have a diverse, varied, and even
contradictory beliefs/values if we can practice tolerance
and acceptance of all values and beliefs...

1) tolerance and acceptance of all values and beliefs is a value which not everyone shares. So how do we tolerate intolerance. And the truth is, left, right, middle...No on accepts and is tolerant of all values. I mean, look at the way you judge conservatives. You read their minds. Psychoanalyze them. Generalize about them and their beliefs and values. Never deal with them as if there were any nuances, complexities or good points that they are making. So, you might want to start with your relationship to conservatives and show some acceptance and tolerance.
2) I do think the truth in this is that people often blow up meaningless stuff: clothes music holidays and other cultural practices.
3) that said, how does on accept and tolerate pedophilia? or a war for oil? or racism? or seeing racism everywhere? Or silencing and banned people? and so on.

Perhaps PK could explain what tolerance and acceptance mean to him?

Curiously, 'tolerance' for those on the activist, progressive Left, always seems to mean conceding more ground to the Left. So, when the Left asks the conservative Right (I mean conservative-minded people) to be tolerant they ask that those who are conservative and Right-oriented to give in just a bit, or a bit more. And every year and every decade it amounts to that much more.

The reason why this happens is because the time we are in, the 'age' if you will, has generally speaking been dominated by values and ideals defined by the progressive Left. And they have been advocating, historically and culturally, against values defined as conservative for decades now. So, it has been said that the Progressives (and these value-sets) 'marched through the institutions' and now dominate discourse in many different areas. Even rightism, and certainly American Conservatism, has moved far to the left. It is to that degree that the Progressive Left controls discourse.

The issue, as I see it, is to become intolerant of the Progressive Left as they careen toward Hyper-Leftism and Radical Leftism. The political Right must also (to quote Iambiguous) "grow a pair". However, I will say that this is extremely difficult and may in fact prove impossible.

[seeds]

...if an honest person
were to engage in an epistemological study of god, and if
they were honest, they would come up with the answer that
there is no god...

Or, on the other hand...

If an honest person were truly honest,...

(and were in possession of at least two working brain cells)

...then they would realize that it is infinitely more ridiculous to imagine that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of chance, as opposed to some sort of higher intelligence being involved.

Also, if an honest person were truly honest, they would realize that just because they, themself, have never encountered any reason to believe in the existence of God, it doesn't mean that others haven't.
_______

[Peter Kropotkin]

this is not to denounce or practice dogmatism in regards to
values/beliefs... we can have a diverse, varied, and even
contradictory beliefs/values if we can practice tolerance
and acceptance of all values and beliefs...

1) tolerance and acceptance of all values and beliefs is a value which not everyone shares. So how do we tolerate intolerance. And the truth is, left, right, middle...No on accepts and is tolerant of all values. I mean, look at the way you judge conservatives. You read their minds. Psychoanalyze them. Generalize about them and their beliefs and values. Never deal with them as if there were any nuances, complexities or good points that they are making. So, you might want to start with your relationship to conservatives and show some acceptance and tolerance.
2) I do think the truth in this is that people often blow up meaningless stuff: clothes music holidays and other cultural practices.
3) that said, how does on accept and tolerate pedophilia? or a war for oil? or racism? or seeing racism everywhere? Or silencing and banned people? and so on.

Perhaps PK could explain what tolerance and acceptance mean to him?

K: my answer will be a "Nuanced" one and thus will confuse many here..
but I don't see how that is my problem...

let us begin with my attacks on conservatism...
I do believe that conservatives and conservatism is
an "existential threat" to America....and I have laid
out many diverse and different reasons for doing so,
but at no point, have I ever, ever called for conservatives
to be banned, jailed, forbidden from talking, exiled,
or killed... I have spoken out against them for decades...
but using words.. I have not, ever, called for action to
be taken against them...
they are certainly allowed to express their right wing fascist
idea's, and I am allowed to express my viewpoints against them...
but I haven't called for their removal in any way, shape or form...
they can keep their idiotic ideas, but that doesn't mean I can't
object to them...they are free to hold them and I will fight to
the death their right to hold their idiotic ideas.. but it doesn't
mean I have to like them or even support them... but I do allow
them the right to have their opinions just as I have my opinions..
I have expressly tolerated their ideas.. I haven't called for the
ban on or the removal of those idea's... they are free to hold them...

now let us engage in another point you brought up...
pedophilia....

are people free to engage in the act of pedophilia?
no, as I have express before, we have limited freedoms.
we have limitations based on legal, psychological, bodily
and scientific limitations...

I cannot shout fire in a crowded theater and that is a good rule...
and I cannot be free to set fire to a crowded theater...
we have both verbal and physical limitations set to us...

I cannot, legally threaten someone with death or dismemberment,
just as I cannot threaten a member of a jury in an attempt to
influence a verdict...I may not touch them, but I cannot
legally threaten them...legally, in California anyway, the
legal term is coercion... I cannot threaten someone with
harm or to physical restrain them..

we have legal limitations on what we can or cannot say..

but clearly we can talk about being a pedophilia...
being sexual attracted to children... but we cannot act upon it...
but this is also true... that to say, I am sexually attracted to children,
will get a response.. and if you are father like I am, you will
most likely get the crap kicked out of you....I don't have to like
one who is sexually attracted to children... I can allow them the
right to say so, but in return, they must expect to be at a minimum,
verbally attacked... once again, the right to speak freely, doesn't
mean I have no reaction to it...
but legally, I am unable to ban or censor this speech of being,
sexually attracted to children...

you have the legal rights and then you have the reality of freedom
of speech.. having that right to speak about one's sexuality toward
children will garner a response and most likely that response will not
be pleasant...that is the reality of the situation.... the nuanced
response to one who engages in the speech of pedophilia...
you have the legal right to, but also the distinct possibility of getting the
crap kicked out of you...

I don't have to like or dislike any type of speech.. I just have to
accept that it does happen.. but I also point to the fact that
certain "free" speech will get a response that is not always pleasant...

let us give another example... to those who advocate the
return of the holocaust to end Jews in the world...
I am not Jewish, so my feeling is not a visceral as a Jewish
person might be.. but in having the freedom to say so
is legally allowed, but one must also expect a reaction to
that speech and getting the crap out of you may be
one such reaction...

having free speech is also understanding that free speech has
consequences.. and knowing that free speech will have consequences
is part of having free speech... to say to a father, I want to have sex
with your 5 year old daughter is free speech, but expect the father
to at a minimum, to beat the shit out of you... free speech isn't....

gotta go, wife is home...continue this later...

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

Come on, that's weaselness.

It's like saying that you can talk about homosexuality but if you practice it, then you can be beaten up or jailed.

Nobody would consider that to be a reasonable definition of tolerance and acceptance.

[Alexis Jacobi]

let us begin with my attacks on conservatism...
I do believe that conservatives and conservatism is
an "existential threat" to America....and I have laid
out many diverse and different reasons for doing so,
but at no point, have I ever, ever called for conservatives
to be banned, jailed, forbidden from talking, exiled,
or killed... I have spoken out against them for decades...
but using words.. I have not, ever, called for action to
be taken against them...
they are certainly allowed to express their right wing fascist
idea's, and I am allowed to express my viewpoints against them...
but I haven't called for their removal in any way, shape or form...
they can keep their idiotic ideas, but that doesn't mean I can't
object to them...they are free to hold them and I will fight to
the death their right to hold their idiotic ideas.. but it doesn't
mean I have to like them or even support them... but I do allow
them the right to have their opinions just as I have my opinions..
I have expressly tolerated their ideas.. I haven't called for the
ban on or the removal of those idea's... they are free to hold them...

In my view, you are nearly completely unaware of the operation of intense prejudices in yourself, in your general discourse. They key term is the way you use the word 'fascist'. All conservative ideas, and many view held by those who were classical Liberals, would now be termed fascist.

What you seem not to grasp is that there are two general camps in America today and they both describe the other as *existential threat*.

I propose understanding that the definition of America -- what it is, what it should be -- has been engineered and reengineered and one must understand that this redefinition is being resisted. Those who hold to former definitions and value-structures are now described, in these brute terms that come so easily, to you as 'fascist' and 'Nazi' and other common terms. These are words designed to shut out any possibility of retort. They are absolute.

The fact of the matter which in my view all of us should take into account is that two very different definition-structures have become polarized in such a way that they cannot communicate.

And you seem to me a very good example of one who has been, and will remain, self-indoctrinated into one particular, and peculiar, camp.

When 'agreements' break down civil strife arises. And the end result of extreme civil conflict is civil war. And war is 'politics by other means'.

First, one has to put this out on the table for consideration and discussion. Then one can begin to talk about why it is that people have such differing, and irreconcilable, differences.