Comte de Sats Germain on Nostr: I think that was the age one of my cousins got pregnant. Her daughter is now one of ...
I think that was the age one of my cousins got pregnant. Her daughter is now one of the most wonderful people in the family... If my cousin hadn't been religious, she would have only heard the message from society, which is "its okay to abort, here, take the easy way out," and the wonderful person who is her daughter wouldn't exist. Which messages we promote have real consequences.
'Free will' assumes that people have all information and perspectives. That's a silly assumption! How much are we influenced by the people around us and the example set by TV and movies? Most people are close to 100% programmed by these things. They aren't their own programmers, so their will isn't actually theirs, so 'free will' is mostly a myth. The only way it can be a real thing is if we choose not to go with the flow, or choose to push a flow different from the mainstream flow.
I'm totally against the police being involved in peoples' choices. If you say we can't use police to enforce a ban on abortions, I agree ; however, look at the other side, where you use police to enforce a ban on a kind of speech. In the UK, you can be thrown in jail for offending someone with your speech. If you tell a woman that abortion is murder, and she feels offended, should you be thrown in jail? Clearly the police are the criminals, as are the people pushing for policy. The policy is the real crime.
IMO, the only real resolution is to do away with policy, which means doing away with government. The existence of a machinery of enforcement is too much of a temptation to people and their agendas. I wonder how many contentious social issues would simply disappear if there was no mechanism of violence to fight over using. That's what it really boils down to - who gets to control the dummies in uniform. I used to be one of those dummies... No matter what uniform you wear, you're basically police, if required. What elections really boil down to is : what are the conditions of the application of violence? For a time, one side is in power, and we inch closer to that side's reasons to murder their opponents. Then for a while the other side is in power, and we inch closer to murdering the other side. The capacity for murder is maintained and built up, and elections matter because the other side might finally use it and you're dead. We approach that in gradations - we'll just surveil people for now, no big deal ; then we'll put people in jail for reasons, no big deal, its not killing ; then we'll increase penalties, have many penalties for one crime, and its no big deal, its just justice and those are bad guys - but there is an endpoint, the final climax of the will of the people, where democracy finally transforms into its transcendent state, and there's no more room to add punishments and loss of liberty, and the state commits genocide. That's what elections and policy are really about. Maneuvering for the final showdown, extermination. Issues like abortion and assisted suicide are foreshadowing and foreplay and rehearsals. All issues are.
'Free will' assumes that people have all information and perspectives. That's a silly assumption! How much are we influenced by the people around us and the example set by TV and movies? Most people are close to 100% programmed by these things. They aren't their own programmers, so their will isn't actually theirs, so 'free will' is mostly a myth. The only way it can be a real thing is if we choose not to go with the flow, or choose to push a flow different from the mainstream flow.
I'm totally against the police being involved in peoples' choices. If you say we can't use police to enforce a ban on abortions, I agree ; however, look at the other side, where you use police to enforce a ban on a kind of speech. In the UK, you can be thrown in jail for offending someone with your speech. If you tell a woman that abortion is murder, and she feels offended, should you be thrown in jail? Clearly the police are the criminals, as are the people pushing for policy. The policy is the real crime.
IMO, the only real resolution is to do away with policy, which means doing away with government. The existence of a machinery of enforcement is too much of a temptation to people and their agendas. I wonder how many contentious social issues would simply disappear if there was no mechanism of violence to fight over using. That's what it really boils down to - who gets to control the dummies in uniform. I used to be one of those dummies... No matter what uniform you wear, you're basically police, if required. What elections really boil down to is : what are the conditions of the application of violence? For a time, one side is in power, and we inch closer to that side's reasons to murder their opponents. Then for a while the other side is in power, and we inch closer to murdering the other side. The capacity for murder is maintained and built up, and elections matter because the other side might finally use it and you're dead. We approach that in gradations - we'll just surveil people for now, no big deal ; then we'll put people in jail for reasons, no big deal, its not killing ; then we'll increase penalties, have many penalties for one crime, and its no big deal, its just justice and those are bad guys - but there is an endpoint, the final climax of the will of the people, where democracy finally transforms into its transcendent state, and there's no more room to add punishments and loss of liberty, and the state commits genocide. That's what elections and policy are really about. Maneuvering for the final showdown, extermination. Issues like abortion and assisted suicide are foreshadowing and foreplay and rehearsals. All issues are.