It's that they have been bought by the megacorporations and they put their personal material wealth ahead of the lives of our children. They think if they steal enough money from the system they will be protected from the catastrophes that are coming, but they won't be.
I'd vote for you. Broadly what you have described is ahem ... Communism. I would query your / Carlin's statement about chickens being good people, though: they're little arseholes
I mean..... yeah? Kinda communism? Communism is this weirdass thing because the USA has literally fanned it up to be scarier than the devil himself but it's...... not? I'm in a weird position because I literally grew up in a communist country, though by lucky happenstance it was the one that wasn't, like, super shitty to its people. So I do understand when people point to communism as it was applied in the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia etc that there was a bunch of not really super desirable stuff there. But that stuff wasn't part of communism as a doctrine, more the way it was being applied, as a tyrannical measure.
Yugoslavia had the one decent take on it and I swear it worked remarkably well, while it worked. It had drawbacks for sure, I would have notes about potential refinements and improvements. But it was NOT shit. It was in fact a way more egalitarian system than what we have today in most of the west.
Another place we can look to is the socialism of Scandinavian countries. It's similar vibes. Basically the essence of everything is making society more about people.
I also like that you’ve never had any interest in holding political office. A sound approach and one I feel Groucho Marx would condone - allegedly he declared he “would never be a member of a club that would have him”, and I rather think anybody who wants to be a politician should be immediately barred for life from ever being one.
Couple of ideas from you:-
In Paris some years ago I came across an organisation that used public funds to acquire blocks of flats (doubtless you call them “condos” or something…). The building ownership was then transferred free to a company owned by the residents.
There were other businesses created (owned by the residents) that trained people from the block in retro-fitting energy efficiency measures, mobility aids for older people, maintaining the lift (elevator?) and providing general physical maintenance and security.
By doing this the residents became self sufficient in everything they needed to continue living in the block, with young folk getting to know older residents who were able to stay in their homes instead of going to residential care.
The model expanded, with collaborative between block companies, so there was a sharing of expertise and capabilities to plug gaps.
Once kick started, very little public funding was needed with residents effectively agreeing prices to pay for services and wages for “supply company” employees.
Second suggestion. Ban GM crops.
As a student of plant genetics before GM got going I decided I wanted nothing to do with it because I could see business would ignore the risks and push for applications maximising profit. At the expense of damage to the environment.
Also, ban Investment banking, make it illegal to have assets over $1 billion (irrespective where they’re hidden away) with jail terms for convictions.
Similarly, prosecute politicians for lying.
Require all media providers to have an ownership structure preventing one individual/corporation/family from controlling the output.
For encouraging people to get involved in food production (and sourcing), look at ways to enable creation of allotments for people to rent cheaply from local authorities, so they can grow their own.
Encourage people to share surplus with others in their communities by facilitating provision of “sharing sheds” for veg, fruit, foodstuffs from grocery stores about to go out of date, clothes, kids toys, books, tools etc. Many villages here have set their own up that work really well.
Regarding agriculture, ban neocotinoid pesticides and make it illegal for big agritech corporations to make seeds they sell farmers reliant on being sprayed with that corporation’s herbicides/weed killers. Monsanto is the devil incarnate in this field.
Lastly, look at ways of ensuring food supplies are sourced as locally to communities as possible to reduce food miles, increase regional variation and biodiversity, reintroduce seasonality and stop private equity owned food corporations (KKR Nabisco, Nestle etc) from commoditising basic food and increasing profits by reducing natural nutritional content in their products.
That’s probably more than enough and I’m sure I’ll be labelled a loonie leftie. 😏
Yes to all of these. So the co-ops we have here are pretty much exactly what you describe for the French apartment blocks and yes they work incredibly well and are basically self-sustainable. There would need to be way more of them though and it would be an incredible way to foster better community living.
Mtl does also have its fair share of community gardens but all of these things are too scarce, my local community garden has a waiting list of 7 years, which just shows how much raw interest there is in these things, and it's not being catered to.
There has been an extremely shocking story about over 400 people of different ages getting sick with a mysterious neurological disorder in New Brunswick and the one doctor that continued digging at it after the local government effectively tried to shut down the entire investigation and make everyone involved sound crazy has gotten blood samples analyzed out of state and found massive levels of glyphosate in everyone's samples. Of course that alone isn't enough to draw a solid conclusion but it should definitely be a nudge for further investigation. Who knows how many of us are getting poisoned by how many things we're just not tracking right now because it's not profitable.
The key to all this would be breaking Big Money's chokehold on the government, and that's a doozey for sure. There is an Arthur Clarke story that posits a future where there is one single President of the Earth, and the way they choose them is they first eliminate everyone who wants the job. Because let's be real, 99% of people who gravitate towards power don't do it for nice reasons. And the remaining 1% gets corrupted along the way.
Having broken-up ruling structures and preventing power from congealing at the very top would be so damned helpful.
I’m very flattered to be offered a place in your party, but I’m afraid I must decline on the grounds of maintaining my independence (I think this should be called the Marx Principle “… if only to confuse people….🤣🤪).
Re the allotments, maybe don’t try when cities - focus on smaller towns where there is a real sense of community and identity still. That differential will often be a driver for change.
In cities the population is so huge, the problem seems too big to deal with and from my very limited experience, there’s far less community spirit. By no means none, but it’s dependent on the people living in particular neighbourhoods I think.
A man of integrity! I respect it! We can form a coalition.
Omg ban everything on the seabed except sea cucumbers taking strolls!!!
It could definitely be started in smaller communities and then expanded. Like I said right now Montreal already has that model functioning and people LOVE it, there are wayyyyyy more applicants than there are ever available units and waiting lists are immense, so it's not a matter of people not being interested.
It's a matter of a government not really being interested in solving the problems of the people. Because real estate and rental properties bring moneyyyyy.
Yay 🙌🏻 I'll totally vote for you if we're citizens of the same place. Sounds like an easygoing and fun job but you'll be good at it.
I'd add plenty of reform into the education process itself. Less desk time, more forest time. Less curriculum, more child-led learning.
Some things I would put on a curriculum though: propaganda awareness, basic musicality (using decolonised notation and theory), compassionate communication processes will just be part of everyday school life, somatic listening processes.
That kinda thing.
Oh and re the above we're also gonna need more forest. Noncommercial land where nature gets to do her thing. I had tears in your bit about giving land back to natives. That's such a yes. AND giving land back to the land. Which if people need to know how that'll benefit humans then: so we don't all go ded. I know I know, not all going ded doesn't immediately benefit the economy, but sure look, as we say in Ireland.
Heck yes!! Join the party!! Tell me more about decolonized musicality? Like exploring the musical heritage of different peoples and not just pushing European classics, that kind of thing?
My friend is a music teacher in public elementary here and she pulls pieces from all over the world for her classes, it's really cool.
I'm definitely in for more forests. It all goes together. Indigenous peoples are famously incredibly gifted stewards of the land and should be in control of vast amounts of it, if we want it to keep breathing.
I'd be on for giving them stewardship of the whole lot, if they want that. Including the bits the rest of us are guests on. How about a big land ownership surrender party in this party?
This is a handwritten book I made about a framework I developed for basic applied musical harmony literacy. It's about having a working language for how our brains actually perceive harmony. It's way more elegant than what the 18th century European theory gives us. The fact we're still using their system even for contemporary music is bizarre to me. I'm told it's a tad tricky to understand in this rambly book form (I'll make clearer videos explaining it soon) but it can be super simple to teach to kids.
Not President, Prime Minister. Advice (even if not requested) don't pay the guaranteed annual income to only those below a certain income threshold. That takes too much time and too many people to means test everyone. Pay it to everyone and collect it back from those making over $50,000 at income tax time just as they now do with Old Age Pension. And, $1000/month is not enough, at least $4000 month taxable. And, in addition to making the minimum wage the annual living wage, introduce a maximum wage. Lidija for PM!!
...a few reservations from me TBH, though otherwise relatively solid. IMO any "government interventionism" should be limited to a Hamiltonian/American System approach emphasizing growth facilitation from a pro-industry, pro-modernization, pro-tariff/protectionist standpoint with limited "intrusive" overregulation -- minimum wage laws can be problematic at higher thresholds in that certain jobs for low-level/"temporary" arenas requiring no specially trained skills, i.e. janitors and fast food workers, don't need to be encouraged as long-term positions for people to maintain throughout their lifetimes via universally mandated minimum wages.
Here's an idea: levy an additional tax on restaurants trying to "actively" make customers tip. Also, institute a 100% ban from restaurants collectivizing tips into a "tip jar" robbing decent employees of integrity from "individual" tips given to them by customers.
Strongly endorse your food regulation proposals -- CAFO meats, especially red, are unsuitable for large quantities of human consumption. Please institute an additional tax on the pork industry (objectively speaking from a scientific/health standpoint beyond Levitical guidelines, swine's flesh (Isa. 66:17) was never fit to be eaten by humans at all, and shellfish/crustaceans also pose much higher health risks compared to fin-and-scales fish), and make sure to 100% ban chick culling -- if an industry is too lazy to raise male chickens and tries to en masse inefficiently and cruelly kill all of them into waste, shut them out of business for good!
As a devoted Christian myself, I STRONGLY 2,000% endorse your religious policies. Zero militant atheism and zero theocratic compulsion -- no "clerical" control over the state, and no state control over religion. I don't want Communist autocracy nor Papal Sunday government dictating what I can or cannot do on the first and seventh days of the week.
Extra tax on the rich? IMO just start off with making sure they *get* taxed at an equal rate as everyone else -- once the sleazy cheaters are thwarted and pay taxes at long last, that already should equate to a considerable improvement government-revenue-wise.
Now, I know this is where we'll probably differ, though if you institute a prohibition on abortion, I'll definitely support your presidential bid -- no genocide, no murder against anyone; as both a corollary and pretext, both genders must learn responsibility and self-control for a functional society. Men ought to be taught to view sex as the leading-up unto lifelong moral responsibility and as a sanctity not to trivialize into immature materialistic abuse, and women ought to be taught to view the fruit of their womb as objectively priceless human life as opposed to a disposable "component." Perhaps schools which fail a certain "grade" threshold for teaching such basic moral values unto teenagers should receive warnings before a government-mandated closing for moral responsibility failures.
Oh yes, speaking of which, I 100% endorse your public/private school proposal -- either all or nothing, and zero public funding for private education. Parochial schools need zero public funding; Catholic schools can operate from their amassed alms treasuries, not the taxpayer dime.
Yes on tipping, chick culling, taxation of the rich, school and religion.
Major no on no minimum wage. We need janitors about a billion times more than we need CEOs. We need fast food chefs and baristas a billion times more than hedge fund managers. Every job that is worth doing is worth paying reasonably, and job snobism is a massive cause of misery and inequality.
We have been systematically pushing more and more and more jobs into the ‘ehh, doesn’t really deserve to be paid’ category based on some imaginary intellectualism where someone with a financial degree should somehow be worth more than someone who just digs or cooks or cleans. But brief open-minded examination of this will easily show that the jobs that actually benefit society and bring value to our lives are totally different to the jobs we try to promote as ‘worthy of decent salary’.
We got a great demonstration of this during COVID where the rich and white collar people got to cower at home and no one missed them that much, while blue collar had to keep going out and doing their thing so we don’t all die of starvation. So I would much rather talk about introducing a maximum top salary than removing minimum wage protections. And speaking of tipping, the restaurants should be bound by minimum wage laws too.
On abortion also we fundamentally disagree. First off, abortion is not a question of morality, it is a question of medical care. A vast number of women have legitimate medical reasons to not want to be pregnant. Second, it is a question of human integrity and personal freedom. If you don’t think the government should be ordering you to put things into your body, it would make sense it should also not be ordering you to not take things out. Having a child is much more than a moral decision, children are routinely ruined by terrible parenting- or lack of parenting- brought by the fact that their parents never wanted to parent. People having children too young dysbalance their whole lives. Raising children takes love and maturity, it takes intention.
Ask yourself why you think we should regard only unborn life as precious, and who does it benefit? Because we have precious few policies treating born life as precious. If we had more, the anti-abortion stance would have more basis. But we don’t. We execute people, send people to war, deny people aid, block people from accessing healthcare, gatekeep people from education, and push them into poverty, but we still want all the babies born? ….because life is precious? Sounds like a duplicitous argument angled at something else. Like, maybe, making sure enough children are born in sufficiently desperate positions to ensure a steady supply of willing workers for those no-minimum-wage jobs we talked about above. You like conspiracy theories, right? This is a great one 😊
Finally as a woman who has given birth and who knows multiple women who have had abortions and also given birth, I can promise you the majority of women have a lot of feelings and considerations about the tiny scrap of life growing inside them, and I haven’t known any who have taken the decision to terminate lightly. Implying otherwise is doing a disservice to the entire gender.
Glad there's some major points to concur on -- and come to realize, your point might hold greater soundness than mine about the "lower-level" jobs. Perhaps I was one to always look through the lens of societally/collectively judged "prestige" too much...
Ah yes, white-collar privilege of thriving on basementmongering... that is indeed all too factual. I must say, you definitely are naturally skilled at appealing to my instinctive "grievances" as to giving me a real about-face on long-held positions.
Oh boy, I guess I should've known what territory I was headed into by engaging on the abortion issue... alright, first off, there might be a "cultural" background disparity here. It sounds like on your end the women with pro-abortion leanings made morally painful decisions rather than out of callous disregard for unborn lives; in my growing up and witnessings, I've indeed seen over and over women -- starting at my own house -- who throw aside any conscious pretense of objective feminine mercy and regard the weak/feeble as "useless" and "disposable."
My mother, who both was constantly negligent/coldhearted in a complete lack of sympathy to me for the "better" part of my half a decade of most immense societally/academically induced mental pain, is not only "pro-abortion" but made no bones about expressing the view that it is OK to selectively and eugenically abort an unborn child with Down syndrome. In my formed opinions of early high school, I viewed those ideological patterns of my mother and her treatment of me in my day-to-day life as one consistent Social Darwinist mentality influenced by her CCP cultural indoctrination from her growing-up, so that definitely has greatly shaped my perception of the abortion issue. Plus, online (and probably in person sooner or later) I've a number of times seen the female side of the cultural degradation among my generation openly boast of their "right" to abortion in the EXACT same mentality that Zionists believe they possess a "right" to conquer Palestine.
Heh, I appreciate you bringing up the conspiratorial aspect, Lidija, and here's my formed assessment: the real conspiracy here is that the NWO has succeeded in employing a fifth column to drive a wedge here between mother and child, using abortion as the dividing partition to make the Western "liberalized" population perceive that they must either be on a woman's "absolute right" to dictate "her body" or are on the side of the child's right to life and are "anti-women." Now, I strongly beseech everyone regardless of gender to step back for a moment and consider with sound judgment: what good reason is there to take the view that one cannot simultaneously be both pro-mother and pro-child? Are not the wives in society traditionally the pillars of emotional compassion showing unto their husbands a moral example of easing the "aggression" and putting mercy above vengeance? If the hearts of women therefore are successfully turned away from an intrinsic love for their children, could not the New World Order have better succeeded in its plot to destroy the family unit and manipulate entire "collectively" carved out groupings -- here an entire gender no less -- into emotionally baited mental subjugation?
I definitely agree that all lives should inherently be given a chance to thrive, and concur that the modern system is grotesque on this matter. Since presumably (do correct me if I've been objectively wrong on anything) this posting from your original thoughts into these queries/responses are of entire idealistic/hypothetical note on how to improve society, ultimately I hope there is room for a full "pro-life" policy framework respecting both unborn children's protection into life and an ensured pillar of support for their basic growing up. How about fixing your "tax the rich" into this? If not enough newborn infants can receive the ensured support they need at any given moment, levy an extra percentage onto the top 1% riches' tax rates. Eventually increase the tax rates on the middle class unless the population will grow a moral spine and via charity of their own accord help the poor children in need if they don't like the higher tax rates. <-- How's this sound? My stridently shaped views on abortion is where I'll be happy to go utterly Bismarckian into a full commie "tax the rich" mentality, I suppose. XD
Anyways, I don't mean to personally affront you on the abortion issue -- ultimately, I think on any of these matters it's better to "judge" people individually and not view an entire group as "collectively" of infallible incorruptibility to any extent, just as on the Zion(az)ism issue it is absurd for the ADL chief to insist "Jews cannot be pro-genocide." Believe me, in my generation I've seen and talked to ultra-"liberal" women treating abortion as almost some intrinsically "God-given" right they unconditionally deserve and who rival the cultic delusions of Orange Bolshevist mangomongers. I only off the top of my head right now recall ONE woman in my generation who treated the abortion through a nuanced lens (and she is an incredibly kind soul who early on helped bring me to awareness the Zionazi war crime record), there is probably only other female IRL contemporary in my generation I know well who I'd assume (from what I recall off the top of my head) is pro-life, since she's a graciously loving and tenderhearted Catholic. Everyone else... either are brainwashed and barely address the issue, or in the case of any "popular" social grouping would be "entirely" pro-abortion, from what I've observed.
Hey, always glad to nudge a fellow human a little further to the left!
Yeah ok, so abortion. First off, I am not at all affronted, and as with any other topic, I always welcome reasoned discussion.
There is definitely a portion of our views that will be influenced by the cultures/ backgrounds we grew up in and the people we have come across with. But I am always very weary of determining my general stance based on ‘some people I have met have done this, so’. We really want to have sound reasoning here.
The idea of eugenics through abortion is one that has cropped up in different cultures, and is also a more complex issue than it may seem at first. For sure when people go and have abortions because they’re trying for a specific gender, I do find that odious. If they are not sure whether they want to keep a child that will potentially be severely ill or disabled, things get murky. I personally would not want to give up on my child just because they might have Down’s syndrome. But the slope is slippery. You have plenty of more severe issues. What if a child will be seriously ill? In pain? With a seriously reduced lifespan? Even if you are not thinking of the child itself, there are parents who might be in a position to raise a healthy child, but not a chronically ill or disabled one. Especially in our world where access to healthcare is not a given.
My kid is autistic, which for me personally is no issue at all, we are a neurodivergent family and I don’t even think of autism as a disorder or a disability (though it can definitely have those aspects). But raising him is HARD. And he is a pretty easygoing kid, all things considered. He’s kind, and funny, and a lovely person. The fact is, though, that since we have no real systems of support, and a serious lack of acceptance of differences in society, raising a kid with even such a slight ‘issue’ as neurodivergence is already a huge challenge. We have been hovering at the verge of switching to homeschooling for years now because school basically burns him out. He has slower information processing which means he is always behind. In spite of the best efforts from teachers, there are limited things the public school system can provide, because we do not sufficiently invest in it, nor do we sufficiently value the wellbeing of those of us who fall outside the norm. So my life is constant talks with teachers, special educators, doctors, social workers, etc etc etc. His life is constant stress, feeling like he’s falling behind, thinking he is stupid because he can’t do things the same way other kids do them, and worrying how he will handle the next day at school. And my kid is basically totally fine, as far as I am concerned. He’s a tiny bit different. But that tiny difference already makes life super complicated.
Now imagine I had a child with a serious issue. Maybe a child who will never be independent. A child who will require extensive medical support. And knowing there is no help. Now imagine someone told me this in advance and gave me a choice - do you want that life, or not. I really cannot blame the people who don’t want it.
Now, on the side of ‘women think they have the right to abortion like Zionists think they have the right to Palestine’, things are a little different because Palestine does not originally belong to the Zionists, while last I checked, my body technically does belong to me. I’m sure you have many times heard the standard arguments so I won’t harp on, but if we consider the fact of bodily autonomy as something we all agree on - and I hope we agree on it - I really don’t see how an abortion ban can be allowed to stand, from that angle? Do we or do we not decide what happens to our bodies? I don’t know if you have looked into the actual process of pregnancy but let me tell you, there’s quite a bit of body horror happening there, I was seriously freaked out more than once, and I wanted mine. I can’t imagine going through it and NOT wanting it. Not to mention the baby and the mother are connected in every sense and if the mother is miserable and hates the pregnancy, the baby is getting blasted by negativity literally from before their first breath.
Anyway (how do these comments keep getting longer and longer? hahah) pregnancy is a long and medically significant process. It lasts the better part of a year, and can wreck your body in a million different ways, some of which are irreversible. It can (and often does) kill you. On what grounds do we say we are allowed to force someone to go through that?
Oh, ‘kindness to the child’, i.e. we are considering the new life over the existing one. But…… we never do that in any other situation? For example, if you died right now, and your organs could be used to save seven other people, but you didn’t sign up to be an organ donor - those seven people will die. There is NOTHING to protect their lives from your personal selfishness. Because even in death, your body is your body. So we are literally saying here that an unborn child should, for some reason, have rights that living people do not have - the right to use another’s body for their survival, with or without consent. We don’t do that. You might be a match for people who need blood transfusions, or kidney transplants, or they will die. But if you don’t go and volunteer your body parts, tough for them. Nobody will come to commandeer your blood. And blood is the easiest thing, you don’t even have to carry them inside you, you have practically no risk…. yet there is no drive to make blood donation mandatory. Why? It’s your blood. You can CHOOSE to give it away. But nobody can make you.
So yeah, I think there is thin logic available to support the anti-abortion argument. It doesn’t track across other decisions we make in similar situations. It goes against the concept of bodily autonomy, which most of us cherish in most other contexts. I don’t think it can, in good conscience, be forbidden. That said, any activity outside of an actual legal ban that tries to ‘promote bond between mother and child’ is absolutely welcome as far as I’m concerned, and there we can start with subsidized childcare and some goddamned maternity leave.
I hang out with many mothers, and believe me there is no wedge between mothers and their children. But you cannot force a woman to be a mother if she does not wish to be. In fact it would be highly amusing to experience a world where men too can get pregnant, and watch how quickly and forcefully abortion clinics and contraception options pop up on every street corner like mushrooms after rain.
I do appreciate your willingness to even flirt with communism for the sake of the unborn :) But the issue here really isn’t who takes care of the child once it is born. Like yeah, that can be some part of it. But the essence is that pregnancy, labor, and childbirth are life-altering, serious, often painful and difficult experiences with far-reaching consequences, and as such cannot be forced onto living, breathing, thinking beings.
As to who supports abortion and for what political reasons, I think there is often a pressure and counterpressure phenomenon happening, where one side pushes hard so the other side pushes even harder. ‘You can’t have it!!’ ‘Oh yeah?? Watch me have it every day and twice on Sunday!!!’ But in reality women do not do weekly ‘Abortion and Mimosas’ brunch outings. Many women who choose to abort already have children - children they love and care for. They just aren’t ready to take on more responsibility and take away more time, energy and resources away from the kids they already have. Family planning is a real thing. Some people sounding callous about abortion is way less crucial to the debate than the essence of what the right to abortion means - the right to live the life you want. Everyone should have that.
Anyway, I shall be awaiting your next novella on this subject :)
Wow, I must admit that's a *highly* nuanced and in-depth look at the issue -- and yes, since I have an intrinsic "root" of feeling strongly about protecting the weak/vulnerable in society (because in years past I often had no one standing up for or by me... instead everyone all across the spectrum would denigrate/castigate me...), I'd say my views on basic protection of human life and well-being are such a priority that I'll accept commie-level sizes of government if it means justice and decency can be ensured.
Okay, on the "eugenic slope" you raise a good point about long-term well-being for the child's concern when it comes to the prospect of a miserable/painful life to potentially endure. I think there's a "flipside" slope here... if a society promotes the view that it's better to abort a child because it has a 98-99% chance of enduring a painful life, should 100 babies be killed so 99 don't endure a life of pain and risk that 1 child -- who could've by that miracle beat the deformity's effects -- being "sacrificed" in vain? And as unfortunately brutal as it ultimately is, for a person to attain a "fulfilled" life of moral lessons and righteousness necessitates an endurance through pain of some form anyways sooner or later... why not give life as many chances as long as possible, since no individual person is a mere replaceable statistic? Every human being has a unique DNA marker and a unique fingerprint and is given their own soul out of which stems an individual conscious mind -- what is reflected on the moral standing of a society which begins to view its most vulnerable members as less deserving of the most sought-out protection and care?
Okay, I concede you more or less have a fair point about my semi-hasty equivocation on the abortion and Zionism issues. Very broadly, what came to mind is the impression of a shared mentality of what comes off to the "outsider" as as an arbitrarily justified pretext out of seemingly nowhere demanding "rights" for one group in society to infringe upon another. As to the tidbit about the woman's body, while it is obviously of a truth that the unborn child is in its mother's body, to categorize/insinuate it as a "component" of the mother's body runs contrary to, well, for one: that the fetus is addressed far more often as "how's the baby?" as opposed to "how's the stomach?" (as you possibly notice, I'm trying to frame my points in a milder fashion to avoid any potential affrontation, as I know this gets into sensitive topical subsets...)
Okay, as to your analogy about organ donation... I think that as a necessary pillar to ensure full individual freedom for everyone, individual personal liberty over one's own body must be respected, and that this freedom neither cannot be "broadened" to argue one has unilateral control over another's body, nor that this is to be infringed upon i.e. on the issue of vaccine mandates. While as a corollary this could mean that one selfish dying person refuses to donate their organs that could've saved another seven lives, the long-term consequential consequences are infinitely worse if society can by majority/"common" will force a person to give up their organs/blood to save another person's life. My "realist conservative" view is this: if a society's comprisal lacks enough good-faith individuals to help one another out of personal love/charity, then it is impossible to legislate moral soundness into its citizens.
Now, I will 100% concede this: a very large bulk of the so-called "pro-life movement" are moral frauds. It of course was historically "set up"/co-opted by the Jesuit/ultramontane coadjutors and their "front" stooges, but the conspiracy analysis is a bit of a different matter...
Ah, sorry to hear your kid grapples with those shortcomings. Not sure if this will to any extent help per so "significantly," but maybe as a "starter" see if a boost of antioxidant nutrition might help with focus/concentration and energy just in case you aren't already "prescribing" it? Not sure if I mentioned this to you before, Lidija, but there is an incredible powerhouse of antioxidants in citrus zest, and if you ever grate it to "brew" through a strainer into tea, it is a highly vibrant "energy drink" -- lemon is bright/vibrant, lime is strong/bitter, orange is sweet-ish, Meyer lemon is "fruity," grapefruit is peppery (no joke!), and blood orange is the real wild card. Also, organic frozen berries are of spectacular flavor: once you thaw it out, strain what you can into juice to drink, and use the remainder pulpy/seeds/skin to bake into muffins. Highly amazing -- I can send you the pictures via DM in a bit...
Heheh, yeah, I've likewise noticed these replies pick up in length -- somehow whenever I'm typing out long article drafts, I don't have nearly the consistent energy/drive as when I type these comment section replies. :) XD
Anyways... hmm... as someone myself who's lived a life largely of mental suffering as far back as I can recall because my parents have been terrible to me for the "better" part of my life, to the point that they even castigated me in my suicidal lows, I would speak as a living testimony that in spite of how many years of mental pain life has with coldhearted affliction poured out on me, I would rather be alive than to have been aborted. The world meant it for evil, but God clearly ordained far greater goodnesses (reminds me of Gen. 50:20) to be bestowed that light would be seen after the long, dark tunnel; and I for all these years have many times been among the "least" in "ranking" stature of perception among my IRL contemporaries, yet as among the foolish, base, and despised in my life, both at school and home, I've been called to confound the "wise" (I Cor. 1:27-29), and despite having gone astray as a lost sheep, by the stripes of the Savior and Shepherd -- who became a Lamb for the lost fold who I was among -- I am healed by faith unto a hope of everlasting redemption in rejoicing. (I Pet. 2:24-25) And if a once-hopeless, despised social outcast of society wallowing in lonely suicidal depression as myself can be exalted to a glorious hope beyond words, should not every other soul likewise be given the equal chance in life to perhaps ultimately choose rightly?
Alllllrighty. I think we’re making some gentle headway.
First off, I absolutely support any form of protecting the weak. But not at the cost of harming someone else. It is my firm belief that anyone who truly cared about the fates of children, born and unborn, would without reserve be a strong proponent of free healthcare, maternity leave, workers’ rights, ecological solutions, pollution reduction, mental health support, work life balance, redistribution of wealth, greener, more walkable, more affordable cities, more community connection, more support for disabled people, chronically ill people, homeless people, people struggling with addiction, more work flexibility, better public education, etc etc etc. The main reason people shirk away from having kids today is because their lives are hard enough without them. People, when thriving, naturally tend to want to reproduce. (Those who don’t are obviously still welcome to exist).
Giving life chances is obviously a lovely notion when you don’t think too hard about what it means. Obviously masses of people born with disabilities or in unfortunate circumstances are still happy and grateful to be alive. I personally am not a proponent of eugenics in any way. But I do absolutely understand a woman who doesn’t want to give birth to a child who would suffer infernally. You give yourself as an example, and I by no means mean to diminish your suffering, but imagine if your skin were sloughing off daily? If your entire body was a perpetual open wound and your fingers kept fusing together and your parents had to keep washing and disinfecting the wound that is your entire skin and it hurt infernally and you begged them not to do it because you cannot stand the pain any longer but they knew they had to because if they didn’t you would risk infection and everything would be even worse, and that was just your life forever?
The issue with God’s creation is that sometimes it really doesn’t work out so well.
But these are extreme cases, I am talking about much more common ones. The fact is, god or no god, that nothing really gives a human being a ‘right to exist’. Such right is nowhere to be found. There you could be, strolling along, existing, and suddenly a bus hits you out of nowhere and where is your right now? Or you could fall ill and then your insurance provider explains how it’s more profitable for them to let you die. Or you could be born with a massive hole in your heart and die a few hours later. No one’s existence is in any way guaranteed. And especially is it not guaranteed by subjugating another person.
You seem to have misinterpreted my ‘it’s my body’ argument. The baby is not a part of my body. Well, he is and he isn’t, there’s a bit of a gray area there, we shared bloodstream after all. But I grant him personhood without issue. What he is, though, is a tenant. A tenant on my property, you see. And as such he needs permission. Just like the person needing a blood transfusion needs permission. Or a person who needs an organ from a deceased donor. The permission is paramount.
Now I personally had granted permission gladly. But someone else might not. And that is their right under their own bodily autonomy. You get to choose whom you share a bloodstream with. Because it’s your blood.
Think of it this way. Imagine a child is already born, to a loving family. The child gets sick and needs an organ transplant. Should the mother be obligated BY LAW to donate the organs needed?
We can of course talk about love and mercy and generosity, and most mothers would probably want to donate whatever they could, possibly even at risk to their own survival. But that’s NOT what we’re talking about. We’re talking about whether the law should mandate it.
Should it?
Where you say ‘it is impossible to legislate moral soundness into citizens’ you got it 100% right. You see how mandating organ donation is worse than accepting that someone uncomfortable with donating will mean someone else will perish.
This is abortion exactly. Someone uncomfortable with donating use of their body as growing vessel means someone else will perish. But society becomes infinitely worse if we can commandeer people’s bodies to grow other people inside them. You agree ‘one cannot have unilateral control over another’s body’ - do we make an exception for the unborn only?
I believe we can’t.
Let those children be born who are wanted and loved, let people make decisions about their bodies, lives, and families, mourn those we end up never getting to meet, but let’s not erode women’s rights, because this will not lead to a better world.
Drat, I'm 3-4 days late in responding... ran out of time "yesterday" before Eighth Day trying to rush through one extra article published... anyways, time to gather what thought process is brewing right now!
On your first point: in the realm hypothetical scenario, sure: for the sake of protecting the weak, I'll levy a gargantuan commie-manifesto-style graduated tax on the 1% rich to make sure the "abandoned" children, disabled, and otherwise physically unable-to-care-for-themselves downtrodden get the quality care they need (and if the billionaires don't like it, I'll tell them to move to Venezuela 🙂).
Hmm... on the more "extreme" cases of suffering, first off I respectfully differ with the implied argument that it's so much "God's" fault here, though I completely understand where you're coming from in response to my previous reply. For one, the modern epidemic of health problems -- both physical and mental -- is linked to the Anglo-Jesuits' Rothschild/Rockefeller-funded (the Rothschild "court Jews" aren't the decision-makers contrary to antisemitic bogus canards, they merely take orders from their Jesuit/Anglo-Freemasonic/Vatican bosses on who/what to finance) "health"/"medical" system perpetually destroying everyone's lives to offer fake solutions and profit off of everyone's misery. Plenty of the serious health deformities can *probably* be massively reduced if the medical world stopped teaching its naively brainwashed students to operate destructive "treatments."
Which is why in a hypothetical utopia Britain needs to be invaded and the Anglo-Freemasonic/Jesuit cabal banned, along with their eugenicist/fascist Rockefeller subsidiaries. Anyways...
...should especially the most young children in those horrendous scenarios of medical issues be killed from the "earliest" start? I'm not sure even most of them would beg to die, and since especially unborn children cannot communicate the "thoughts" they probably have no conscious realization of, IMO the best route is to try to preserve their lives and alleviate their pain as much as possible. Like what I said above, I'll personally be more than happy to tax the ultra-rich and ensure this, even if RWNJs will subsequently call me a commie Marxist leftist (after all, for years I've already been eating avocado on toast anyways).
On the "permission"/"tenant" argument, my broad outlook is that the unborn child didn't ask to be born into the world -- their existence is the result of their parents' decision to [censored]. Tenants by contrast aren't created into existence by their landlords. I know this pill may be a bitter one to swallow, especially coming from me of the XY-chromosome gender who at least according to God via prophet Jeremiah cannot travail. Well, at least not anything beyond unified conspiracy theories on i.e. my Substack.
Now, perhaps you're right that my assessment of the "my body, my choice" argument is off in some ways -- I haven't looked extensively into the abortion debate for the past few years anyways, so maybe my characterizations of the "pro-choice" side isn't without a few accidental flaws. I haven't given this whole issue nearly the same level of deep mental pondering I did some 5-6 years ago.
That's a good question on whether mothers should by law be mandated to donate a necessary organ to save their child's life. In my view on whether the law should *mandate* such policy, a sober "no," because I view individual conscious liberty over one's own body as absolute, at least for anyone past a certain matured age.
I concur wholeheartedly that society should 100% respect women's rights and dignity -- for all my life as far as I can recall, I've just about always been generally careful to treat the sex opposite to mine with gracious respect (and never viewed this as contradicting my rather "hardline" view on abortion). What I don't quite view as morally sound is the notion that this expands into a "right" to unilaterally decide to end the life of their child who -- with the exception of only a minority of terrible instances -- enter into the world because their mother made *certain* decisions culminating in procreation. Perfectly ensured rights necessitate perfectly ensured individual responsibility.
Without digging into.. umm….. things, let’s shorten.
You gave this issue a lot more thought five or six years ago, when you were…. fourteen??? Pardon my reaction but you may find your current views may seem very…. young to you in a few years from now. Because, I mean, they are. A lot of life needs to happen for people to understand certain things.
Please keep in mind that you are literally here mentioning the MOTHER’S decision, which often isn’t hers. (Even if it were she should still have the right to terminate, but leave that aside). Women get forced into intercourse distressingly often. Women get stealthed distressingly often. Sometimes partners use all reasonable protection and the protection fails. Sometimes doctors install IUDs wrong. There are many situations where no decision was made.
I’m sure if I asked you would your view be the same if it were men who conceived and gave birth, you’d claim it would be.
But I promise you it would not.
Also illness and birth defects are a part of biology, let’s not bring the Rothschilds into that? 😅 They happen all throughout history and all over the animal kingdom.
Uh, I'd rather not publicly "confirm" my age, but yes I was a bit younger back then. Though overall my broad "format" of outlook on life has remained a bit constant throughout my life, even between back when I was an atheist and past half decade of Christian belief. Then and now -- as far as I recall, and ultimately God alone holds the full record to my life in case my memory gets flawed -- I've always had much of the same intrinsic burning desire for societal justice, decency, and a sense of who ought to be given special care/protection.
Hmm, I see: to address your point about women being "forced into intercourse distressingly often," are you referring to non-"outright" instances of r--- and just societal/relationship pressure? And is this more within or outside marriage? Obviously not that I condone any such behavior, and at the same time I think the neo-Marxist "liberalizing" culture of the past few decades has exacerbated this issue by causing young ladies to a) dress poorly and b) behave with an excessive libertine attitude. Far too often I see that impressionable "pretty" women in my generation continuously associate with the "popular" jock-type boys and end up slowly getting mistreated bit by bit, always refusing to distance themselves in the slow-boiling process. Meanwhile, the girls who have a more humble personality, stick to the modest same-gender social circles, and abstain from degrading behaviors, usually don't have these issues.
Again to restate because this can be a highly sensitive issue, I'm sure: I don't say this to condone any ill behavior from men -- even at my local volunteering place I've see "men" (I stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them as real men because of their behavior) in my generation acting in such boorish degeneracy especially in the foul/"pumped-up"-arrogant ways they seem to talk to women. While I don't know if your generation was vastly different in your days of teenage/early-20s youth, what I've observed among my own generational cohorts for the past 7 years is that women are more likely to face nasty treatment from men when they consciously and willingly choose to associate themselves with the wrong "popular" crowd to begin with. Sadly, the same "liberalizing" neo-Marxist modern culture -- negating basic Christian values -- teaches men to be Social-Darwinist and crude, exacerbating the problem.
My view would be different of men could conceive? Interesting -- I will semi-concede with you're possibly right on this.
Oh, er, "oops," I guess I jump across topics too easily... my IRL friends did give me semi-"eyerolling" reactions (okay, okay, maybe "full" eyerolling) whenever I went off-topic to bemoan my romantic pursuance shortcomings. God knows what'll happen when at a possible future dinner party with family friends I bring up the Rothschild-Hitler link... ["we bring you this recent breaking news: an entire group of party gatherers goes braindead, and one suspect is currently facing seventeen charges for opening his mouth"]
Mr. Shrimpy says thank you and he likes you back! The pictures click through to the Pangea Seed Foundation website where the print can be bought, if anyone is tempted.
I mean I don’t think taxing the rich would stop them existing. We’d have to tax insanely aggressively to, like, do away with the megarich entirely. But yeah we would need a government that doesn’t bow to money. That’s why I propose me! :)
Honestly if we had a country where you didn’t need tons of money for decent housing and decent healthcare, I think ‘being rich’ would generally become a way weaker motivator to do anything. Most people don’t want to own 17 mansions, 32 fancy cars, massive yachts, actual rockets, and their own newspapers/ social media companies. And those few that do… maybe we should stop them getting to positions of power.
'I have no idea why the weird politicians are making such a dog’s dinner out of it.'
A lot of these policies really make the most sense for the good of the whole population, especially when thinking about its long term viability.
The main problem in many of our societies is that our selfish leaders lack the political will to be responsible and do the right thing.
It's that they have been bought by the megacorporations and they put their personal material wealth ahead of the lives of our children. They think if they steal enough money from the system they will be protected from the catastrophes that are coming, but they won't be.
I'd vote for you. Broadly what you have described is ahem ... Communism. I would query your / Carlin's statement about chickens being good people, though: they're little arseholes
Hey, arseholes can be decent people too hahah :)
I mean..... yeah? Kinda communism? Communism is this weirdass thing because the USA has literally fanned it up to be scarier than the devil himself but it's...... not? I'm in a weird position because I literally grew up in a communist country, though by lucky happenstance it was the one that wasn't, like, super shitty to its people. So I do understand when people point to communism as it was applied in the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia etc that there was a bunch of not really super desirable stuff there. But that stuff wasn't part of communism as a doctrine, more the way it was being applied, as a tyrannical measure.
Yugoslavia had the one decent take on it and I swear it worked remarkably well, while it worked. It had drawbacks for sure, I would have notes about potential refinements and improvements. But it was NOT shit. It was in fact a way more egalitarian system than what we have today in most of the west.
Another place we can look to is the socialism of Scandinavian countries. It's similar vibes. Basically the essence of everything is making society more about people.
Americans in particular are scared of the C-word. I live in a fairly Socialist country, though it's getting less so by the day due to our stupid Govt
I think Canada is the same. We need to turn it around.
What is this thing with stupid governments? Do they go to some kind of stupid school? It seems they are all stupid and getting worse.
Oh they are sadly not at all stupid. They just know who they serve, and it isn’t us.
Love the policies Lidija!
I also like that you’ve never had any interest in holding political office. A sound approach and one I feel Groucho Marx would condone - allegedly he declared he “would never be a member of a club that would have him”, and I rather think anybody who wants to be a politician should be immediately barred for life from ever being one.
Couple of ideas from you:-
In Paris some years ago I came across an organisation that used public funds to acquire blocks of flats (doubtless you call them “condos” or something…). The building ownership was then transferred free to a company owned by the residents.
There were other businesses created (owned by the residents) that trained people from the block in retro-fitting energy efficiency measures, mobility aids for older people, maintaining the lift (elevator?) and providing general physical maintenance and security.
By doing this the residents became self sufficient in everything they needed to continue living in the block, with young folk getting to know older residents who were able to stay in their homes instead of going to residential care.
The model expanded, with collaborative between block companies, so there was a sharing of expertise and capabilities to plug gaps.
Once kick started, very little public funding was needed with residents effectively agreeing prices to pay for services and wages for “supply company” employees.
Second suggestion. Ban GM crops.
As a student of plant genetics before GM got going I decided I wanted nothing to do with it because I could see business would ignore the risks and push for applications maximising profit. At the expense of damage to the environment.
Also, ban Investment banking, make it illegal to have assets over $1 billion (irrespective where they’re hidden away) with jail terms for convictions.
Similarly, prosecute politicians for lying.
Require all media providers to have an ownership structure preventing one individual/corporation/family from controlling the output.
For encouraging people to get involved in food production (and sourcing), look at ways to enable creation of allotments for people to rent cheaply from local authorities, so they can grow their own.
Encourage people to share surplus with others in their communities by facilitating provision of “sharing sheds” for veg, fruit, foodstuffs from grocery stores about to go out of date, clothes, kids toys, books, tools etc. Many villages here have set their own up that work really well.
Regarding agriculture, ban neocotinoid pesticides and make it illegal for big agritech corporations to make seeds they sell farmers reliant on being sprayed with that corporation’s herbicides/weed killers. Monsanto is the devil incarnate in this field.
Lastly, look at ways of ensuring food supplies are sourced as locally to communities as possible to reduce food miles, increase regional variation and biodiversity, reintroduce seasonality and stop private equity owned food corporations (KKR Nabisco, Nestle etc) from commoditising basic food and increasing profits by reducing natural nutritional content in their products.
That’s probably more than enough and I’m sure I’ll be labelled a loonie leftie. 😏
Ok, you're in the party for sure.
Yes to all of these. So the co-ops we have here are pretty much exactly what you describe for the French apartment blocks and yes they work incredibly well and are basically self-sustainable. There would need to be way more of them though and it would be an incredible way to foster better community living.
Mtl does also have its fair share of community gardens but all of these things are too scarce, my local community garden has a waiting list of 7 years, which just shows how much raw interest there is in these things, and it's not being catered to.
There has been an extremely shocking story about over 400 people of different ages getting sick with a mysterious neurological disorder in New Brunswick and the one doctor that continued digging at it after the local government effectively tried to shut down the entire investigation and make everyone involved sound crazy has gotten blood samples analyzed out of state and found massive levels of glyphosate in everyone's samples. Of course that alone isn't enough to draw a solid conclusion but it should definitely be a nudge for further investigation. Who knows how many of us are getting poisoned by how many things we're just not tracking right now because it's not profitable.
The key to all this would be breaking Big Money's chokehold on the government, and that's a doozey for sure. There is an Arthur Clarke story that posits a future where there is one single President of the Earth, and the way they choose them is they first eliminate everyone who wants the job. Because let's be real, 99% of people who gravitate towards power don't do it for nice reasons. And the remaining 1% gets corrupted along the way.
Having broken-up ruling structures and preventing power from congealing at the very top would be so damned helpful.
I’m very flattered to be offered a place in your party, but I’m afraid I must decline on the grounds of maintaining my independence (I think this should be called the Marx Principle “… if only to confuse people….🤣🤪).
Re the allotments, maybe don’t try when cities - focus on smaller towns where there is a real sense of community and identity still. That differential will often be a driver for change.
In cities the population is so huge, the problem seems too big to deal with and from my very limited experience, there’s far less community spirit. By no means none, but it’s dependent on the people living in particular neighbourhoods I think.
I forgot one policy too - ban seabed mining.
A man of integrity! I respect it! We can form a coalition.
Omg ban everything on the seabed except sea cucumbers taking strolls!!!
It could definitely be started in smaller communities and then expanded. Like I said right now Montreal already has that model functioning and people LOVE it, there are wayyyyyy more applicants than there are ever available units and waiting lists are immense, so it's not a matter of people not being interested.
It's a matter of a government not really being interested in solving the problems of the people. Because real estate and rental properties bring moneyyyyy.
Yay 🙌🏻 I'll totally vote for you if we're citizens of the same place. Sounds like an easygoing and fun job but you'll be good at it.
I'd add plenty of reform into the education process itself. Less desk time, more forest time. Less curriculum, more child-led learning.
Some things I would put on a curriculum though: propaganda awareness, basic musicality (using decolonised notation and theory), compassionate communication processes will just be part of everyday school life, somatic listening processes.
That kinda thing.
Oh and re the above we're also gonna need more forest. Noncommercial land where nature gets to do her thing. I had tears in your bit about giving land back to natives. That's such a yes. AND giving land back to the land. Which if people need to know how that'll benefit humans then: so we don't all go ded. I know I know, not all going ded doesn't immediately benefit the economy, but sure look, as we say in Ireland.
Heck yes!! Join the party!! Tell me more about decolonized musicality? Like exploring the musical heritage of different peoples and not just pushing European classics, that kind of thing?
My friend is a music teacher in public elementary here and she pulls pieces from all over the world for her classes, it's really cool.
I'm definitely in for more forests. It all goes together. Indigenous peoples are famously incredibly gifted stewards of the land and should be in control of vast amounts of it, if we want it to keep breathing.
I'd be on for giving them stewardship of the whole lot, if they want that. Including the bits the rest of us are guests on. How about a big land ownership surrender party in this party?
https://www.patreon.com/posts/82704700?utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=android_share
This is a handwritten book I made about a framework I developed for basic applied musical harmony literacy. It's about having a working language for how our brains actually perceive harmony. It's way more elegant than what the 18th century European theory gives us. The fact we're still using their system even for contemporary music is bizarre to me. I'm told it's a tad tricky to understand in this rambly book form (I'll make clearer videos explaining it soon) but it can be super simple to teach to kids.
Oh wow!! I'll take a look and pass it on to my music teacher friend too!!
I love it. The Big Land Ownership Surrender Party it is. BLOSP. Adorable <3
Vote BLOSP! 😁💫
The Future is Bright with BLOSP!!!
Not President, Prime Minister. Advice (even if not requested) don't pay the guaranteed annual income to only those below a certain income threshold. That takes too much time and too many people to means test everyone. Pay it to everyone and collect it back from those making over $50,000 at income tax time just as they now do with Old Age Pension. And, $1000/month is not enough, at least $4000 month taxable. And, in addition to making the minimum wage the annual living wage, introduce a maximum wage. Lidija for PM!!
I especially agree on means testing being the biggest massive pile of bullshit ever
Hell yeah to all that! Wanna join the cabinet? ⭐️
I'm all in!
Yay! We might have to make a go of this hahah. How long before they shut us down I wonder.
...a few reservations from me TBH, though otherwise relatively solid. IMO any "government interventionism" should be limited to a Hamiltonian/American System approach emphasizing growth facilitation from a pro-industry, pro-modernization, pro-tariff/protectionist standpoint with limited "intrusive" overregulation -- minimum wage laws can be problematic at higher thresholds in that certain jobs for low-level/"temporary" arenas requiring no specially trained skills, i.e. janitors and fast food workers, don't need to be encouraged as long-term positions for people to maintain throughout their lifetimes via universally mandated minimum wages.
Here's an idea: levy an additional tax on restaurants trying to "actively" make customers tip. Also, institute a 100% ban from restaurants collectivizing tips into a "tip jar" robbing decent employees of integrity from "individual" tips given to them by customers.
Strongly endorse your food regulation proposals -- CAFO meats, especially red, are unsuitable for large quantities of human consumption. Please institute an additional tax on the pork industry (objectively speaking from a scientific/health standpoint beyond Levitical guidelines, swine's flesh (Isa. 66:17) was never fit to be eaten by humans at all, and shellfish/crustaceans also pose much higher health risks compared to fin-and-scales fish), and make sure to 100% ban chick culling -- if an industry is too lazy to raise male chickens and tries to en masse inefficiently and cruelly kill all of them into waste, shut them out of business for good!
As a devoted Christian myself, I STRONGLY 2,000% endorse your religious policies. Zero militant atheism and zero theocratic compulsion -- no "clerical" control over the state, and no state control over religion. I don't want Communist autocracy nor Papal Sunday government dictating what I can or cannot do on the first and seventh days of the week.
Extra tax on the rich? IMO just start off with making sure they *get* taxed at an equal rate as everyone else -- once the sleazy cheaters are thwarted and pay taxes at long last, that already should equate to a considerable improvement government-revenue-wise.
Now, I know this is where we'll probably differ, though if you institute a prohibition on abortion, I'll definitely support your presidential bid -- no genocide, no murder against anyone; as both a corollary and pretext, both genders must learn responsibility and self-control for a functional society. Men ought to be taught to view sex as the leading-up unto lifelong moral responsibility and as a sanctity not to trivialize into immature materialistic abuse, and women ought to be taught to view the fruit of their womb as objectively priceless human life as opposed to a disposable "component." Perhaps schools which fail a certain "grade" threshold for teaching such basic moral values unto teenagers should receive warnings before a government-mandated closing for moral responsibility failures.
Oh yes, speaking of which, I 100% endorse your public/private school proposal -- either all or nothing, and zero public funding for private education. Parochial schools need zero public funding; Catholic schools can operate from their amassed alms treasuries, not the taxpayer dime.
Haha, alright, a mixed bag here for sure!
Yes on tipping, chick culling, taxation of the rich, school and religion.
Major no on no minimum wage. We need janitors about a billion times more than we need CEOs. We need fast food chefs and baristas a billion times more than hedge fund managers. Every job that is worth doing is worth paying reasonably, and job snobism is a massive cause of misery and inequality.
We have been systematically pushing more and more and more jobs into the ‘ehh, doesn’t really deserve to be paid’ category based on some imaginary intellectualism where someone with a financial degree should somehow be worth more than someone who just digs or cooks or cleans. But brief open-minded examination of this will easily show that the jobs that actually benefit society and bring value to our lives are totally different to the jobs we try to promote as ‘worthy of decent salary’.
We got a great demonstration of this during COVID where the rich and white collar people got to cower at home and no one missed them that much, while blue collar had to keep going out and doing their thing so we don’t all die of starvation. So I would much rather talk about introducing a maximum top salary than removing minimum wage protections. And speaking of tipping, the restaurants should be bound by minimum wage laws too.
On abortion also we fundamentally disagree. First off, abortion is not a question of morality, it is a question of medical care. A vast number of women have legitimate medical reasons to not want to be pregnant. Second, it is a question of human integrity and personal freedom. If you don’t think the government should be ordering you to put things into your body, it would make sense it should also not be ordering you to not take things out. Having a child is much more than a moral decision, children are routinely ruined by terrible parenting- or lack of parenting- brought by the fact that their parents never wanted to parent. People having children too young dysbalance their whole lives. Raising children takes love and maturity, it takes intention.
Ask yourself why you think we should regard only unborn life as precious, and who does it benefit? Because we have precious few policies treating born life as precious. If we had more, the anti-abortion stance would have more basis. But we don’t. We execute people, send people to war, deny people aid, block people from accessing healthcare, gatekeep people from education, and push them into poverty, but we still want all the babies born? ….because life is precious? Sounds like a duplicitous argument angled at something else. Like, maybe, making sure enough children are born in sufficiently desperate positions to ensure a steady supply of willing workers for those no-minimum-wage jobs we talked about above. You like conspiracy theories, right? This is a great one 😊
Finally as a woman who has given birth and who knows multiple women who have had abortions and also given birth, I can promise you the majority of women have a lot of feelings and considerations about the tiny scrap of life growing inside them, and I haven’t known any who have taken the decision to terminate lightly. Implying otherwise is doing a disservice to the entire gender.
Glad there's some major points to concur on -- and come to realize, your point might hold greater soundness than mine about the "lower-level" jobs. Perhaps I was one to always look through the lens of societally/collectively judged "prestige" too much...
Ah yes, white-collar privilege of thriving on basementmongering... that is indeed all too factual. I must say, you definitely are naturally skilled at appealing to my instinctive "grievances" as to giving me a real about-face on long-held positions.
Oh boy, I guess I should've known what territory I was headed into by engaging on the abortion issue... alright, first off, there might be a "cultural" background disparity here. It sounds like on your end the women with pro-abortion leanings made morally painful decisions rather than out of callous disregard for unborn lives; in my growing up and witnessings, I've indeed seen over and over women -- starting at my own house -- who throw aside any conscious pretense of objective feminine mercy and regard the weak/feeble as "useless" and "disposable."
My mother, who both was constantly negligent/coldhearted in a complete lack of sympathy to me for the "better" part of my half a decade of most immense societally/academically induced mental pain, is not only "pro-abortion" but made no bones about expressing the view that it is OK to selectively and eugenically abort an unborn child with Down syndrome. In my formed opinions of early high school, I viewed those ideological patterns of my mother and her treatment of me in my day-to-day life as one consistent Social Darwinist mentality influenced by her CCP cultural indoctrination from her growing-up, so that definitely has greatly shaped my perception of the abortion issue. Plus, online (and probably in person sooner or later) I've a number of times seen the female side of the cultural degradation among my generation openly boast of their "right" to abortion in the EXACT same mentality that Zionists believe they possess a "right" to conquer Palestine.
Heh, I appreciate you bringing up the conspiratorial aspect, Lidija, and here's my formed assessment: the real conspiracy here is that the NWO has succeeded in employing a fifth column to drive a wedge here between mother and child, using abortion as the dividing partition to make the Western "liberalized" population perceive that they must either be on a woman's "absolute right" to dictate "her body" or are on the side of the child's right to life and are "anti-women." Now, I strongly beseech everyone regardless of gender to step back for a moment and consider with sound judgment: what good reason is there to take the view that one cannot simultaneously be both pro-mother and pro-child? Are not the wives in society traditionally the pillars of emotional compassion showing unto their husbands a moral example of easing the "aggression" and putting mercy above vengeance? If the hearts of women therefore are successfully turned away from an intrinsic love for their children, could not the New World Order have better succeeded in its plot to destroy the family unit and manipulate entire "collectively" carved out groupings -- here an entire gender no less -- into emotionally baited mental subjugation?
I definitely agree that all lives should inherently be given a chance to thrive, and concur that the modern system is grotesque on this matter. Since presumably (do correct me if I've been objectively wrong on anything) this posting from your original thoughts into these queries/responses are of entire idealistic/hypothetical note on how to improve society, ultimately I hope there is room for a full "pro-life" policy framework respecting both unborn children's protection into life and an ensured pillar of support for their basic growing up. How about fixing your "tax the rich" into this? If not enough newborn infants can receive the ensured support they need at any given moment, levy an extra percentage onto the top 1% riches' tax rates. Eventually increase the tax rates on the middle class unless the population will grow a moral spine and via charity of their own accord help the poor children in need if they don't like the higher tax rates. <-- How's this sound? My stridently shaped views on abortion is where I'll be happy to go utterly Bismarckian into a full commie "tax the rich" mentality, I suppose. XD
Anyways, I don't mean to personally affront you on the abortion issue -- ultimately, I think on any of these matters it's better to "judge" people individually and not view an entire group as "collectively" of infallible incorruptibility to any extent, just as on the Zion(az)ism issue it is absurd for the ADL chief to insist "Jews cannot be pro-genocide." Believe me, in my generation I've seen and talked to ultra-"liberal" women treating abortion as almost some intrinsically "God-given" right they unconditionally deserve and who rival the cultic delusions of Orange Bolshevist mangomongers. I only off the top of my head right now recall ONE woman in my generation who treated the abortion through a nuanced lens (and she is an incredibly kind soul who early on helped bring me to awareness the Zionazi war crime record), there is probably only other female IRL contemporary in my generation I know well who I'd assume (from what I recall off the top of my head) is pro-life, since she's a graciously loving and tenderhearted Catholic. Everyone else... either are brainwashed and barely address the issue, or in the case of any "popular" social grouping would be "entirely" pro-abortion, from what I've observed.
Hey, always glad to nudge a fellow human a little further to the left!
Yeah ok, so abortion. First off, I am not at all affronted, and as with any other topic, I always welcome reasoned discussion.
There is definitely a portion of our views that will be influenced by the cultures/ backgrounds we grew up in and the people we have come across with. But I am always very weary of determining my general stance based on ‘some people I have met have done this, so’. We really want to have sound reasoning here.
The idea of eugenics through abortion is one that has cropped up in different cultures, and is also a more complex issue than it may seem at first. For sure when people go and have abortions because they’re trying for a specific gender, I do find that odious. If they are not sure whether they want to keep a child that will potentially be severely ill or disabled, things get murky. I personally would not want to give up on my child just because they might have Down’s syndrome. But the slope is slippery. You have plenty of more severe issues. What if a child will be seriously ill? In pain? With a seriously reduced lifespan? Even if you are not thinking of the child itself, there are parents who might be in a position to raise a healthy child, but not a chronically ill or disabled one. Especially in our world where access to healthcare is not a given.
My kid is autistic, which for me personally is no issue at all, we are a neurodivergent family and I don’t even think of autism as a disorder or a disability (though it can definitely have those aspects). But raising him is HARD. And he is a pretty easygoing kid, all things considered. He’s kind, and funny, and a lovely person. The fact is, though, that since we have no real systems of support, and a serious lack of acceptance of differences in society, raising a kid with even such a slight ‘issue’ as neurodivergence is already a huge challenge. We have been hovering at the verge of switching to homeschooling for years now because school basically burns him out. He has slower information processing which means he is always behind. In spite of the best efforts from teachers, there are limited things the public school system can provide, because we do not sufficiently invest in it, nor do we sufficiently value the wellbeing of those of us who fall outside the norm. So my life is constant talks with teachers, special educators, doctors, social workers, etc etc etc. His life is constant stress, feeling like he’s falling behind, thinking he is stupid because he can’t do things the same way other kids do them, and worrying how he will handle the next day at school. And my kid is basically totally fine, as far as I am concerned. He’s a tiny bit different. But that tiny difference already makes life super complicated.
Now imagine I had a child with a serious issue. Maybe a child who will never be independent. A child who will require extensive medical support. And knowing there is no help. Now imagine someone told me this in advance and gave me a choice - do you want that life, or not. I really cannot blame the people who don’t want it.
Now, on the side of ‘women think they have the right to abortion like Zionists think they have the right to Palestine’, things are a little different because Palestine does not originally belong to the Zionists, while last I checked, my body technically does belong to me. I’m sure you have many times heard the standard arguments so I won’t harp on, but if we consider the fact of bodily autonomy as something we all agree on - and I hope we agree on it - I really don’t see how an abortion ban can be allowed to stand, from that angle? Do we or do we not decide what happens to our bodies? I don’t know if you have looked into the actual process of pregnancy but let me tell you, there’s quite a bit of body horror happening there, I was seriously freaked out more than once, and I wanted mine. I can’t imagine going through it and NOT wanting it. Not to mention the baby and the mother are connected in every sense and if the mother is miserable and hates the pregnancy, the baby is getting blasted by negativity literally from before their first breath.
Anyway (how do these comments keep getting longer and longer? hahah) pregnancy is a long and medically significant process. It lasts the better part of a year, and can wreck your body in a million different ways, some of which are irreversible. It can (and often does) kill you. On what grounds do we say we are allowed to force someone to go through that?
Oh, ‘kindness to the child’, i.e. we are considering the new life over the existing one. But…… we never do that in any other situation? For example, if you died right now, and your organs could be used to save seven other people, but you didn’t sign up to be an organ donor - those seven people will die. There is NOTHING to protect their lives from your personal selfishness. Because even in death, your body is your body. So we are literally saying here that an unborn child should, for some reason, have rights that living people do not have - the right to use another’s body for their survival, with or without consent. We don’t do that. You might be a match for people who need blood transfusions, or kidney transplants, or they will die. But if you don’t go and volunteer your body parts, tough for them. Nobody will come to commandeer your blood. And blood is the easiest thing, you don’t even have to carry them inside you, you have practically no risk…. yet there is no drive to make blood donation mandatory. Why? It’s your blood. You can CHOOSE to give it away. But nobody can make you.
So yeah, I think there is thin logic available to support the anti-abortion argument. It doesn’t track across other decisions we make in similar situations. It goes against the concept of bodily autonomy, which most of us cherish in most other contexts. I don’t think it can, in good conscience, be forbidden. That said, any activity outside of an actual legal ban that tries to ‘promote bond between mother and child’ is absolutely welcome as far as I’m concerned, and there we can start with subsidized childcare and some goddamned maternity leave.
I hang out with many mothers, and believe me there is no wedge between mothers and their children. But you cannot force a woman to be a mother if she does not wish to be. In fact it would be highly amusing to experience a world where men too can get pregnant, and watch how quickly and forcefully abortion clinics and contraception options pop up on every street corner like mushrooms after rain.
I do appreciate your willingness to even flirt with communism for the sake of the unborn :) But the issue here really isn’t who takes care of the child once it is born. Like yeah, that can be some part of it. But the essence is that pregnancy, labor, and childbirth are life-altering, serious, often painful and difficult experiences with far-reaching consequences, and as such cannot be forced onto living, breathing, thinking beings.
As to who supports abortion and for what political reasons, I think there is often a pressure and counterpressure phenomenon happening, where one side pushes hard so the other side pushes even harder. ‘You can’t have it!!’ ‘Oh yeah?? Watch me have it every day and twice on Sunday!!!’ But in reality women do not do weekly ‘Abortion and Mimosas’ brunch outings. Many women who choose to abort already have children - children they love and care for. They just aren’t ready to take on more responsibility and take away more time, energy and resources away from the kids they already have. Family planning is a real thing. Some people sounding callous about abortion is way less crucial to the debate than the essence of what the right to abortion means - the right to live the life you want. Everyone should have that.
Anyway, I shall be awaiting your next novella on this subject :)
*wary, not weary, lol
Wow, I must admit that's a *highly* nuanced and in-depth look at the issue -- and yes, since I have an intrinsic "root" of feeling strongly about protecting the weak/vulnerable in society (because in years past I often had no one standing up for or by me... instead everyone all across the spectrum would denigrate/castigate me...), I'd say my views on basic protection of human life and well-being are such a priority that I'll accept commie-level sizes of government if it means justice and decency can be ensured.
Okay, on the "eugenic slope" you raise a good point about long-term well-being for the child's concern when it comes to the prospect of a miserable/painful life to potentially endure. I think there's a "flipside" slope here... if a society promotes the view that it's better to abort a child because it has a 98-99% chance of enduring a painful life, should 100 babies be killed so 99 don't endure a life of pain and risk that 1 child -- who could've by that miracle beat the deformity's effects -- being "sacrificed" in vain? And as unfortunately brutal as it ultimately is, for a person to attain a "fulfilled" life of moral lessons and righteousness necessitates an endurance through pain of some form anyways sooner or later... why not give life as many chances as long as possible, since no individual person is a mere replaceable statistic? Every human being has a unique DNA marker and a unique fingerprint and is given their own soul out of which stems an individual conscious mind -- what is reflected on the moral standing of a society which begins to view its most vulnerable members as less deserving of the most sought-out protection and care?
Okay, I concede you more or less have a fair point about my semi-hasty equivocation on the abortion and Zionism issues. Very broadly, what came to mind is the impression of a shared mentality of what comes off to the "outsider" as as an arbitrarily justified pretext out of seemingly nowhere demanding "rights" for one group in society to infringe upon another. As to the tidbit about the woman's body, while it is obviously of a truth that the unborn child is in its mother's body, to categorize/insinuate it as a "component" of the mother's body runs contrary to, well, for one: that the fetus is addressed far more often as "how's the baby?" as opposed to "how's the stomach?" (as you possibly notice, I'm trying to frame my points in a milder fashion to avoid any potential affrontation, as I know this gets into sensitive topical subsets...)
Okay, as to your analogy about organ donation... I think that as a necessary pillar to ensure full individual freedom for everyone, individual personal liberty over one's own body must be respected, and that this freedom neither cannot be "broadened" to argue one has unilateral control over another's body, nor that this is to be infringed upon i.e. on the issue of vaccine mandates. While as a corollary this could mean that one selfish dying person refuses to donate their organs that could've saved another seven lives, the long-term consequential consequences are infinitely worse if society can by majority/"common" will force a person to give up their organs/blood to save another person's life. My "realist conservative" view is this: if a society's comprisal lacks enough good-faith individuals to help one another out of personal love/charity, then it is impossible to legislate moral soundness into its citizens.
Now, I will 100% concede this: a very large bulk of the so-called "pro-life movement" are moral frauds. It of course was historically "set up"/co-opted by the Jesuit/ultramontane coadjutors and their "front" stooges, but the conspiracy analysis is a bit of a different matter...
Ah, sorry to hear your kid grapples with those shortcomings. Not sure if this will to any extent help per so "significantly," but maybe as a "starter" see if a boost of antioxidant nutrition might help with focus/concentration and energy just in case you aren't already "prescribing" it? Not sure if I mentioned this to you before, Lidija, but there is an incredible powerhouse of antioxidants in citrus zest, and if you ever grate it to "brew" through a strainer into tea, it is a highly vibrant "energy drink" -- lemon is bright/vibrant, lime is strong/bitter, orange is sweet-ish, Meyer lemon is "fruity," grapefruit is peppery (no joke!), and blood orange is the real wild card. Also, organic frozen berries are of spectacular flavor: once you thaw it out, strain what you can into juice to drink, and use the remainder pulpy/seeds/skin to bake into muffins. Highly amazing -- I can send you the pictures via DM in a bit...
Heheh, yeah, I've likewise noticed these replies pick up in length -- somehow whenever I'm typing out long article drafts, I don't have nearly the consistent energy/drive as when I type these comment section replies. :) XD
Anyways... hmm... as someone myself who's lived a life largely of mental suffering as far back as I can recall because my parents have been terrible to me for the "better" part of my life, to the point that they even castigated me in my suicidal lows, I would speak as a living testimony that in spite of how many years of mental pain life has with coldhearted affliction poured out on me, I would rather be alive than to have been aborted. The world meant it for evil, but God clearly ordained far greater goodnesses (reminds me of Gen. 50:20) to be bestowed that light would be seen after the long, dark tunnel; and I for all these years have many times been among the "least" in "ranking" stature of perception among my IRL contemporaries, yet as among the foolish, base, and despised in my life, both at school and home, I've been called to confound the "wise" (I Cor. 1:27-29), and despite having gone astray as a lost sheep, by the stripes of the Savior and Shepherd -- who became a Lamb for the lost fold who I was among -- I am healed by faith unto a hope of everlasting redemption in rejoicing. (I Pet. 2:24-25) And if a once-hopeless, despised social outcast of society wallowing in lonely suicidal depression as myself can be exalted to a glorious hope beyond words, should not every other soul likewise be given the equal chance in life to perhaps ultimately choose rightly?
Alllllrighty. I think we’re making some gentle headway.
First off, I absolutely support any form of protecting the weak. But not at the cost of harming someone else. It is my firm belief that anyone who truly cared about the fates of children, born and unborn, would without reserve be a strong proponent of free healthcare, maternity leave, workers’ rights, ecological solutions, pollution reduction, mental health support, work life balance, redistribution of wealth, greener, more walkable, more affordable cities, more community connection, more support for disabled people, chronically ill people, homeless people, people struggling with addiction, more work flexibility, better public education, etc etc etc. The main reason people shirk away from having kids today is because their lives are hard enough without them. People, when thriving, naturally tend to want to reproduce. (Those who don’t are obviously still welcome to exist).
Giving life chances is obviously a lovely notion when you don’t think too hard about what it means. Obviously masses of people born with disabilities or in unfortunate circumstances are still happy and grateful to be alive. I personally am not a proponent of eugenics in any way. But I do absolutely understand a woman who doesn’t want to give birth to a child who would suffer infernally. You give yourself as an example, and I by no means mean to diminish your suffering, but imagine if your skin were sloughing off daily? If your entire body was a perpetual open wound and your fingers kept fusing together and your parents had to keep washing and disinfecting the wound that is your entire skin and it hurt infernally and you begged them not to do it because you cannot stand the pain any longer but they knew they had to because if they didn’t you would risk infection and everything would be even worse, and that was just your life forever?
The issue with God’s creation is that sometimes it really doesn’t work out so well.
But these are extreme cases, I am talking about much more common ones. The fact is, god or no god, that nothing really gives a human being a ‘right to exist’. Such right is nowhere to be found. There you could be, strolling along, existing, and suddenly a bus hits you out of nowhere and where is your right now? Or you could fall ill and then your insurance provider explains how it’s more profitable for them to let you die. Or you could be born with a massive hole in your heart and die a few hours later. No one’s existence is in any way guaranteed. And especially is it not guaranteed by subjugating another person.
You seem to have misinterpreted my ‘it’s my body’ argument. The baby is not a part of my body. Well, he is and he isn’t, there’s a bit of a gray area there, we shared bloodstream after all. But I grant him personhood without issue. What he is, though, is a tenant. A tenant on my property, you see. And as such he needs permission. Just like the person needing a blood transfusion needs permission. Or a person who needs an organ from a deceased donor. The permission is paramount.
Now I personally had granted permission gladly. But someone else might not. And that is their right under their own bodily autonomy. You get to choose whom you share a bloodstream with. Because it’s your blood.
Think of it this way. Imagine a child is already born, to a loving family. The child gets sick and needs an organ transplant. Should the mother be obligated BY LAW to donate the organs needed?
We can of course talk about love and mercy and generosity, and most mothers would probably want to donate whatever they could, possibly even at risk to their own survival. But that’s NOT what we’re talking about. We’re talking about whether the law should mandate it.
Should it?
Where you say ‘it is impossible to legislate moral soundness into citizens’ you got it 100% right. You see how mandating organ donation is worse than accepting that someone uncomfortable with donating will mean someone else will perish.
This is abortion exactly. Someone uncomfortable with donating use of their body as growing vessel means someone else will perish. But society becomes infinitely worse if we can commandeer people’s bodies to grow other people inside them. You agree ‘one cannot have unilateral control over another’s body’ - do we make an exception for the unborn only?
I believe we can’t.
Let those children be born who are wanted and loved, let people make decisions about their bodies, lives, and families, mourn those we end up never getting to meet, but let’s not erode women’s rights, because this will not lead to a better world.
Drat, I'm 3-4 days late in responding... ran out of time "yesterday" before Eighth Day trying to rush through one extra article published... anyways, time to gather what thought process is brewing right now!
On your first point: in the realm hypothetical scenario, sure: for the sake of protecting the weak, I'll levy a gargantuan commie-manifesto-style graduated tax on the 1% rich to make sure the "abandoned" children, disabled, and otherwise physically unable-to-care-for-themselves downtrodden get the quality care they need (and if the billionaires don't like it, I'll tell them to move to Venezuela 🙂).
Hmm... on the more "extreme" cases of suffering, first off I respectfully differ with the implied argument that it's so much "God's" fault here, though I completely understand where you're coming from in response to my previous reply. For one, the modern epidemic of health problems -- both physical and mental -- is linked to the Anglo-Jesuits' Rothschild/Rockefeller-funded (the Rothschild "court Jews" aren't the decision-makers contrary to antisemitic bogus canards, they merely take orders from their Jesuit/Anglo-Freemasonic/Vatican bosses on who/what to finance) "health"/"medical" system perpetually destroying everyone's lives to offer fake solutions and profit off of everyone's misery. Plenty of the serious health deformities can *probably* be massively reduced if the medical world stopped teaching its naively brainwashed students to operate destructive "treatments."
Which is why in a hypothetical utopia Britain needs to be invaded and the Anglo-Freemasonic/Jesuit cabal banned, along with their eugenicist/fascist Rockefeller subsidiaries. Anyways...
...should especially the most young children in those horrendous scenarios of medical issues be killed from the "earliest" start? I'm not sure even most of them would beg to die, and since especially unborn children cannot communicate the "thoughts" they probably have no conscious realization of, IMO the best route is to try to preserve their lives and alleviate their pain as much as possible. Like what I said above, I'll personally be more than happy to tax the ultra-rich and ensure this, even if RWNJs will subsequently call me a commie Marxist leftist (after all, for years I've already been eating avocado on toast anyways).
On the "permission"/"tenant" argument, my broad outlook is that the unborn child didn't ask to be born into the world -- their existence is the result of their parents' decision to [censored]. Tenants by contrast aren't created into existence by their landlords. I know this pill may be a bitter one to swallow, especially coming from me of the XY-chromosome gender who at least according to God via prophet Jeremiah cannot travail. Well, at least not anything beyond unified conspiracy theories on i.e. my Substack.
Now, perhaps you're right that my assessment of the "my body, my choice" argument is off in some ways -- I haven't looked extensively into the abortion debate for the past few years anyways, so maybe my characterizations of the "pro-choice" side isn't without a few accidental flaws. I haven't given this whole issue nearly the same level of deep mental pondering I did some 5-6 years ago.
That's a good question on whether mothers should by law be mandated to donate a necessary organ to save their child's life. In my view on whether the law should *mandate* such policy, a sober "no," because I view individual conscious liberty over one's own body as absolute, at least for anyone past a certain matured age.
I concur wholeheartedly that society should 100% respect women's rights and dignity -- for all my life as far as I can recall, I've just about always been generally careful to treat the sex opposite to mine with gracious respect (and never viewed this as contradicting my rather "hardline" view on abortion). What I don't quite view as morally sound is the notion that this expands into a "right" to unilaterally decide to end the life of their child who -- with the exception of only a minority of terrible instances -- enter into the world because their mother made *certain* decisions culminating in procreation. Perfectly ensured rights necessitate perfectly ensured individual responsibility.
Alrighty. That’s a whole lot.
Without digging into.. umm….. things, let’s shorten.
You gave this issue a lot more thought five or six years ago, when you were…. fourteen??? Pardon my reaction but you may find your current views may seem very…. young to you in a few years from now. Because, I mean, they are. A lot of life needs to happen for people to understand certain things.
Please keep in mind that you are literally here mentioning the MOTHER’S decision, which often isn’t hers. (Even if it were she should still have the right to terminate, but leave that aside). Women get forced into intercourse distressingly often. Women get stealthed distressingly often. Sometimes partners use all reasonable protection and the protection fails. Sometimes doctors install IUDs wrong. There are many situations where no decision was made.
I’m sure if I asked you would your view be the same if it were men who conceived and gave birth, you’d claim it would be.
But I promise you it would not.
Also illness and birth defects are a part of biology, let’s not bring the Rothschilds into that? 😅 They happen all throughout history and all over the animal kingdom.
Uh, I'd rather not publicly "confirm" my age, but yes I was a bit younger back then. Though overall my broad "format" of outlook on life has remained a bit constant throughout my life, even between back when I was an atheist and past half decade of Christian belief. Then and now -- as far as I recall, and ultimately God alone holds the full record to my life in case my memory gets flawed -- I've always had much of the same intrinsic burning desire for societal justice, decency, and a sense of who ought to be given special care/protection.
Hmm, I see: to address your point about women being "forced into intercourse distressingly often," are you referring to non-"outright" instances of r--- and just societal/relationship pressure? And is this more within or outside marriage? Obviously not that I condone any such behavior, and at the same time I think the neo-Marxist "liberalizing" culture of the past few decades has exacerbated this issue by causing young ladies to a) dress poorly and b) behave with an excessive libertine attitude. Far too often I see that impressionable "pretty" women in my generation continuously associate with the "popular" jock-type boys and end up slowly getting mistreated bit by bit, always refusing to distance themselves in the slow-boiling process. Meanwhile, the girls who have a more humble personality, stick to the modest same-gender social circles, and abstain from degrading behaviors, usually don't have these issues.
Again to restate because this can be a highly sensitive issue, I'm sure: I don't say this to condone any ill behavior from men -- even at my local volunteering place I've see "men" (I stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them as real men because of their behavior) in my generation acting in such boorish degeneracy especially in the foul/"pumped-up"-arrogant ways they seem to talk to women. While I don't know if your generation was vastly different in your days of teenage/early-20s youth, what I've observed among my own generational cohorts for the past 7 years is that women are more likely to face nasty treatment from men when they consciously and willingly choose to associate themselves with the wrong "popular" crowd to begin with. Sadly, the same "liberalizing" neo-Marxist modern culture -- negating basic Christian values -- teaches men to be Social-Darwinist and crude, exacerbating the problem.
My view would be different of men could conceive? Interesting -- I will semi-concede with you're possibly right on this.
Oh, er, "oops," I guess I jump across topics too easily... my IRL friends did give me semi-"eyerolling" reactions (okay, okay, maybe "full" eyerolling) whenever I went off-topic to bemoan my romantic pursuance shortcomings. God knows what'll happen when at a possible future dinner party with family friends I bring up the Rothschild-Hitler link... ["we bring you this recent breaking news: an entire group of party gatherers goes braindead, and one suspect is currently facing seventeen charges for opening his mouth"]
Funny I’m posting one very similar but not nearly as long winded. I cater to my constituents who have the attention span of a gnat.
Dare to be different.
Hahaha yeah I am never succinct 😅 Hope your constituents will respond warmly!
I’ll know based on how many votes I siphon off the other two. 😎
Omg that’s exciting!! Report back to us with your success! Where are you running? What level?
You have my support and my vote.
No one said it would be easy.... 😉
Lol what’s a little accidental car explosion against the possibility of building a more just world, eh? 😅
I should run. Should I run? 😅
YES!!!
I’d have a fatal ‘accident’ so fast 😅
i probably woulda voted for ya even before this ! 😝
Join the party! What should we call ourselves? The International Decent Party? IDP? Too similar to IDF?
uhhhhmmm…what about the PWC ?
the People Who Care party…🤣
It’s good!!! Sounds like a sturdy type of plastic hahah
well, its slightly more palatable for the general public than PWGAS
People Who Give A Shit
but as president elect i’ll let you make tje call ! 🤣
We can keep workshopping it 😅
Mr. Shrimpy says thank you and he likes you back! The pictures click through to the Pangea Seed Foundation website where the print can be bought, if anyone is tempted.
I mean I don’t think taxing the rich would stop them existing. We’d have to tax insanely aggressively to, like, do away with the megarich entirely. But yeah we would need a government that doesn’t bow to money. That’s why I propose me! :)
…..but what about when you get some money? You might get used to it.
Ehh what am I gonna do with money? Rich people seem to be spending it on literally the dumbest shit 😅
True that.
Honestly if we had a country where you didn’t need tons of money for decent housing and decent healthcare, I think ‘being rich’ would generally become a way weaker motivator to do anything. Most people don’t want to own 17 mansions, 32 fancy cars, massive yachts, actual rockets, and their own newspapers/ social media companies. And those few that do… maybe we should stop them getting to positions of power.