40 replies to this topic

[onbekende]

the quoting is "fun", to say the least

Gonna have start breaking this up a little bit. Really nice to be able to respond to something in line with it, but that post editing is taking a while.

Then we go into "what is harm", cause last I checked, faith/believing itself does you no harm >_> Complete personal liberty can only be found by giving everyone an island, and you don't need a rockerscientist to explain why this would breakdown rather fast. Interactions will happen, and aslong as governmental rules are inline with societal rules, all goes well.

I'm guessing you're talking about gay marriage with this one (I'm a little slow sometimes, especially after I've eaten lunch). What two consenting adults do in their own home is no business of mine.

Now, if you're talking about the current transgender bathroom issue, I do have some issues with that, just because of the potential I see for harm to young children. Actually, writing this post reminds me that I needed to do some research, but this essentially explains the fear that I have. In North Carolina, I was told that the leader of one of the pro-sides (ie, for allowing people to use the bathroom that they identify with, not that is on their birth certificate) is a registered sex offender.

Now I heard that, realized I needed to research it, then forgot about it when I had the chance to, and now can't remember which group it was or who specifically was being referred to in the conversation. But that is my fear, that this would open up my own children to potential issues.

 

.
no need to drag a specific into it, wasn't even thinking of gay marriage Was just going on about your idea that all is fine unless "harm" is caused from one unto another. Hence I go for a "societal freedom" instead of a "personal freedom", as the second is an utopia.

 

For the specific of the transgender thing, it's a overreaction to something already present and known. You won't keep "people with bad idea's" from going into bathrooms with a law nor would you have no law to prosecute them with if you didn't approve of this one. But a clarrification is always good and usefull to have. My issue with it is the mediatization and demonization that came from it. I did enjoy the remarks from the economical side of this as it now means that everyone should have atleast 2 bathrooms >_>

 

Also I thought it was gender on their ID, cause if it is gender on their birthcertificate then indeed you run into problems from both sides. I doubt many transgender people (regardless of the level of "change" they have undergone at that moment) feel joy in walking into the bathroom not congruent with their personal/psychological identity.
.

 

Such people excist yes, more then likely cause the verification call is just 1 question. Humans are extremely well versed in manipulating a system to their benefit . Doesn't mean it is a common occurance, still many would find such behaviour in itself morally wrong and would refrain from doing it. Or so I wish to hope

I'm afraid it's more common that you think. You're coming at society from a higher moral ground, I'm coming at it from the stance of "what moral ground?" The reality is, thankfully, somewhere in the middle (the fact that you appear to have a high moral ground in your thinking and posting and I would like to think I do, proves my point is not 100% accurate).

 

.
It all depends on the level of scrutiny you wish to uphold (to catch people working the system), coupled with the level of vilification (of jobless people in general). The first one is great but can lead to the second one that would only make the entire act more deplorable by the working side and seen as an "evil" needing to be dealt wit in general. You basically run the risk of getting people to chose side on a strictly black/white narrative, something that can't be done on a single case, let alone on every jobless person currently walking this earth.

 

Let the first (scrutiny) be done by an organization (preferable gov, otherwise perhaps justice itself?), let the pressure on the jobless to find work be done both by that scrutinizing organization and a society who is kept levelheaded and doesn't demonize anyone not currently doing a job.
.

 

Not many actually keep a line to their local representation, or at best just to the fellow they voted for. Even less offcourse when you move up the food chain, hence so many feel disenfrenchized (word? ) and meaningless when it comes to the "larger" policial fields. Needing a bigger voice sadly never leads to the more rational part getting that bigger voice. As for your example, a state wide procedure/requirement would need to be issued. It not being done means at least a part of your state does not feel a need to do so, in any way it could be handled.

My example is actually the state requirement. I think it got put in, and nobody played devils advocate for what it really meant and how loose that definition really was. I've emailed and called my state representative to try and get it fixed, but it didn't happen this legislative period. Hopefully next year, myself and others can make it more apparent and actually get something done about it.

As for the rest of it, in some cases yes and no. A lot of people don't have regular communication with their elected representative (whether they voted for the person or not). In other cases (and this is me right now), people feel like they're ignored. I've contacted my federal representatives about a couple of specific bills, and essentially got canned responses to everything saying why he won't support the bills I'm interested in (like he's a co-sponsor on some other bill). When I contact a second time, I get a second canned response, reiterating why he won't support the bill I like.

 

.

People's opinion but also expectations are running wild in terms of political responce. I blame our egocentric society in which a need to compromise or "fnd a middle ground" is being forgotten. I can only imagine how bad this is in the USA with your 2-party system of "with me or against me" mentality.