By the way, thank you for going to such great lengths to explain your perspective.
You’ll find it difficult to understand what I stand for if you’re looking for a box where you could fit me.
I’ve never seen one that fits.
It seems to me that you are at ease with holding views that are binary and polarized.
If you do not feel constrained by this, then all is well for you. But then, trying to constrain others will of course further distort issues in my opinion.
All I can say from my perspective is that all the argumentation you used, in order to get to that conclusion above, appears as a wall of excuses to excuse controlling others.
In my opinion, controlling others is not going to help fix all those societal issues you wish would be resolved by implementing those controls.
I wish others to be as free as possible.
Maybe you wish the same thing? But then we have different ideas on how free one can be?
OK, firstly, I did not state I necessarily agreed with that perspective. I have some experience that aligns with it. But the main reason to know it is to test its truth in the real world. I meet a thirty year old girl and I have more idea of her potential history. Women won’t generally volunteer that they slept around a lot in their twenties. But it might be important to know. I.e. if she tries to “guilt” me/ attempts to violate free will, by talking about previous “narcissistic” boyfriend while not mentioning her part in this.
The main reason I bring it up though is not to argue for its validity. But as an example of the kind of reasons people might have political differences is not because they are “brainwashed”. I believe people have the right to hold this opinion. Whereas you don’t.
You have offered no particular reason as to why the things I summarised are not true but I have offered evidence (such as birth rate decline, that is pretty serious!). Female dating strategies of always preferring the top guy and having crazy high standards is backed up with dating app data.
Also, you have stated this about not controlling others and such. But you have made no comment, and even seem to agree with, the idea of taxation. Which is a pretty serious example of controlling others.
There is a huge transfer of wealth in society from men to women via taxation. Men pay twice as much in taxes as they take out. Women take out twice as much as they put in. If taxation was eliminated and the welfare state ceased to exist, and if say, alimony and child support were eliminated. Then women would have to stay married. They simply would not have enough money to leave. A lot of female jobs are due to government enforced DEI programs. Employers simply would not hire women a lot of times unless they were forced/ controlled to. Ubisoft is a great example as to why this is.
So the idea that you don’t wish to control others self destructs at this point. You want the system to continue as it is with womens behaviour subsidised at the barrel of a gun. And for you to claim that this is not controlling.
I am very satisfied with classifying your outlook and behaviours as liberalism, and adding additional motivations that generally correlate with this outlook, you can always state or prove otherwise. I would not put it past you to have voted left and not volunteered that information, since having voted for increased taxation would weaken your position. There is no incentive on your behalf to confess to left wing beliefs.
In a lot of areas there are only two different poles of understanding. Rather like there are only two polls reference service to others and service to self.
I paid attention recently to what a philosopher said about the potential fall out from this (since I am terrible at prediction!). How he explained things is that a lot of people. A lot of liberals. Genuinely believe they are doing good by insisting on the redistribution of wealth via coercive state power. They have fed money to welfare and “refugees” for ages. He believes a shock will come to them as Trump starts improving things and these people realise, deep within themselves perhaps, that they never really wanted to help anyone else, that they coerced others around them for virtue signalling points.
Sounds as though it would be quite devastating on someones psychology. I believe the human design somewhat backs this up.
It is one of my deepest desire that people have the right to hold any opinion whatsoever.
I was just talking about how we (with the help of the part of us that is negative) have staked this game so that opinions are made within a certain provided selection.
I so wish that people can hold any opinion, that I am pointing this out so that we can all truly choose freely from the heart.
Please note that I am not saying they are not true.
I am saying that such are used to excuse the use of control. It makes people feel better about their choice of using control.
The validity of your arguments or the stats are not in question.
Yes taxation is a great example of control. I disagree very much with any forms of taxation. Again many things can be said in order to excuse the use of such form of control. Nothing said would ever change my mind that whatever is said is just an excuse.
Freely chosen allocation of resources (such as charity) would readily take the place of taxation and all would work out much better if taxation was removed.
Personally, I would prefer that we completely forgo the concept of money altogether.
Based on this, I can only say that you created a very distorted view of what I stand for.
Also, how would you be able to assess my behaviours? As far as I know, we have never interacted in person.
I’m certainly doing my best to do so. But it is well known that we all see what we want to see. So that is not an easy exercise.
I tried to see myself as a libertarian at some point, but that seems to imply support for corporate tyranny. I do not support that at all.
Liberalism seems to imply support for government tyranny, that’s not me either.
I can’t find the label that goes with protection from corporate tyranny, government tyranny and protection for each others.
This is what I am trying to point out. Those supposed poles of understanding are control measures. We have access to alternate understandings if we so wish.
The Ra material and Confederation channelings offers many of those alternate understandings for our perusal.
Regarding the game of polarity itself, that is another matter.
But remember, those polarities has been given other names.
