Dear John,

Thank you for your big effort:
It was a nice try, mostly off the mark,
yet it is a refreshing and humbling experience to learn how little one is understood.

I have never before seen this technique employed and I find it very educational - its strength is not in making correct predictions, but in reflecting back to us how well or otherwise our communications get through (in my case very poorly): we should probably use it more often on OLO.

Coming back...

«It’s becoming abundantly clear to me that you are unwilling or unable to grasp nuance, and are only capable of thinking in black and white.»

Any examples, please?

«Because we live in a changing world and it needs to continuously adapt to that.»

Your full control which you (or the regime you support) firmly held for centuries, already includes the ability to adapt [should you wish to]. That is not anything new that you still struggle to acquire or that I am capable of stopping.

«If we truly lived in a society where "wolves" always preyed on "lambs," laws wouldn't exist to protect individuals from harm.»

Such laws, for example, exist even in Russia's constitution.
They make Putin look better.

«You enjoy the protection provided by the rule of law, yet reject the system that upholds it.»

The rule of law does not provide protection, not truly, that is an illusion... but then you don't like me to explain philosophically why that it is the case.

That system you mentioned being violent, if and when (hopefully not too often) I actually allow myself to enjoy violence-born "protection", then that is due to my human weaknesses, then my seeming safety is only short-lived and I must then pay dearly for it in the long run.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«you enjoy the freedom to criticise governance, something that wouldn't exist in a dictatorship.»

My freedom to criticise was not granted by laws/governments, nor is a product of violence - I was born with it and for now it still exists.

«They don’t. Your comment here uses hyperbole to sidestep my point.»

Good to hear they don't. I used "IF", so that not applying means that you don't need to shoot me, I don't object...

«You claim that you have no say, yet you are actively participating in a public forum, voicing your opinion in an attempt to influence others.»

Yes I thought I could influence other OLO members (less so after your experiment showed me how little they understand me), just not government. Also, my participation here helps me reflect and sharpen my own views.

«It will serve everyone to some degree, whether it be directly or indirectly. You included. I’m able to say that with my decency intact.»

It could have served me had we lived in a chaotic world,
but in a God-given cosmos, violence can never end well.

You already learned that I believe in cosmos, not in chaos;
You have the intelligence to imply that forcing laws that are meant for a chaotic world on me against my will, is likely to at least hurt my feelings;
Yet where is your decency to admit it?

«But, no, we wouldn’t have those things without the state. They require large-scale organisation.»

Suppose so, fair enough, but why then not allow people to decide for themselves what things they are to have and what other things they are happy to sacrifice in order to live in a smaller society of relatively like-minded people?

«The social contract exists through the very laws, protections, and systems you use daily.»

While there exists some complex dynamic relationship between us, that does not amount to a contract.

«It has nothing to do with what I want.»

Could you prove that by allowing people to freely choose their own society, big or small as they wish?

allowing people to freely choose their own society, big or small as they wish?
Yuyutsu,
I'd have no problems with decent folk doing that but imagine you gave such freedom to Leftists, Woke & Greens ?
Imagine the minority groups carrying on ? Even the Animal World has guidelines & discipline so why would we want to let lesser mentality have a free reign ?
We're staring annihilation in the face because of greedy & power crazy & narcissistic from every society yet some still entertain the though of giving them more ?

Dear Indyvidual,

Yours is an excellent question, but I will refrain from descending into petty politics and rather speak of the principles.

I am not interested in giving anyone their freedom,
God has (as a figure of speech) already given everyone freedom even before they were born,
and all I care here is not to rob it away from others.

Yes, people and animals in nature have limitations,
but let me at least try not to be the one who imposes limitations on others -
for my own sake, not theirs, so that I can remain a decent person, let me refrain from violence,
and robbing someone else's freedom, is violent.

Now should some others form a society that seriously and physically threatens my own, then I maintain the option of self-defence. It is not ideal perhaps, but it is acceptable.

How do I defend myself, my family and my society from hostilities?
With guns, bombs and the like, no more than the minimum required of course.
But what I should not do in that case, is to try imposing my own society's internal laws on them, punish them for breaking them or otherwise try to make them feel guilty for following their own norms rather than mine.

It may look subtle, but is very important: whatever I do is for protecting myself, not to punish or teach them - my focus should always be on myself and my people rather than on "them".

For example:

Greenpeace was targeting whaling ships and endangered them on the high seas.
Their act was violent and it was completely reasonable for the whaling ships to defend themselves with water-cannons, eventually sinking the Sea Shepherd.
Does that mean that I support whaling?
No, I am vegetarian and do not support fishing of any kind, yet what others eat is none of my business, and since the Japanese whalers have never asked for my spiritual guidance, it would not be my place to advise them.

On top of the censorship Bill, the Albanese Party also has the 'Hate Crimes Bill' coming. It's all about upsetting the alphabet people.

Yuyutsu,

I’m glad you’ve taken my attempt to respond as though I were you so well and so constructively. It was meant to be a fun attempt to avoid/reduce any talking past each other that may be going on here.

//Any examples, please?//

I’ve provided several already. Your insistence on dismissing governance as inherently violent, or your rejection of the rule of law as an illusion, for example. These are clear signs of black-and-white thinking, where you refuse to acknowledge the complexity and necessity of governance in societies.

//That is not anything new that you still struggle to acquire or that I am capable of stopping.//

The need for continuous adaptation isn’t about acquiring something new. The fact that we’ve managed to adapt doesn’t mean we can stop now. Your fatalistic approach assumes that nothing more can be done.

//Such laws, for example, exist even in Russia's constitution.//

The fact that laws exist on paper doesn’t mean they’re implemented fairly or effectively. The existence of laws that protect individual rights is necessary for justice, but they’re not enough on their own. This doesn’t negate the importance of laws, it simply shows that enforcement and governance matter.

//The rule of law does not provide protection, not truly, that is an illusion...//

This is exactly where your philosophy disconnects from reality. The rule of law does provide protection. It’s not perfect, but without it, we'd have total chaos. Philosophical musings on the illusory nature of protection do nothing to address the real threats people face daily.

//My freedom to criticise was not granted by laws/governments…//

Yes, you were born with it, but that freedom is protected and enforced by the rule of law. It’s the very existence of those laws you berate that ensures your ability to speak out without fear of persecution.

//Also, my participation here helps me reflect and sharpen my own views.//

That’s not the only reason:

“...my responses here are for all the readers, not just for you, alerting them to be careful with comments which defy logic so they don't blindly fall for them.”
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10466#364108)

(Cont’d)