Man, do I hate that line, “there are two sides to every story.” It works great if you’re debating something like, “are lima beans good?” Or perhaps, “should we paint the trim white?” When it comes to critical issues however, that is one vile statement.
“I think cannibalism should be discouraged.” Yeah, well you know, there’s two sides to every story. Maybe you should just take other people’s needs and lifestyle choices into consideration, not be so judgy? I mean, where’s your compassion?
It fits right in with, “we need to be fair to everyone.” Gah! Hate it.
Both of these lines are a promise that you care more about people favor than you do about standing up for what is right. Both of them mean the precise opposite of how they sound, they are actually a proclamation that you are not planning to be fair at all and that the truth is going to become the first casualty, collateral damage in a quest to ride the fence and not alienate anyone.
I have very little experience with people standing up for the truth and willing to let go of the idea that “there must be two sides to every story” or that, “we need to be fair to all sides.” That’s not a call for sympathy, it’s a symptom of the times, it’s a result of culture, perhaps made a bit more extreme due to being trapped in this really dark blue dot. I mean, I have complained about violence, people stealing all your stuff, violating all your rights, and heard, Yeah but there’s two sides to every story and we really need to be fair to both sides, like the actively using drug addicts who are now homeless. Sheesh lady, why do you hate the homeless?
There once was this woman in active addiction, sadly she overdosed and died, but she was just obnoxious, harassing people on streets, blocking business doorways and not letting people in, grabbing you when you got out of your car. They called it “aggressive panhandling,” as if it were justified and as if everyone forced to endure her dysfunction just wasn’t empathetic enough. As if “aggressive panhandling” where an actual thing and not just a fancy term for extortion, mugging, or robbery.
I grieve that woman because bleeding hearts actually killed her. She needed intervention, confrontation, and somebody willing to stand up for the truth and say “No. You’re totally out of control.” She actually died of compassion, twisted empathy, and enabling.
I used to want to win hearts and minds, try to come to some kind of consensus, “work things out.” Maybe if I just explained it to them? Maybe if I just compromised and negotiated…..
There’s this never ending mantra too, and it sounds something like, just respect his pronouns it won’t hurt anything, just make space for gay marriage it doesn’t affect you, and just wear the stupid mask. It doesn’t cost you anything, it might help, it’s only temporary……
Those are all lies. Every last one of them.
Respect my unwillingness to constantly swallow lies and make space for the fact that I believe the truth matters. Not only that, but I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are some hills worth dying on.
I totally agree! “I am sure there are good people on both sides.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even Jesus said, “Why do you call me good? There are none good but the Father.” Our unwillingness to understand that truth is part of the problem. “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” Our current culture is trying to operate on the false notion that you can just be a “good people,” and the truth will comply with your wishes.
LikeLike
Not challenging Jesus, of course… as religious “truth” is based on truth in faith. To your other point that there’s a false notion that “good people” can be assigned to a false truth… we still have to define what IS truth.. do we not? After all, is not one person’s “truth” another person’s “lie”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Everything is about imposing a moral vision on society, Doug. If we believe being “good people” is what gives us the authority to impose our will on others, we’re done for, because “good” is a subjective matter of opinion. By contrast the Bible says, “there are none righteous, not one.” This is why we need Jesus, need His salvation, but also His values, His morality, His way of being in the world.
LikeLike
After all, is not one person’s “truth” another person’s “lie”?
Only if you live in a world of relativism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apparently that’s the nature of our current national divide.
LikeLike
But it shouldn’t be. We’ve mixed up opinion with fact and weaponized it for political gain. It really does muddy the water for otherwise honorable positions. For example, if someone is talking about climate change, and is adamant that we follow the science, they lose their position if they argue gender is a man-made construct.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Given there’s billions who inhabit this planet.. and among them are 237 million Americans, common sense (mine, of course sense we all have each our own) suggests there might be a few who not only believe the world is flat, but also has some “science” to prove it.
LikeLike
I’ve never understood flat earthers. I’m talking about people who use science when it’s beneficial to their position, then abandon science because it doesn’t comport with their social/world views.
LikeLike
At first blush I would call that simply being an elected politician trying to make everyone happy for a vote. I suppose then all one can do is consider the source.. and move on. Calling anyone a hypocrite, in general, is like screaming into a mirror… given we all have that human frailty to some degree. I mean.. 2/3 of the Congressional GOP were bad-mouthing Trump during the 2016 campaign.. then suddenly change colors when he wins. Life IS a bit of a hypocrisy.
LikeLike
Doug, just in case you’re repeating an often-quoted statement, please know that this was not the full statement. You would have to go back to the original speech to hear what was really said – including the condemnation of the KKK and white supremacists. The mainstream media wouldn’t tell you what was really said, they were happy to pass on the misunderstanding to anyone and everyone who would swallow it without checking up, and apparently there are many of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I listened/saw it when it happened in its full context.. and entirety. Obviously not in person.. so I surrender to the fact that where I saw and listened to it (whatever source.. don’t recall) could have been a video fake created inside the “moments ago” message. No need to be a Trump apologist for my benefit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not crazy about the guy personally, but I do get tired of the MSM’s hateful spin on everything. My husband and I have stopped watching the news, it’s just too insulting to our intelligence.
LikeLike
Would love to discuss that idea with you sometime because many feel the same way toward the media and then choose to shut it out.
LikeLike
I have to say, I have appreciated the space for gay marriage a lot.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, many people have. Does that make it right?
LikeLike
It’s a much bigger conversation, isn’t it? Sorry about that.
LikeLike
Well, yes. Gay marriage is just one example. What about abortion, is killing our offspring ever justified or warranted? When am I just humoring some imaginary 3rd gender guy and when am I actually doing him harm by buying into and validating his delusions?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Honestly, I was more thinking along the lines of how, although whether someone likes something or not is not logically a test of whether it is true, or right, or not, it is still the case that “the truth is rarely pure and never simple,” so that ascertaining what is true, or right, even when we are committed to some particular faith, or sacred text, or authority, or tradition of interpretation, or set of canons of investigation, etc. etc. etc. is not exactly easy. And then coming to agreement with other people on what is true, and then right in light of that, even harder. And that’s just if we take one example. If you’re going to go piling on examples …
This is a very different thing from suggesting that there is no such thing as reality, or truth, or rightness. I hope that’s clear. I would just be more inclined to say that it’s harder to be clear and correct about those things than we sometimes think it is; sometimes common sense does turn out to be common foolishness. I do think experience needs to count in the mix, somehow, too, because sometimes that’s what gives us a needed critical distance on authority run amok.
Anyway, I was sorry about the one-liner.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right, but you are doing exactly what I am complaining about. It’s kind of, “let’s not be hasty,” attitude or as you’ve said, “it’s harder to be clear and correct about about those things than we sometimes think it is.” Perhaps, but I used the example of cannibalism. Is that actually hard for us to be clear and correct about? Why??
LikeLiked by 1 person
No. Unless maybe you’re the Donner Party. And even then …
LikeLiked by 2 people
Again.. more relativity. One person’s “right” is another person’s “wrong”. Then there’s, one person’s “Right” is another person’s “Left”… politically, of course. We have yet to assign.. one person’s “right” hand is another person’s “left” hand.
LikeLike
Cannibalism, Doug. We’re talking about cannibalism. I am not going to stand here and say, it’s all good, some people just have a right hand and others enjoy feasting on human flesh.
LikeLike
Cannibalism is one thing… but I draw the line at feasting on the young. More likely, my being a senior means I’ll get my time being turned into Soylent Green soon enough.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting comments. This makes sense: “Respect my unwillingness to constantly swallow lies and make space for the fact that I believe the truth matters. Not only that, but I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are some hills worth dying on.”
Thanks for speaking the truth! Blessings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“they are actually a proclamation that you are not planning to be fair at all and that the truth is going to become the first casualty, collateral damage in a quest to ride the fence and not alienate anyone.” EXCELLENT point!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have always appreciated your ability to tell it like it is. Most of the time people don’t want to hear the truth. It makes them uncomfortable to believe that we’re all sinful people and that we need the TRUTH of God’s Holy Word. It is the only handbook for our salvation. It shows us that we need a Savior and blesses us with the good news that Jesus was the One and He took our sins away forever. Not by anything we did to earn it, simply by His unconditional love which is also inconceivable. The simplicity of our redemption and the fact that we don’t deserve it, should make us so grateful and joyful.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for your kind words, Kathy. That’s a beautiful description of salvation, too! It’s the good news that brings great joy! Yayyyy! No matter how crazy the world gets, when I take the time to remember that it’s just enough to put an extra spring in your step. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even cannibalism these days is negotiable:
https://thefederalist.com/2017/03/26/eating-brains-shows-reza-aslan-doesnt-chest/
To the Whacko Left Wing, there are no absolutes, except that believing in absolutes is wrong; unless you believe in the absolute that there are no absolutes, and that is right-thinking, as long the Left decides what are acceptable absolutes and what aren’t. And if you don’t understand what any of that means, it’s because you’re an uneducated, unsophisticated bigot and everyone must be compelled to think alike—even though diversity is our strength—because uneducated, unsophisticated bigotry is a moral weakness and, even though morality is only an artificial social construct, the Left’s morality is still superior because they alone are intelligent enough to decide what morality is best for society because other smart people have told them that they are.
In other words, just believe that Reality isn’t real and that contradictions don’t exist and the truth can become whatever you’d like it to be.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Regardless which side is “guilty” in your eyes.. your last sentence pretty much says it all about our divide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great article, Night Wind! I especially liked this quote, “This is what many “moral revolutionaries” today miss more than brains: that middle form of reasoning that derives from traditional wisdom and common human experience.” That’s it exactly.
Sometimes I call that kind leftist reasoning you wrote about, “scrambled eggs,” on account of the fact that is not reason and it’s all scrambled. “Science” is when there are 9 new genders, a fetus is not a human life, and if we all just socially isolate long enough we will manage to conquer death.
LikeLike
I agree with most of what you say. Facts are not a matter of opinion and hence presenting both sides, when one is /not/ factual, is a lie. But then you ruined it all by saying these are lies too:
‘…just respect his pronouns it won’t hurt anything, just make space for gay marriage it doesn’t affect you, …’
Have you ever met a trans person? Have you ever seen, first hand, the agony they go through to get to the point where they /dare/ utter those pronouns? Do you know how many trans people commit suicide because they can’t live with those pronouns? They’re not doing it to hurt you. How ridiculous.
As for gay marriage, if staying faithful to one person in a loving, caring union is the definition of marriage then the only happily married people I know are either in de facto relationships – 40 years and counting – or in a gay marriage. My very straight marriage barely made it to 17 years.
You demand truth in language, yet it seems that your truth is just as opinionated as those who insist the world is flat.
LikeLike
@ acflory
You say re. marriage that it’s between two people who love each other. And this short sighted opinion speaks to the gist of the good lady’s post.
You want others to make exceptions to your slanted world view. Be consistent. Can a man then marry his horse since he loves her?
Why deny him his definition of marriage?
See how this works? So while a man may have affection for another- even su he loves him… go for it- but please do not expect Noah Webster the great linguist – and others- including myself- to change the millennia year old definition of marriage: between a man and a woman.
A nut on a tractor marries a bolt. The union of opposites. Two men and two women- great as there affection may be- cannot be properly yoked since they are the ‘same.’
So while you think others may deny you- we are not- we are being ABSOLUTE- in a world where people do not stand for anything.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One of the nice things about living in Australia is that this is a democracy, not a theocracy. We believe in allowing people to think for themselves instead of conforming to some kind of biblical group-think. As such, I’m more than happy to allow you to believe whatever you want to believe – so long as you don’t hurt anyone else. That is the same caveat I apply to trans and homosexual people.
And that is why I’m perplexed by the notion that trans and homosexual people can somehow hurt those who are not trans or homosexual. I don’t feel at all threatened, and I’m a very straight 67 year old woman.
Are you scared that trans and homosexual people are somehow contagious? Like Covid-19?
I can assure you that if you are secure in your own self and your own beliefs, they pose no threat, real or existential, to anyone. You don’t have to be afraid.
LikeLike
Tkx for the post back. Since you are new around here- just some context if I may.
Me fearful? Uhh, take note of the mild mannered lion at rest. But don’t allow that calm demeanor to think I’m fine with: ‘hey, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody.’
Isn’t that the seed plot of our discussion within the post here? Let me repeat: the dictionary does not need updated to suit the decadence of the times. 2+2 is still 4 I think, at least it was 4 thousand years ago.
And marriage is still between a man and woman, male and female, at least it was 4 thousand years ago.
Roar. But the Aussies make some good hats too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
CS you have not realised that homosexuals, lesbians, transgender, bisexual and cross dressers etc are absolutely normal people just as any body else.
As a straight man well into his 60’s I have always understood that all of these people existed within the human race but were confined to secrecy. In those days they risked the wrath of community, their jobs, their friends, family and often life and limb in a dark ally if they were to “come out.”
Normal is what? Humans are very diverse in every possible way you can think of, why is sexual orientation any different? Normality is only what you are told, only what you are encouraged to read and the way you have been told to think. In reality sexual diversity goes back to the first cave men, as does the homo sexual behaviour of animals from birds and insects to reptiles, mammals and even lions. It is a natural phenomenon proven by science.
Humans naturally shun reality and often ignore morals and evidence if they have an idealogical rock to keep their heads hidden below.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve- I am as fair minded and sober of thought that you will find. But note. I addressed pretty much a ‘singular’ defect in understanding- that both you and ol- have ignored: the historical definition of marriage.
Nobody here is saying that gay/bi/ etc cannot be decent people.
Here in the US/ you are thought to be a dwarf in the head to support Trump. Go figure.
So no- if any body is short sighted- it is the midget minded who are not satisfied with marriage- as agreed upon by ‘normal’ people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, sklyjd. I’m thrilled that someone of my era has the courage to name the elephant in the room. Reality is a construct that changes from moment to moment. The only thing that doesn’t seem to change is the human obsession with nailing things down ‘just so’ and then persecuting any one or any thing that questions their ‘truth’.
LikeLike
-giggles- I don’t think there was marriage 4 thousand years ago. There was matriarchy though, because when you saw a baby born, there could be no doubt where life came from. Siblings from the same mother – both male and female – were family. The male who donated the sperm, however, had no connection whatsoever because his link was neither visible nor obvious.
Once some bright spark worked out that sex produced babies, men wanted control of the process so they instituted ‘marriage’ which was a societal bond that gave them ownership of property. The more the merrier, and polygamy was the norm if you could afford to feed so many useless female mouths.
Once men couldn’t lock their women up in harems the problem of progeny and inheritance was solved by old men marrying very young girls – paedophilia? – who could be proved to be virgins. Thus any progeny could only have come from the husband. When those men went away to war, they locked chastity belts around their wives loins.
Mind you, chastity belts were a kinder option than the practice of mutilating the genitals of pre-pubescent girls to make them more suitable for ‘marriage’. That atrocity continues today in some countries.
Or what about the custom of Suttee where a wife was burned to death on the pyre of her dead husband?
As for the idea of marriage being a union between one man and one woman…there are polygamous unions in some religions even now – e.g. Mormons.
These are historical facts, many of which are still relevant in 2020, and they do not paint a pleasant picture of the institution of marriage.
If you want to believe marriage is all romance and happily ever after, that’s your choice. Maybe it actually does work for you, although your reference to a lion worries me. Lions live in prides where one male lords it over a group of fecund females who bear his progeny and do the bulk of the hunting. Whether you see yourself as the male or female in that scenario, it still equates to polygamy…
LikeLike
You are going off roading in rocky terrain when the pavement is smooth.
I’m not not talking about the ‘quality’ of a marriage. I am speaking of the ‘reality’ that it is NOT the union of two of the same sex.
I don’t cate how nice people are. Leave the word ‘marriage’ alone. Period.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Off roading? So you think that all the examples I’ve given have no relevance to marriage? That it’s so ‘sacred’ we’re not even allowed to sully its name by allowing…shock horror…same sex couples to participate?
Give me one, just one good reason for your intractable stance on ‘marriage’.
LikeLike
Hmm. I have a thousand reasons and you ask for the best one? Well, you did visit a biology blog for starters so there’s a clue.
I’m pretty sure I’ve already said enough. Maybe miss ib22 could offer sunlight to you-
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you! I actually know more about biology than I do about pre-history. 🙂 So, I assume your argument is that reproduction is the answer? That female-female and male-male unions cannot produce progeny?
Good point, humans certainly need one of each sex to reproduce. So do mammals and many higher, as in more complex, lifeforms. But generally, reproduction has a great many pathways. For example, I’m sure you know that birds don’t have X and Y chromosome, they have Z and W chromosomes:
‘Bird sex determination is dependent on the combination of Z and W chromosomes. Homozygous for Z (ZZ) results in a male and heterozygous (ZW) results in a female. Notice that this system is the opposite of the mammalian system because in birds the female is the sex with the different sex chromosomes. ‘
https://opentextbc.ca/biology/chapter/13-1-how-animals-reproduce/
And then there are hermaphrodites which possess both lots of reproductive organs. And animals that reproduce completely asexually. And animals that /change/ sex in response to changes in the environment etc etc etc.
So reproduction is a kind of slippery slope when used as a justification for the one man, one woman definition of marriage.
lol – and then…there’s the small problem of reproduction outside marriage. I believe bastards have been an issue since marriage was first invented. 🙂
LikeLike
Well, I guess I should probably respond to, “Reality is a construct that changes from moment to moment.”
Or perhaps not? I mean, once I explain myself, the world will simply tilt and reality will become yet another new construct. Since everything is always just going to be floating sand, it’s probably futile to try . 🙂
I don’t know what to say when we can’t even agree that reality is a somewhat persistent and observable delusion?
I believe marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman, and all other social constructs are simply man trying to indulge his whimsy by creating yet another social construct that attempts to bend reality. So not only is marriage between a man and woman, all other forms of “marriage” are simply a mirage, a hallucination, a fantasy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Awesome addition – of course. \o/
LikeLiked by 1 person
We are all about to be the victims of the giant bleeding heart phenomenon tightening its grasp around our nation—placing us all within its death grip …a giant collective mess of codependency
seasoned with a heavy dose of socialistic giving till there’s nothing left to give.
We see it already percolating in your fair cities over on the west coast to Chicago, New York, Atlanta
from sea to shining sea…
The proverbial Robin Hood who is simply stealing from all so that the dependent can dig a deeper dependency —heck, lets just all be dependent leeches until no one is left to suck blood from!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Precisely, Julie! Thanks for understanding, thanks for getting it. Makes me feel a bit less crazy. 🙂
Some of the poor are starting to catch on, some are starting to realize socialism really is a rich man’s game. Here we are mandated not to work, so unable to provide for ourselves and still waiting for unemployment checks, and still waiting for the second stimulus to be approved. Meanwhile congress is just discussing regulations for big cats and cannabis stores and Nigerians hackers allegedly have taken our unemployment money hostage. And, this is normal, this is what socialism always looks like, except when it gets even worse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s when we get sent to the gulags— for our own safety don’t ya know 😑
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have you ever been outside the continental United States? Have you ever lived in a country that already practises these terrible ‘giving’ policies? I’m Australian, the scenario you paint makes me laugh. We have pretty much eliminated Covid-19. Our economy is doing fine. We’re living fairly normal lives, and we believe in giving everyone a fair go. Not as some kind of bleeding heart policy, but as part of the social contract. Everyone gives in taxes so the govt can re-distribute the country’s wealth to allow everyone to prosper. When the country’s wealth is only distributed to the wealthy, that country will fail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve traveled extensively outside of the US— that’s one reason why I know socialism is a crummy disaster
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree. I don’t like ‘socialism’ either, but I define socialism as the system that existed behind the iron curtain during the cold war era. Leftovers still exist, but by and large, few countries in the Western world are socialist per se.
But to be honest, I was thinking more in terms of countries like my own country, Australia, or say Canada. Or nordic countries like Norway and Finland. We all have strong economies and strong social welfare cultures, but we don’t see ourselves as ‘socialist’. Rather we see ourselves as compassionate and altruistic.
You know, the old religious thing about ‘give unto others as you would have them give unto you’? I know that’s new testament rather than old, but Christianity /was/ based on the new testament, and besides, trying to raise up all members of a society is generally seen as the best way of fulfilling the social contract we all buy into. After all, what’s the point of paying taxes and obeying the laws if you get nothing back?
It seems so obvious to me, and despite being an atheist, I can’t understand how compassion and caring can be seen as ‘bad’ or ‘weak’ or something to avoid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very good, my thoughts as well, being compassionate to other humans should not class anyone as a socialist, a communist or as any political status.
Also as a Kiwi\ Australian I find our political landscapes as nowhere near as fanatical as the US and far more friendly, nobody bats an eye if you claim to be a Fascist. Of course I am not, I don’t even know what it is:)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hah! I should have known. Hi fellow Antipodean. It’s times like these that it hits me how very different our cultures are. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
No one will argue that compassion and caring are wrong— in fact I think we would all hope to encourage such— however, it is when codependency becomes a byproduct of what was, in its inception, perhaps an innocent enough program of assistance — when a welfare state evolves as generations of people come to expect government assistance, handouts and the notion that the government “owes” them certain things.
Human beings find it more convenient to be on the receiving end vs the doing end.
Why work for things when it can all be given— in turn an entire people become dependent upon their government to provide for them all their wants and needs —and that’s the thing – there is a huge difference between wants and needs— and now the line of difference is skewed—
People appreciate that which they work for— they tend to care for that which they work to earn— the hard work provides for them and their families— why do we see so many small businesses, especially bars and restaurants hurting during the lockdowns and during the violence and riots shutting down our cities??? All of which are shutting down businesses— the very businesses people have worked so hard over,— these are their livelihoods- the places that give jobs and allow folks to pay their bills and to buy stuff and afford schooling— you take all that away and you are left with a quagmire of hurting need— where do the monies come from that support a fully dependent nation of people who cannot work or won’t work to provide goods and services to keep an economy moving—
You can’t tax folks when there is no money to pay the taxes— think King John and the poor if England— the people were so heavily taxed yet so poor they had no money to offer— they were arrested and placed in debtors prison— how do you get out if there is no income? You don’t.
Think work camps— think everlasting poverty, think hopelessness
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can’t argue with a fairytale. Come to Australia and see the reality for yourself.
LikeLike
and I can’t argue with one who sees nothing but fairytale…
here is the post of a man who now calls Australia home.
Whereas he does love his new home, he also sees the warts…
https://theweeflea.com/2020/12/07/have-yourself-a-merry-cromwellian-christmas-ap/
LikeLiked by 1 person
You win, Julie. The US is a wonderful place, and I’m blinded by my own prejudices. Have a nice day.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to me how you and sklyjd have this, “us or them” mentality, this “you’re with us or you’re with the US,” attitude. That’s very adversarial and not like Americans at all. I often think we should be a bit more protective of ourselves, a bit more prone to say, “I’m right and you are not.” I am just saying, that is not an American mindset at all, but it certainly is evident in many of the Australians I encounter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, all the things that Australians and Kiwis most value about our countries are the very things /some/ Americans see as evil. You say it’s ‘socialism’, we say your lack of a safety net for your citizens is a moral outrage. We can’t understand how you can say you’re good Christians whilst denying the very thing your Christ taught. What are the parables of the New Testament but exhortations to act towards others with compassion and tolerance?
Adversarial? Yes, I suppose it does end up like that because we are the proof that everything you think is bad…isn’t.
According to your beliefs, everyone else in the Western world is a drooling zombie with no free will, content to take take take without giving anything back. It’s a great big outrageous lie.
How do you expect us to respond?
LikeLike
Wow you have hit the nail fair and square on the head. And so true about many Christians backing the anti social behaviour of their leader. Reference (proverbs 6:16-19) that mentions lying tongues, wicked schemes and a person who stirs up conflict in the community what more do you need.
If Mr Trump had uttered the rubbish he has down under he would have been removed from office and likely be under lock and key right now for inciting violence and distributing misinformation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
-shiver- I am more glad than I can say that Mr Trump is /not/ here. The Trump-lite currently in Canberra is bad enough. 😦
LikeLike
You are so right, Morrison is a good friend of Trump, not only did he criticise China and have our trade axed, he and Boris of the UK first used the same attitude and practically ignored the virus, however overwhelming cases and deaths occurred with public opinion turning on him and he quickly got off his arse as did Boris eventually and fortunately it was early enough for us and we have fared better than most.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you! I remember Morrison’s flirtation with ‘herd immunity’ but the main stream media seems to have amnesia on the subject. I’m so glad that other people remember too. I truly despise his marketing people for trying to brand him as a ‘father’ figure. The man has about as much empathy and genuine good will to others as a rock.
LikeLiked by 1 person
PS: The US really is a wonderful place. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
The one thing I’ve learned since getting to know a lot of Americans online is that there are actually many United States of America, and their cultures are quite different. I like the ones in the so-called ‘blue’ states. Let’s leave it at that.
LikeLike
Speaking of England and much of Europe during World War 2 that were regularly bombed by the Germans. In London they did not lock up thousands of people for not being able to work and pay their bills, the people faced more hardship than we can imagine yet in true socialistic form and determination they survived and pulled each other out of the disaster. Makes you think what the hell we are complaining about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Churchill was not a socialist
LikeLike
The fact Churchill was not a socialist does not mean anything he had presided over much of the planning for radical social reform in 1945. The British people and Churchill could see the place for socialist policy when it is required just like all good governments should do. Unfortunately for Churchill the people could not see that he could deliver it and he was voted out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And then voted back in— he was not voted out due to an in ability to carry out socialism—
LikeLike
You may be partially right Julie, however he was voted out because the very qualities that had made him a great leader in war were ill-suited to domestic politics in peacetime (quoted from BBC) Domestic politics at that time needed social policies as much as the economy required good policies to pay off their crippling war debt, mostly to the US.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh I know the people thought him a wartime PM and fretted about peacetime but socialism was not what they were truly seeking and he knew this— hence why he was eventually voted back
LikeLike
You are correct in his second term as Prime Minister he was involved mostly with international relations.
The Beveridge Report was presented to Churchill with a golden opportunity to reinvent himself as the leader of a party seriously concerned with social questions after the war, he did not and this was one of the reasons Labour won the election and had introduced the Welfare State before Churchill won his second term as Prime Minister. (BBC History)
However long before this election Winston Churchill ranks as one of the founders of the welfare state. With Herbert Asquith and David Lloyd George, he was the principal driving force behind the Liberal Party’s welfare reforms of 1908–1911. (Oxford University Scholarship on line)
Churchill and Lloyd George championed old age pensions, prison reform, unemployment insurance, public health care, and reform (if not elimination) of the House of Lords (winstonchurchill.org)
I would suggest that Churchill was both a socialist and a conservative at different times. Of course this political ballance by politicians has been totally eliminated by the lack of tolerance along with the dirt and lies many of our politicians spew to the public arena today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He was even considered a liberal as a much your politician— a bit of a chameleon — like many politicians really— but thanks to Churchill we are not all collectively speaking German or Japanese!
We owe him a great deal!!!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Definately agree with that Julie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think cannibalism should be discouraged.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Yayyyy! Sometimes trying to find some common ground in the world is like pulling teeth, I’m telling ya. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
-giggles- Am I the only one who sees the irony in your comment? Very clever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, let’s keep it it to manageable levels. 😛
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think that whatever I think about cannibalism does not make it true or false. Truth is cannibalism is not good for humans. I am sort of happy that that is truth not opinion. Doesn’t matter is it is my truth, your truth, his truth, her truth; it matters that it is God’s truth.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Amen, Oneta. Good point about how cannibalism is not good for humans. God’s truth really is rooted in, “what is good for humans.” People truth is often rooted in other things, deception, self preservation, fear, greed, whatever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Truth, you are on fire!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting conversations, IB! You sure know how to stir things up. 🙂
What you’re fighting against here is a 50-year trajectory away from objective truth into the deconstruction of Postmodernism. We are so deeply indoctrinated into this theory of reality that you sound like a fool speaking against it. And its power is in that it sounds compassionate and inclusive. In some ways, it is, but the confusion and damage it’s caused is far reaching.
For instance, the transgender issue has brought some particular dilemmas in the world of women’s sports. If a biological male can identify as a female, he can technically compete in women’s sports, which has already happened. If this continues on its current path, you can kiss women’s sports good-bye. It will be totally dominated by men.
A bit of historical background on relativism. This trajectory is no accident. The French neo-marxist philosophers, like Derrida and Foucault, brought this influence into our Western Universities in the 1970’s. Interestingly enough, the idea that truth is relative first came from discoveries about artificial intelligence. I wrote about this in my blog post: “Marxism, Artificial Intelligence, and Postmodernism”
https://melwild.wordpress.com/2019/03/23/marxism-artificial-intelligence-and-postmodernism/
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks for the link! I will delve into that. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for putting into words what I have known for years, but never voiced. God bless you.
LikeLike