dimreepr

You're lucky I'm not the grammar police...

What's clear is your inability to refute my argumants. Oh the irony, check out the antonyms... 😉 Really?

You didn't, you said ignore (check out roget). Strike straw man 2, please explain my first alleged transgression.

I was turned off, by the idea of a sex robot...

Trying to design a society by excluding some unnecessary members (the stupid and gullible etc.) is like trying to design evolution by excuding bacteria and viruses etc,; that would be toxic IMHO. Imagine, if you will, that 'the creation myth' is just a story like "Star War's", they both explain the value of the light side over the dark side; but I'll bet you wouldn't be so quick to condemn those that answered the question of religion, by claiming to be Jedi.

If that's meant as an arguement to my post's, then you've missed the point of the poem and the thurst of my argument; trying to design a society by excluding some unnecessary members (criminal's and the stupid/gullible and etc.) is like trying to design evolution by excuding bacteria and viruses and etc.

Perhaps, but it's a very tight venn diagram.

Wait, stop, be reasonable...

I asked you why and you couldn't explain, what makes you think you're ground is sturdy?

Which includes Hitler and Stalin and dinosaurs, even the big one's... Try again...

Anarchy, in it's purest form is individual, and with all the will in the world, not every individual is equal; and there's that parodox again, for every individual to be equally valid, there has to be a common understanding of individual value. The antipode of which is, If you ban a book, other people can’t wait to read it; isn't it more about the effectivity of the advert? It's what I believe a utopia might look like, when/if the anarchist's stop foisting their individual choice on other's; "the needs of the many..." etc. Please explain why religion is esspecially authoritarian/brutal? Of course anarchy has a place in any imperfect society, where it land's on the spectrum is in our purview of fairness; reminds me of this:

But the results are basically the same or worse, for instance, "why it's a good idea to be vaccinated" when ignored, it could be argued, is more dangerous than a ban; there's many an example of a banned record getting to number 1, in the hit parade

I think Yin-yang is a fundamental part of every human endeavour/facet, but I see the relationship to be more of a father and son dynamic, when done correctly the father is so proud, because he can see the fruit's of his lesson's; when done wrong the father is so disappointed, because the lesson's have been forgoten/ignored/misunderstood; pride has to be earned, it's never innate.

Doesn't that depend on the book you intend to ignore?

But, AFAIK, no banned book has ceased to exist; "why does everyone knowing something make it right?" and doesn't that, in and of itself, pressure and influence? This reminds me of "The Matrix", the machines tried to impose a utopian society that was rejected because of some sort of instinct, that enables a human to magically determine the prison they're in; so they introduce imperfection's to quell that instinct, and by doing so they invite the coming of the one. indeed +1

Wisdom is understanding that every creature you'll ever meet, from the lowleist ant to the greatest polymath, know's and understands something you don't; so I think wisdom is listening first and then asking question's...

Are you sure you've given the question any thought? For instance, doesn't a bin man deserve a partner? If you think you already know the answer or have persuaded yourself the answer giver isn't smart enough; then the window on the world becomes opaque or reflective, either way you can't see the truth in the answer's you're given.

The fundamental flaw with the idea of anarchy, is that it represents an extreme version of democracy itself and therefore is the tyranny (of which I speak, no-one can exist in a personal society, at least, not for long). It's arguable that a society with an absolute monarch, with the wisdom of <insert 'favourite philosopher' here> IS the polar opposite of tyranny... You didn't, you just implied that they should be ignored; can you teach me the difference between ignored and banned?

I don't think so, it's difficult to pin down the polar opposite of anarchism, for instance, even a dictator can't dictate too people, without other people's cooperation. I think true tyranny is what we do to ourselves, the tyranny of choice for example; would my life be better with this dictator, under whom I can feed my family (even if I have to wipe his arse, everyday😪) or the revolutionary leader who promised to relieve me of that shame; when we have no choice there is no tyranny, just a different day with the same choice, "to be or not to be"... Isn't it healthier, evolutionary speaking, to have a diverse genetic input? We got to this point in our evolution 'with' the DNA of religion included; the good part of an educator is to provide 'information' in the correct context, a bad educator bans the book...

Can you be more specific?

Piety for some, righteous indignation for other's; it depends on your gang... Maybe, you should just drink what's in the glass...

A saying of my father was, "whoever I vote for, the government always win", which is of course true but in my societies version of pseudo-democracy it's because the balance of the government is becoming skewed, due to my vote being further diluted, by the latest winner with a minority percentage of the voting public. It's not a reason to stop voting, fighting or pointing it out; but it is a reason why I doubt my vote counts for much, especially since I'm poor (as a church mouse)... When did I say I don't vote?

Don't forget that Jesus, ghost, wrote the bible not God; and Jesus had to figure it out for himself, otherwise his sacrifice for mankind would be meanless (he had to doubt his father, to see the light). So, was it God or you that forgave you? Can you accept that not every path to contentment is trodden, with God at ones side, even if it's the same path?

You're free to give me a neg, if I make you/it uncomfortable...

Any democratic process that isn't proportional representation is flawed, and even then it's not perfect; but that question depends on context, for instance: A government that runs a comfortable society is going to get less people interested in voting, than a dance competition; the less comfortable it gets, the more ridiculous a dance competition becomes...