Emerald

I'm not so sure that that assumption is true, given the fact that belonging within a community is the foundational need of the human being (as it is the need that all other biological and psychological needs have always been met through). And socialization within community contexts relates far more to psychological matters than to directly biological matters. My experience has been that psychology trumps biology in most cases and that we end up far more influenced by our software than by our hardware, as a result of having a very complex pre-frontal cortex to adapt within social dynamics. Let's take Anorexia, as an example of an instance where psychology trumps biology. Biologically the body is wired up to need and eat food. But a psychological condition, like Anorexia can override that biological process. There are similar instances where psychology trumps biology relative to attraction and sexuality, where a person will be drawn to another person because they sense a repeat of familial dynamics. Or if we take the need for sex more generally, most people are seeking it out for more than just reproduction... with drivers towards belonging, connection, love, status, validation, etc.

I work with Mapacho myself. Using it here and there with a ceremonial medicine approach, has helped me settle my nervous system, ground, and purge a lot of stagnant energy in my body. Of course, Mapacho also has Nicotine. In fact, it has 9 times more Nicotine than the Tobacco that's in cigarettes. So, it can be addictive if used habitually. But I have found that using it sparingly has been incredibly helpful to me.

I feel the same way about drugs and euthanasia as I do about abortion... for the same reasons pertaining to bodily sovereignty. I don't believe the government should have jurisdiction over what people do with their own body as long as it doesn't encroach upon the sovereignty and boundaries of others. But when it comes to public nudity, that's beyond the jurisdiction of personal bodily sovereignty... and is more about a public space where there are certain collective rules and procedures that make existing in that space. And the government can and should have jurisdiction over the rules of access to public spaces... as can the private owners of a space that's open to the public. And you can be naked all you want, as long as you are in your own private space. And committing crimes is also a matter that the government should have jurisdiction over... because it impacts the public in some way and is beyond the realm of bodily sovereignty. People should be the sole goverenors of their own bodies and matters that pertain to their own body. But the government should have jurisdiction over the laws of public engagement within a society.

Couldn't help yourself, eh?

100%

That's fair. I just didn't agree with Leo's assertion that freedom and equality are ALWAYS a trade off. From my perspective, I'm always advocating for equality because my top values are freedom and sovereignty. I don't want my sovereignty to be squelched by top-down authoritarian forces... and I don't want others' sovereignty to be squelched by top-down authoritarian forces. But the conversation with Leo, made me realize that, from the perspective of power... there is an inverse relationship between freedom and equality. And someone belongs to only dominant groups, they may take for granted that this trade-off between freedom and equality is the same for everyone. For example, if you are a dictator... then allowing your constituents equality under the law to you would be a trade off of your own freedom. But if you are the constituent of the dictatorship, freedom and equality might as well be the same thing. Or if you're a slave owner... then your slaves gaining equality under the law is a concession of your own freedom. But if you're the slave, freedom and equality might as well be the same thing. And I think this is why, from Leo's perspective equality and freedom seem like a trade-off... because he is male and belongs only to "powerful side of the stick" groups. So, he doesn't see the inherent fight for freedom, sovereignty, and liberation that is the core foundation of leftwing social justice movements. Instead, he sees ideologues who want him to give up his freedom so that more of equality (as an idealistic abstract ideological value) can happen. But from my perspective equality and freedom might as well be the same thing... because I am female. I recognize that without equality under the law, I would have no sovereignty or rights... and that my life would be fully governed by my husband and I wouldn't even have the right to vote. He never has had to think about that or even consider a hypothetical scenario where a lack of equality would impede his freedom. So, he feels it's always a trade-off... and assumes that's true for everyone. But it only is true for white heterosexual wealthy men living in America. Nothing wrong with being that. It's just a limited perspective where you can't necessarily appreciate how interrelated equality and freedom actually are... because any equality granted to the masses will be a concession of your own freedom.

That's fine. You don't have to debate with me. You can if you choose to though.

If you were making good points, I'd also give you your kudos. I have done so before. But you went off into some weird territory about letting the world burn because of your commitment to truth... which just wasn't very well thought out. And then you compared that to the monk who died because of his commitment to truth like your willingness to allow the world to burn so that you can stay committed to truth is even remotely similar.

You sure do argue a lot for someone not trying to win arguments.

Let's keep it above the belt. I didn't call you a dumb asshole or a sycophantic jerk or anything like that. So, let's keep things on equal ground.

What kinds of freedoms need to be given up in order to have equality? Keep in mind that I am female. The only reason I have any freedom at all is because of equality. Perhaps it's a trade-off for you as a man because equality requires you to give up some power you have over others so that they too may have freedom. But from the perspective of a woman, they only ever come together. Equality means to the freedom to make my own choices and to live my life as I see fit. Without equality, I would have no freedom.

I only accuse you of things that I'm observing you doing. You do move the goal posts often. I've debated you enough times to notice that it's a pattern where you cherry pick what you consider to be the weak point of the argument and reframe and change the opposition's arguments as though the weak point of the argument is what the opposition is actually arguing. For example, my argument is that your pattern of nitpicking the left about trans issues is rhetorically weak because it concedes power to the right wing frame. And I have posed to you wiser ways of dealing with this rhetoric that doesn't fragment the movement towards a populist economic vision and doesn't concede power and credibility to the right wing trans panic stuff. The, you've tried to rope me into side arguments about the merits of socialism, the merits of random bathroom laws in Canada, the nebulous meaning of the word freedom, and several other arguments that are meant to tempt me to stop arguing my point about effective and ineffective rhetorical strategy... and instead argue with you about the merits of this that or the other random leftwing position. I've noticed that whenever you feel you can't win the argument, you'll try to shift the argument to an argument you think you can win more easily. And most people probably take the bait... so it probably works for you more often than not. But it's a bad faith argument strategy. I can give you the benefit of the doubt that you're unconscious to it... and it isn't deliberate. But you do it... and often enough to notice the pattern. But freedom and equality can only ever exist together. If you trade freedom for equality, you will not have the power to fight for equality. If you trade equality for freedom, authoritarians will take and inordinate share of the freedom and take your freedom from you.

Who need right wing propaganda when you can just get normies, liberals, and leftists to spread their own anti-left pro-right wing propaganda?

There's a difference between earned and unearned kudos.

Nazi camps are an exercise in freedom for Nazis... but a squelching of freedom for everyone else. That's why I said there must be equality under the law for there to be true freedom, where one person's freedom ends where the other person's freedom begins. Otherwise, if you don't have equality under the law, you'll get the dominant group claiming the "freedom to oppress" and the oppressed group getting stuck with little to no freedom. Hence why freedom and equality can ONLY exist together. If you lack equality, you lack freedom.