Okay. Interesting. I don't consider myself a liberal (nor conservative) and have libertarian leanings myself, as well as having issues with cries of "bigot!"
Glad we share some common ground. I'd say I'm socially fairly conservative since I was raised in Christianity and still find a great deal of the moral teachings and social structures developed therein to be positive (though not all), but when it comes to the role of the state, I want the state to have as little to do with our lives as possible.
I thought that, as a libertarian, you would be against current social structures?
My libertarian leanings mean I am in favor of decentralized government with minimal power and lots of checks on its power. Government's role, as I see it, should primarily focus on protecting individual liberties and preventing any one group (governmental or corporate) from amassing too much power. Free the markets and let people do whatever they want as long as it is not a hindrance or threat to someone else having the right to do the same.
Despite all this, I have lately begun trying to think about the positive aspects of an expanded role of the state. This is mostly because I've had a libertarian mindset for so long, I'm trying to think about things in a new way and understand the statist mindset. Also because large powerful states make for a great deal of interesting intrigue and history (what would we conspiracy theorists have to live for without all these fantastic conspiracies??). Also, because practically speaking any realized libertarian utopia is likely to be fleeting without a drastic concurrent change in human nature and spirituality.
I am not against social structures. I'm sure there is room for improvement on the prevailing ones and I'm all for that, but I think change should be slow and cautious, so in that sense I am conservative. Radical experimental changes to social structures don't seem to end well. I think that social structures evolve over time and that we got to where we are with them because there were some underlying benefits and wisdom behind them that helped them outlast others. The U.S. has been under a social engineering program for nearly a hundred years that is designed to radically change social structures and make us more easily dominated.
Umm, yes, I do think that men and women are different physically, but what do you mean when you say we are different "mentally"? And are you advocating for social Darwinism here?
I don't advocate social Darwinism in the sense of "might makes right", but I do think that social organizations and ideologies and institutions grow and evolve as they face selective pressure and have different reproduction and survival strategies. And I think that before we dismantle a dominant culture or social organization or ideology or institution, it makes sense to sort through its elements and figure out what propelled it to its place in the ideological food chain and figure out what elements of it are worth keeping around and what the consequences will be if it is destroyed and what will replace it.
I think the physiological differences between men and women transition seamlessly into mental differences. For example, hormones have a great deal to do with physical development as well as temperament. Males are naturally inclined to be more aggressive and interested in combat and mechanical performance tools and toys (cars, guns, boats, gear etc.) and tactics and non-emotional type information while women are typically naturally more inclined to make emotional connections and be interested in relationships and feelings. Women are generally better at multi-tasking and men are generally better at compartmentalizing. Most men find bad sights and smells highly entertaining and most women find them gross.
Do you think men and women are mentally the same?
I also think it is possible and highly likely that there is a metaphysical component to masculinity and femininity - a male and female principle of the universal creative spirit which manifests itself in various forms.
True, this is sociology 101. The family is the foundation that community and later institutions are made on, though this is slowly changing. Not saying I agree with it changing.
Cool. By the way I've never had any sociology courses or formal training in any of this, so this is just what I've picked up from reading to and listening to a lot of stuff. If you have any formal education on it and see where I've got things amiss, let me know!
Without gender roles women and men attempt to do what they are not best adapted for. Power struggles occur within the family. Children are confused about how to behave.
What does this mean?
One example I gave was women in military combat roles. Women are not as well adapted for this role as men. By encouraging boys and girls in directions and behaviors which are supported by their physiology and mentality we set them up for more success in their endeavors. If someone is tone deaf you don't encourage them to pursue a career in music. If a guy is short and light you don't encourage him to shoot for the NFL. So there are all kinds of ways where we admit that we can't all do it all and we should choose a path in which we will be more likely to be successful. Children often have instincts and natural inclinations that line up with these gender roles, but it also helps eliminate potential confusion by having the family and society reinforce these roles. I used to teach a group of 4-5 year olds and the boys were always building guns and monsters and space ships out of the LEGOs and running around blowing stuff up. Girls were a lot gentler and less destructive and more relational. In regards to power struggles in the family - I think that anytime you get two or more people together you have to make joint decisions and coordinate actions and sometimes there will be conflict in those decisions and actions. To continue working together as a unit requires leadership. A good leader persuades or inspires others to follow and listens to advice. A bad leader uses force alone and doesn't listen to advice. I think that in a family situation, men are naturally inclined to take the head leadership role. If no one steps up to lead or if the leader is mocked or goaded out of this position, then there is confusion or inaction or lack of coordination. Men also have a deep need to be respected more than they need to feel loved and women have a need to feel loved and desired more than respected (not to say that they don't also feel the need to be respected, just not as deeply as men do).
I would select only men for a variety of reasons. Men are typically physically and mentally better adapted to combat.
I can see physically but not mentally. What do you mean by that?
Men are typically more aggressive and bolder in regards to taking physical risks. A small group of male warriors develops a wolf-pack mentality which creates incredibly strong bonds. Women in groups aren't typically as cohesive - offenses, grudges, and competition (catiness) can more easily break them up. Men are usually better able to compartmentalize emotions and memories in order to focus on the immediate task at hand while women have emotional threads of thought continually popping into mind which can be very intense and sometimes leads to more emotional decisions. Men bond over crass humor and bad smells and can be comfortable while roughing it. Men are less inclined to hold long term grudges and don't need to talk through every personal conflict.
Men are easily distracted by women. Men can become competitive over women.
Sounds like men are the problem then, not women.
Men are naturally inclined to pursue women. That's not a problem unless it is in the wrong way or the wrong time. It just doesn't make sense to take a bunch of guys in their prime with hormones raging and living in close quarters and throw some fit young women in the mix and expect them to have ironclad discipline and not be distracted from the mission or have their ability to make quick crucial decisions compromised by emotional connections or to have rivalries form over the women. You can greatly simplify and streamline things by taking women back out of the mix.
Hahaha on the sex roles meaning women are "soft and tender". What are you talking about? Are women or female mammals who "go medieval" on some predator threatening their babies "soft and tender"?
Of course mamma bear can get vicious when defending her young. I just mean generally women are softer and men are harsher. Men generally find gentleness and softness in women to be appealing and persuasive while a woman barking orders and expletives doesn't easily command respect or a following. In college I did some training in the Marine Corps and at one point had a female Staff Sargent screaming at me for a good 2 minutes. It was not at all intimidating and it was all I could do to not crack a smile. Women can wield a lot of power over men, but not often by using the same methods as men do over other men.
Chivalry, if you care to look into it, was always deeply sexist.
I just meant chivalry in the sense that the stronger should care for and protect and serve the weaker. My girlfriend loves it when I am protective of her or do physically demanding tasks for her or treat her in a superior manner or provide symbols of this (like opening her door or giving her first choice on this or that) and I love to be her hero. I would feel weak and pathetic and unworthy of respect if those roles were reversed.
What do you mean by "sexist" and what are the sexist origins of Chivalry?
Also surprising. Once again voting for the duopoly, with Trump playing the fascist "strong-man"?
I don't see Trump as being merely the "right" option in the left/right dialectic of control. I think he is truly an outsider and the power structure abhors him. As Newt Gingrich said recently, "he hasn't been through the initiation rites. He's not part of the Secret Society." I think the deep state is following a long term plan to phase out American and Western national power structures and ideals and liberty culture in order to make a malleable Brave New World type social order that is more easily controlled by a technocratic elite. I think Trump is opposed to these efforts. He is truly independent and uncontrolled. He is talking about a lot of things that have been off limits for the controlled politicians and media. He has been opposed to our actions in Iraq and Syria and Libya. He harps on the enormous amount of waste in government. He has pointed out that we created ISIS. He would rather support Russia and work cooperatively with Russia whereas the others want to start WWIII with Russia. He is opposed to globalism and the manipulated centrally controlled financial system.
The main things I disagree with him on are torture and the wall. I don't think torture is ever ethical and it opens the door for forced confessions so the intelligence gathered from it is not trustworthy. The talk of a wall is stupid and I hope it is just a symbol of his intent to follow existing immigration laws which would solve the problem. Currently the Border Patrol has been ordered to completely stand down on enforcing immigration law and they are actually completing the smuggling process of illegal immigrants into the U.S. You can't go into Mexico or any other country and say, "I'm here. I'm not leaving. I want a job and free healthcare." You'll get arrested and deported. I had to go to Canada last year to do some warranty repair work and the Canadian border agent questioned me for half an hour before letting me in the country just to be sure I wasn't planning on working long term and staying. Why can't we just follow our own laws and do the same? But the flood of illegal immigrants is being used as a weapon by the deep state against the people and culture of the West and that is why it continues unabated.
What are your main objections to Trump? And who is your candidate of choice and why?