LOL, yes, it is a bit of a contradiction for a self-declared secular humanist to wear the mantle of a state advocate who defended royal prerogative. Touche. Three points:kpeter wrote:I still suspect he chose the wrong handle for his own political philosophy (Locke seems like a better fit!)
One, the original post examined the role of gender, orientation & the culture of competition on an ever increasing popular trail. The issue of population growth, access to public lands, and the context and meaning of certain extant environmental laws are all related subjects, because the original claims of discrimination will surely further manifest & express themselves as more people seek the outdoors. By examining the dynamics driving increased demand, this thread has also provided a gateway towards highlighting many different user characteristics.
Two: There aren't really any toxic subjects per se, but rather personal reaction, behavior and self-restraint. If people who disagree can choose and manage to do so in a civil and dignified manner, then what better forum that allows for a diverse range of opinions? Summarily dismissing a set of valid points is typically considered as being merely argumentative, as it doesn't provide any kind of ladder effect from which tangential issues can be subsequently examined and/or discussed.
Three: To recap the chief topic of the resulting discussion, the core issue is that if society doesn't adapt, then it invites civil disobedience. In prior eras (in which the key drivers of population pressure and carrying capacity seem to be re-emerging) royal parks, forests and preserves owned by aristocratic landholders instituted wide ranging controls, including the employ of armed wardens & gamekeepers to patrol the grounds & protect their fiefs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_forest
Perhaps out of ignorance, or maybe due to malice, but the articulation of certain sentiments about utilizing the force of law to ensure personal, limited access to the detriment & exclusion of others is, IMO, highly repugnant. It's also very dangerous, because it ignores the next, emerging looming civil rights cause of action, which is going to be the disenfranchised young vs the comfortable, landed gentry. The developing youth army, which never had a choice in what era they were born, nor the set of constrained circumstance which they will face, will refuse to abide by laws/rules IF perceived to be established by the privileged to the benefit of solely themselves. QED
In addition, it is highly cynical to encourage agencies, which have literally taken decades to establish favorable images and open public dialogue, to abandon their hard won reputations by becoming some kind of para-military operation enforcing exclusive use for their masters. On one hand, we have real infringement of access, use & enjoyment of public lands by AK-47 toting drug growers & smugglers, but yet, advocates for control wish to direct enforcement actions towards the weakest & unarmed. Seriously, the potential here for a public relations fiasco is already being prepared as all the necessary ingredients are brought to bear. The chief alarm by those who are aware is observing behavior of some who refuse to acknowledge, or do not care, as exhibiting classic strains of power statism that seem to bedevil every society.
Hobbes argued in Leviathan that if civil society was to exist in peace, government should act in the capacity of serving the entire public good in exchange for submission of certain individual liberties. He never advocated that once government had power, that it should be used as a cludgel to bludgeon the disenfranchised and weakest members of society at the behest of a favored class.
) perspective on her experience. In spite of what might be the facts, she brought what she brought and took away what she took away because of it.