WDSmart

"Adam and Eve" are only a legend. They never existed. Everyone has physical and psychological attributes that range from very dominantly male to dominantly female. This range is very much focused on each end, but there are those that exist somewhere in the middle. And, reproduction is not a subject important to this Forum's topic.

I am a far-left liberal and would be considered "woke" by most right-wing conservatives. I do, however, support HBO's decision to continue to be associated with J.K. Rowlings. Being "woke," I am fervently in favor of the 1st Amendment's right to free speech, and that goes for all artist's works. They can express their opinion with their art, and we can then either enjoy their art or choose not to read, listen to, or buy their art.

I agree, but what do we do about people who don't have only xx or xy chromosomes? Some (only 2 in 1,000) are born with XXY, a mix of chromosomes. Klinefelter Syndrome: What It Is, Symptoms & Treatment

That's democracy for you.............. That's not a democracy. That's a democratic republic.

You're right! If you define "losers" as the voters who did not vote for Trump, they actually are in the majority, about 50.2%. Trump did not win the majority of the popular vote, only about 49.8%, but those votes were in states that allowed him to easily win the Electoral College vote, which elects the president.

I'm among the two out of five adults then...

Yes, I agree. Trump DID NOT GET a majority of the popular vote. The last I saw, it was 49% something. He did win the Electoral College by a large majority, but not the popular vote. There were more people that voted for someone else besides Trump than voted for him.

I understand the controversy, but I think the gender requirements for being on a certain type of team in college (and other types of) sports need to be updated. Limiting it to just "male" or "female" doesn't cut it anymore.

Thanks for your response. Yes, I've begun taking a short nap (1 to 2 hours) after eating lunch. And, yes, I do believe it has something to do with my sleep. When I sleep at night, I dream a lot or think about things I'm working on. This goes on for what seems like an hour, but then when I get up, I've "slept" for 4 hours or so, so it just wasn't a very deep sleep. Do you have any remedies, including medications, that you would recommend? Thanks again...

And so the destruction of the USA's economy begins...

I'll be 79 in January. Physically, I'm okay, but I have experienced a change in my awareness level over the past two months. Often, I feel like I'm half-asleep and groggy, and that affects my balance a little. I can think well, but often, it seems like I'm in a dream world. I've gone to several different doctors multiple times and received some medications, but none of them seem to help much. I'm due to go back again in mid-December. I live in northeastern Thailand in the mountains near a relatively small city, so the doctors I have access to are probably not the best for treating symptoms like mine. If I don't see an improvement by the first of the year, I'm thinking about going to Bangkok to a hospital that specializes in treating symptoms like mine for a complete checkup, diagnosis, and treatment.

I'm not a UK citizen, but I support Starmer on this one.

There have been several that were classified as "democratic socialism." "The most notable historical examples are the Paris Commune, the various soviet republics established in the post-World War I period, early Soviet Russia before the abolition of soviet councils by the Bolsheviks, Revolutionary Catalonia as noted by George Orwell, and the Federation of Rojava in Northern Syria. Other examples include the kibbutz communities in modern-day Israel, Marinaleda in Spain, the Zapatistas of EZLN in the region of Chiapas, and to some extent, the workers' self-management policies within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Cuba. However, the best-known example is Chile under President Salvador Allende, who was overthrown in a military coup funded and backed by the CIA in 1973." Democratic socialism - Wikipedia Thanks for asking...

I believe everything you say above is true. What you haven't said is what type of government it is that owns the means of production. Most people believe a socialist government has to be authoritarian. What I've been saying is that socialism, just as you've described above, can exist under a variety of forms of government including a democracy and a representative democracy. What you've left out is that the government, whatever type it is, then provides for the needs of all the people in the society. I was always taught and continue to repeat this short phrase, which is a simple description of socialism: "From each according to their abilities. To each according to their needs."

Socialism doesn't incite weakness. It promotes sharing. Freedom is not the ultimate expression of capitalism. Selfishness is the ultimate expression of capitalism.

I started my comment proceeding this one by stating I didn't know what you meant by "self ownership." I thank you for your explanation above explaining your use of that term. It's basically selfishness - putting your desires above the community's needs and best interests. And, yes, you're right. That is the opposite of socialism. The USA is now a republic of fifty states under the constitution you describe above. This does not annoy the left (or at least me). What annoys me is the right's (people like you?) decision of what constitutional rights are versus what can be legislated individually by each state. Your example is a good one. How is DEI Hire a violation of constitutional rights and not a law that can be legislated by a state? It's not the Constitution that is thought to be "in the way of progress" by the left. It's the right's interpretation of the Constitution that is in the way of progress. But, of course, that is one of the major differences between liberals who are open to and promote change and conservatives who are against change. An example is "Make America Great Again" vs. "Make America Greater." If businesses are leaving states that favor DEI Hire, it is because they want the right to ensure their workforce is populated mainly with superior people - straight White males. Socialism is for the strong and accepting. A good example of socialism is how most people envision an ideal family. Some in the family contribute more than others. Some don't contribute much or are even a burden, like a child who is retarded or crippled. But all are given as much as the family can give. "From each according to ability. To each according to need," Capitalism is just the Law of the Jungle. The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. People who are a burden are ignored and cast out. I do agree with your last sentence, "Self ownership is the epitome of capitalism and self expression which is at 180 degree odds of socialism." Sharing, using self expression, is the epitome of socialism.

Public services are socialist aspects of any society. I don't consider taxes specifically socialistic, but they are a way to fund the government. In a true socialistic society, there would be no taxes because there would be no wages paid. People would just work at what they felt was best for the society ("from each according to ability). Socialism existed long ago. It was the way humans (and many other animals) have lived together since time began. The terms "socialism," "capitalism," and "authoritarianism" were created long after that, but even those terms have existed in the English language for centuries. Most all "murderous, hate-ridden dictatorships" were not socialistic or communistic. Many claimed to be, but they were not. Most of these were plutocracies and tried to gather all the wealth of the country into a few people at the top of their authoritarianistic governments). Socialism and communism do not "divide the world into Exploiters and Eploitees." Both socialism and communism don't divide the "world" (society) at all. They treat everyone the same. In the case of socialism, that treatment is based on the perceived needs of the individual ("to each according to need"). In communism, there is no division at all. Everyone owns everything equally. The only historical example that I know of is the legends in the Bible of Jesus and his disciples. There have been some communes (communistic societies) established in some countries, but these are just experiments in communism. It is capitalism that divides people into exploiters (those with the capital) and exploitees (those who work for them).

I assume you are referring to Greene, not AOC... 😉

You described authoritarianism right there. Any infringement on self ownership is authoritarian. The US constitution requires that the government is run by the people for the people. But that really annoys the left because they want to call all the shots for you and dictate who gets what, entitled rewards without merit. I'm not sure what you mean by "self ownership" or why you think socialism does not support that. I assume you think "to each according to needs" means the government would determine what your needs are (and are not). That part is true, but whether or not that's "authoritarian" depends on the type of government. If the government were a democracy, then everyone would vote on what your needs were . If the government was a representative democracy, then the elected representatives would together determine on what your needs were, or the elected officials in your area would determine that. If the government were an authoritarian type, like a monarchy, then the monarch or his appointed representatives would determine that. That's exactly how it is done today in the USA (my home country), which is, for the most part, a representative democratic republic.

I disagree with AOC on this, which I seldom do. Greene's nomination/appointment is not "hilarious.' It's, as are all Trump's cabinet nominations/appointments, "outrageous" and will be catastrophic for my home country during the next four years. But that's what the plurality of the voters apparently wanted, or at least were conned into believing would be the best route for them. 😞

Bondi is certainly a step up from Gaetz, but as with all Trump's nominations, she will cause chaos in the upcoming government. 😞

Why do you think it is "impossible" to have socialism without authoritarianism? Socialism is "from each according to ability, and to each according to need." What part of that do you think requires an authoritarian government? A historical example is Native American Indian tribes. Although they had a Chief, he did not instruct them in their everyday life. They could go hunt or fish individually, whatever and whenever they liked. They could also agree to go together to accomplish some tasks for the entire tribe. Logic tells us that economies and governments are separate entities. They have to work together to serve the society, but none have a one-to-one relationship. If you think one does, I'd say you should consider capitalism paired with a plutocracy (rule of the wealthy). My education (BA, BS-CSE, and MBA) did not teach me there was a one-to-one link between socialism and authoritarianism. I do concede that I've heard that is taught today in some places, but that's more of an indoctrination than an education. Most government-provided services labeled "Public" are examples of socialism. These services are provided to ALL citizens and paid for by the government. A good example is a public park or a public street. Everyone can go, and no one has to pay a fee. That's "to each according to need." The park is maintained by the government using funds that have been collected through taxes. Some citizens don't pay taxes, some pay only a little taxes, and some pay a lot. That's "from each according to ability.'

Yes, women do clean men's restrooms in Thailand where I live. Sometimes a man does, but most times, a woman. I don't think the male cleaners are allowed in women's restrooms, though, but I don't know that for sure. And, in Thailand, there are 'ladyboys' (gay men who sometimes dress as women). I wonder which restrooms they go to. I've seen them occasionally in men's restrooms, but not very often. Maybe they usually go to women's restrooms? But, when I lived in the USA, sometimes at big events, like rock concerts or baseball/football games, women would go into men's restrooms during a break or halftime because the line to the women's restrooms was so long. When that happened, no one (men) really cared at all. Some were amused, but no one objected.

Yes, I agree with most of what you say above about the two extremes you describe above, but where do you draw the line? I think the line should be drawn in the same place for everyone, not just for transsexuals. For example, I would not want to see a woman coming into a men's restroom, taking off her underware, and lying on the floor with her legs spread. That presents a danger to men and boys.

The scary thing for me is that you and perhaps even the majority of my fellow citizens (USA) believe both socialism and communism have to be paired with authoritarianism. Socialism, communism, and capitalism are economic systems. Democracy, authoritarianism, monarchy, etc., are governmental systems. Economic systems can be paired with a variety (but not all) of governmental systems. Socialism, communism, and capitalism can all be paired with a democracy. Socialism and communism cannot be paired with a plutocracy like capitalism because, in socialism and communism, there are no people who have more wealth than others. The USA, like most countries, has a mixed economy with both socialistic and capitalistic aspects. Most services that start with "pubic" are socialistic services, like public libraries, public schools, public parks, public fire departments, etc. Services that start with "private" are capitalistic, like private hospitals, private schools, etc. The main arguments about the economy in the USA are not about whether or not there should only be capitalism or socialism; it's about the percentage of the mix. I hope you have learned something from the ooze above... 😉