3 ms·
Isn't that still the same as "blood and fire"? Sure, you can just ignore the moralists you don't like, but what if they don't go quietly? Then you have to use
by Arizhel 10y ago
Isn't that still the same as "blood and fire"?
Sure, you can just ignore the moralists you don't like, but what if they don't go quietly? Then you have to use something stronger against them. With the abortion issue for example, it's been a never-ending tug-of-war in politics, with each side constantly working to change the makeup of the SCOTUS to either maintain the status quo or to overturn it. While not an actual, physical battle, it's been a constant political one, for decades now. It's never been settled. And with the latest election, the "let's wait for them to die off" idea obviously isn't working so well: the anti-abortion people are winning politically (at least for now), so I reject the idea that the people with strict religious moral codes are dying out. (Notice that, in the US at least, it's religious people who typically have far more kids than non-religious people.)
- anigbrowl 10y agoNo. Not everything has to be adversarial all the time. I'm trying to make a general point, not comment on US politics in particular.