RE: Color Challenge - Indigo Saturday - Quilt
There is exciting potential, but also great dangers, in experiencing connection with other individuals in this way. Overall, I think that the positive potential outweighs the negative danger. I would say something similar about relationships in crowded, hostile, impersonal urban environments, except that such environments are, on balance, not fit for human habitation (the danger outweighs the benefits).
My standard by which I measure venues is the small town in which everyone knows each other and most people see each other at church every Sunday morning. Such venues are by no means utopia; there can be feuds and drama and conflict and aggression, as well as division by politics, race, and religion. But such venues are characterized by full disclosure and accountability.
In contrast, here on STEEM, accounts are anonymous, gender and age are concealed or can be falsified, there is no accountability, and there is no commitment to either remain or maintain the viability of the venue.
Agreed, children dive into this too much, too early, like I try my best to handle the Internet now at the age of 33. Started using Internet more so when I was about 13 but only about an hour a week or an hour a day until I was maybe 18 or something. My time on the Internet gradually went up over the years but it can mess people up, especially younger people.
I know the differences between online and offline worlds, and I value offline things and people over online potentials and stuff. Yeah, like you said, less accountability, more risks, more variables, are on the Internet. Yeah, there are benefits for the Internet but it can and does destroy people like guns. They are tools. A gun is a tool. A knife is a tool. Internet is also a dangerous tool that can be used for good and for bad. I remember my life before Internet. You probably can too. And smaller towns are generally better in so many ways like you said.
If I were to have kids someday, and I am single now, but sure hope my hypothetical wife doesn't spoil my kids with like too much Internet at too young of an age. Because the Internet is a tool and not a game. Thanks for writing.
My marriage lasted 17 years. We had two children. We married too young. I had not yet formed as a man, and had not yet established myself "in the world". The Bible says, and it's true, that all should marry. You cannot become fully a man without a wife who, at your side, becomes fully a woman.
My views regarding the details are conservative (lifelong commitment, no birth control, no abortion, no cheating, the woman "loves, honors, obeys", the man "cherishes and protects", and perhaps most importantly, the woman is not in any sense a "partner" and does NOT help out with providing for the family.
What you and your future wife do, of course, will depend upon the ideas that you and she were raised with and how much the two of you have bought into the cultural message, which I view as propoganda designed to serve the interests of special interests rather than the interests of the couple and their children.
I know people who don't do as they were raised. Even kids in the same family grow up and do things differently. They make different choices whether they marry or stay single. I support people making those choices in whether they want to marry or not or in having abortions or not and I do not care what people do as long as they do not make me do whatever they want me to do.
That sounds libertarian, and I consider myself a libertarian. It is important to distinguish two very different issues, both important. The first issue is whether culture should clearly articulate its "way of life", including gender roles and sexual mores. The second issue is whether the coercive power of the State should be used to enforce such rules.
My views are conservative and my methods are libertarian. I want to be allowed to speak my views so that they are available to anyone who would hear and consider them. But I don't want my views, or the views of my opposition, to be enforced by government. IOW, I want "informed choice", where "informed" comes from a vigorous civic conversation in which all views are heard and considered.
Agreed, gov shouldn't enforce religion, culture, these things, as they do in the Middle East for example.
I wouldn't go quite that far. People should be empowered with choice. Those who want to live in a theocracy should be able to do so.
Interesting.