By that logic, Opioids are statistically far bigger killers than meth so we should legalize meth instead of opioids because your odds of getting and dying from a meth overdose is nothing compared to opioids.
Well, we should legalise both, I think. And if you want to be stupid, tha's your business. But that's my innate anarchism speaking.
Anyway, here's a more relevant comparison: if someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to take either drug A (which kills 95% of the time) or drug B (which kills maybe 25% of the time)... which do you choose? You
have to choose, or he shoots you!
You'd prefer to take neither, but the premise dictates that you don't get that option. You must choose. Well, then youy choose the lesser evil. Which, in political terms, means "basically
anything that's not communism".
Communism may be the worst but let's not pretend it invalidates every other game in town. National socialism Fascism, Islam, all these things have body counts in their own right.
Bloody Political conflicts that I can think of right off the top of my head that had "Christian" trappings: every crusade after the 3rd the Rose Wars The Salem Witch Trials, The Troubles. Those are just the ones from the top of my head at this moment. heck, even Hitler had his supporters within the catholic church. Likewise, Russia had people within the Orthodox church.
Now do any of these guys compare to the communist regimes in Asia (China Korea Vietnam ect?) no but does that mean I want to invite these other guys to my home and play Russian roulette with them? Heck no.
You're missing the point. You're saying "both are bad!" -- okay, sure. And then you say "I want a third option!" -- again, sure.
But that's
not what we're discussing. The post that started this discussion was about "if you have to choose between X and Y". I don't think you do have to choose between those two, exactly, but that's the premise here. And if you have to choose, then communism is
by far the worse option.
This was disputed, and I've attempted to illustrate why it's a mistake to try and equate conservative Christian government with communist government. Because, as I've pointed out: one has bad sides to be sure, but the other is
all bad.
So it's fine if you want to discuss third options and how you like neither X nor Y, but again: that's not the point of discussion.
I've found there are few things unity hates more than a dissenting voice.
Interestingly, history doesn't support that thesis. Unity tends to be secure in its position, and therefore feels unthreatened. Paranoia and a crack-down on dissent tend to occur when unity is
lost. In the middle ages, there were loads of weird Catholic (or even non-Catholic) groups with really wacky ideas, and they typically just did their thing. You know when the Catholic Church got really repressive? During the Counter-Reformation. And that name kind of implies why they were acting like that, doesn't it?
When things are well in order, there is no need for rigid repression, because rigid repression is a response to something
threatening the established order. Times of cultural unity are typically times of a generally permissive attitude, whereas times of division are times of harsh repression on all sides.