They are so against each other and yet the way they handle it is simply so -- cool, in that is overwhelmingly telling me how small a world that I know.
The strategy, to gain the broad understanding of an issue, requires the social orders, traditional and modern, and the patterns and the reasons behind any particular ways of thinking. Every society has its own rules; Dickensian consequences of events, loyalty based human rules, responsibilities that are based upon human reasons.
Some societies are rigidly top-down. The disadvantages of it would be that all sorts of rebellious attitudes be punished; you would not know who really are the enemies then; those of your kinds become the worse foes. Without the oppositions, inner and from outside, the sets of goals that are presented before you, given perhaps, will dominate the world that you live in. The advantages of it would be that once it's set, the whole thing would move on to that direction without voices hindering it from doing so. You would end up feeling that it takes a lot of efforts just to oppose it, even when it comes from any practical reasons.
The places where the grass-roots have voices among their fellow citizens, they have the advantage to be irresponsible. People want less taxes and more spendings; revenge at the cost of human sacrifices; noisy denouncements upon the preys. It is because of the fact that they realize that individuals might not see the consequences of others. It is always somebody else who dies at a war, unless you are not reading or writing it. That means, it is always fictions that talk about dying at a war. The disadvantages of it would be that you won't feel safe among the irresponsible others. It would results in a society of high crime rates and social unrests.
The strategy, to gain the broad understanding of an issue, requires the social orders, traditional and modern, and the patterns and the reasons behind any particular ways of thinking. Every society has its own rules; Dickensian consequences of events, loyalty based human rules, responsibilities that are based upon human reasons.
Some societies are rigidly top-down. The disadvantages of it would be that all sorts of rebellious attitudes be punished; you would not know who really are the enemies then; those of your kinds become the worse foes. Without the oppositions, inner and from outside, the sets of goals that are presented before you, given perhaps, will dominate the world that you live in. The advantages of it would be that once it's set, the whole thing would move on to that direction without voices hindering it from doing so. You would end up feeling that it takes a lot of efforts just to oppose it, even when it comes from any practical reasons.
The places where the grass-roots have voices among their fellow citizens, they have the advantage to be irresponsible. People want less taxes and more spendings; revenge at the cost of human sacrifices; noisy denouncements upon the preys. It is because of the fact that they realize that individuals might not see the consequences of others. It is always somebody else who dies at a war, unless you are not reading or writing it. That means, it is always fictions that talk about dying at a war. The disadvantages of it would be that you won't feel safe among the irresponsible others. It would results in a society of high crime rates and social unrests.