Looking-Glass Selves

There is nothing innate about ownership. It is a learned concept. Some societies have it. Others don't. "Theft" begins with a model of unconditional individual ownership. I see nothing wrong with limited ownership. However, the question needs to be asked, "What gives people the right to own something?" Ultimately, societies make those decisions, not individuals. The fact that we pay taxes indicates that limitations are already placed on individual ownership. As a socialist, I believe that those limitations need to be increased. For instance, some people have argued against aspects of the Welfare State on the grounds that it deprives them of their freedom. Where justice and freedom conflict, precedence should, IMO, be given to justice.

The violent incident in Wisconsin today is further evidence of the rednecking of America. This country has a gun fetish. Of course, Sikhs are not Muslims, However, IMO, the politicians who have been recently attacking Muslims, including Secretary Clinton's aid, are especially culpable.

First, you are confusing a scenario with reality. The Rockefeller Foundation is laying out a few possible events in order to assist with preparedness training. The fact that we live in a dangerous world, indicated by the security precautions which have been taken for the London Olympics, does not indicate that anyone in government has some nefarious scheme. Use Ockam's razor (parsimony or economy). Second, when people (including myself) use the term new world order, we are using it to refer to the world as it exists now, not to some possible world government. Now, some folks (again, myself included) would like to see the new world order evolve into a kind of world governance or government. However, that idea continues to be debated. In any event, it is not a secret conspiracy. Those who recognize the changes in the world, and the need to move political and economic institutions into the 21st century, are very open about it.

Many people discuss (and attack) feminists as if they are a monolith (all the same). Objectivizing people may make life easier. However, people are not stereotyped categories. For instance, whenever you type "feminists," you might replace it (in your mind) with members of a racial or religious minority (or Autists for that matter). It is the same issue.

People can debate whether a country is real. However, debating whether a being is real, while some have tried, is more problematic. As a Critical Realist, I would suggest that humanity is real. Roy Bhaskar says that we are all connected through co-presence or a cosmic envelope. On the other hand, countries come and go. Some countries are not even recognized as legal entities by other countries. (For instance, China does not recognize Taiwan as being separate from Mainland China.) Humanity is ontological. Countries are epistemological (perceptive).

The problem is that sexual orientation (or sexual preference) is a late-20th-century concept. The concept was developed after gays and lesbians were more socially accepted. In other words, there had to be a term which distinguished homosexuals from heterosexuals. Taking the concept of sexual orientation and retrofitting it onto an ancient manuscript, such as a Biblical text, doesn't make much sense to me.