Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Gary wrote: Are you avoiding the question that I asked you in 6955 on page 140? Are you ever going to address the list of avoided questions I summarised for you on page 93, 4608, before your protracted absence?#6955 was replied to....see 6961/6962/6963.
I won't go looking for my replies to #4608. You may have just missed them as well
Gary wrote: "Eugenics was based on some scientific principles, but it was founded on the idea that certain people, certain races, certain cultures have more intrinsic value than others. This arbitrary measure of value is not scientific and indeed historically it bears more resemblance to the ideas of a "chosen people" with divine mandate than it does a scientific theory.
For reference check the ideas in the Old Testament and the Latter Day Saints scripture for ideas about "gods chosen people"."
Given my ancestry and love of history, I've known about the above for a very long time. I heard stories, personal anecdotes, of people who hid their ancestry, claimed their daughters went into emergency surgery to have their appendixes removed and came out with their tubes tied and missing the offending organ, etc.... Of course, I also learned about this in high school. Vermont's dark history .... And, at that time, I learned of how the poor, those with low IQ's, the mentally ill, certain women, etc... fell under the gaze of this "program" ....
Believe it or not, every five or so years, I read a bit on this .... I haven't for about that long.
So, when I read your thoughtful posts this morning, I didn't respond to this point right away. When I got home this afternoon, I went back .... I read much of what is posted on the link I gave.
You make a point, Gary ... to a point. This is why I waited to respond. What did I remember? Was my memory accurate? Hmmm....
As I was growing up on some of these stories and with a sense of fear in my elders that I didn't really understand, they never said ... and this was based in religion, Shannon, and because the Bible talks of chosen people.
So, my mind and my gut stuttered a bit this morning. Was it all or mostly about religion? Was that part left out? Or, did I simply forget that piece of the puzzle?
Yes, I imagine religion might have had something to do with this. I mean, at the very least, one just doesn't know the influence such things can have. Even if it's not a "direct" influence, there might be indirect influences that we can't easily identify. True.
But, regarding eugenics in Vermont, it wasn't just about religion. I'm not sure it was even based in religion. However, I will say, at some point when I have the time, I'll have to research the progressive movement in the US in general. Much of this coincided with that movement. Were the progressives at that time highly religious? Were they doing what they were doing due to religious beliefs? I honestly don't know the answers to those questions.
Regarding Vermont, ....
I don't think the reasons for eugenics are as easy as ... religion.
I re-read today, for example, and remembered that many Vermonter's were rejected by the military during WWI. This is one of the many reasons for eugenics in Vermont. I don't think that had to do with religion or the idea of a chosen people. It had more to do with the fact that Vermonter's were a very prideful people and had a very proud history. We were the first "state" to outlaw slavery. Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys kicked major British butt, sorry, during the Revolution. They played key roles, including at the Battle of Saratoga. At one point, more patents and inventions were filed and conceived by Vermont residents than residents in any other state. I could go on and on. Then, .... Time went on and Vermont and Vermonter's were seen as backward vs. the champions of Yankee pride. Enter WWI and many Vermonter's being rejected by the draft.
This coincided with "new" ideas in the field of science and studies done by scientists, new IQ tests, the progressive movement, etc.... Immigration played a factor. Economics played a factor.
My point ....
While I believe religion likely played a role, I'm not sure what extent it played. Maybe I'll find out it played a huge role. The role. But, growing up here and growing up on the stories and the lectures and the .... Religion, honestly, never came up. I can promise you that. Further, in my adult years, I've come to know Native American elders in my community who ... hmmmm .... They have very strong views about the treatment of native peoples, our history, and the American government. Further, they are not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.... I'd say they have very, very negative views of such religions; however, it's in bad form to say so ... therefore they don't. Their views, I think, come out in body language and silence. Some are very outspoken, though, when discussing the treatment of native peoples ... what happened, when it happened, why it happened. They're educated people. Educated and honest. I've never once heard them blame religion for this ... for other things ... but not for this.
I guess this is a really long way of saying ... I think you have a point, but ....
I don't know how much of a point you have ... and ... I think it leaves a lot of things out.
Regarding your last comment on the Old Testament and the LDS .... One would think, if we went on OT views on God's chosen, the eugenic program would also put Christians on the list of suspect people. From my memory, the Jewish people are cited as God's chosen people. And, on this thread, some have contended that I shouldn't find truths in the teachings attributed to Jesus because ... I'd have to pick and choose ... cherry picker ... based on what ... my morals ... because Jesus called a gentile a dog ... the poor woman had to bow to him in order to ... etc.... So, .... I'm mildly confused.
Further, regarding the LDS ....
While Joseph Smith had his roots here, was born in Vermont and allegedly received his visions and plates in upstate New York, he and the other LDS members fled ... or were run out of the area upon threat of violence .... I'd say the latter was more accurate. There wasn't really an LDS influence in Vermont at that time. So, I don't think their beliefs would have fueled the ideas of Dr. Perkins.
For reference check the ideas in the Old Testament and the Latter Day Saints scripture for ideas about "gods chosen people"."
Given my ancestry and love of history, I've known about the above for a very long time. I heard stories, personal anecdotes, of people who hid their ancestry, claimed their daughters went into emergency surgery to have their appendixes removed and came out with their tubes tied and missing the offending organ, etc.... Of course, I also learned about this in high school. Vermont's dark history .... And, at that time, I learned of how the poor, those with low IQ's, the mentally ill, certain women, etc... fell under the gaze of this "program" ....
Believe it or not, every five or so years, I read a bit on this .... I haven't for about that long.
So, when I read your thoughtful posts this morning, I didn't respond to this point right away. When I got home this afternoon, I went back .... I read much of what is posted on the link I gave.
You make a point, Gary ... to a point. This is why I waited to respond. What did I remember? Was my memory accurate? Hmmm....
As I was growing up on some of these stories and with a sense of fear in my elders that I didn't really understand, they never said ... and this was based in religion, Shannon, and because the Bible talks of chosen people.
So, my mind and my gut stuttered a bit this morning. Was it all or mostly about religion? Was that part left out? Or, did I simply forget that piece of the puzzle?
Yes, I imagine religion might have had something to do with this. I mean, at the very least, one just doesn't know the influence such things can have. Even if it's not a "direct" influence, there might be indirect influences that we can't easily identify. True.
But, regarding eugenics in Vermont, it wasn't just about religion. I'm not sure it was even based in religion. However, I will say, at some point when I have the time, I'll have to research the progressive movement in the US in general. Much of this coincided with that movement. Were the progressives at that time highly religious? Were they doing what they were doing due to religious beliefs? I honestly don't know the answers to those questions.
Regarding Vermont, ....
I don't think the reasons for eugenics are as easy as ... religion.
I re-read today, for example, and remembered that many Vermonter's were rejected by the military during WWI. This is one of the many reasons for eugenics in Vermont. I don't think that had to do with religion or the idea of a chosen people. It had more to do with the fact that Vermonter's were a very prideful people and had a very proud history. We were the first "state" to outlaw slavery. Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys kicked major British butt, sorry, during the Revolution. They played key roles, including at the Battle of Saratoga. At one point, more patents and inventions were filed and conceived by Vermont residents than residents in any other state. I could go on and on. Then, .... Time went on and Vermont and Vermonter's were seen as backward vs. the champions of Yankee pride. Enter WWI and many Vermonter's being rejected by the draft.
This coincided with "new" ideas in the field of science and studies done by scientists, new IQ tests, the progressive movement, etc.... Immigration played a factor. Economics played a factor.
My point ....
While I believe religion likely played a role, I'm not sure what extent it played. Maybe I'll find out it played a huge role. The role. But, growing up here and growing up on the stories and the lectures and the .... Religion, honestly, never came up. I can promise you that. Further, in my adult years, I've come to know Native American elders in my community who ... hmmmm .... They have very strong views about the treatment of native peoples, our history, and the American government. Further, they are not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.... I'd say they have very, very negative views of such religions; however, it's in bad form to say so ... therefore they don't. Their views, I think, come out in body language and silence. Some are very outspoken, though, when discussing the treatment of native peoples ... what happened, when it happened, why it happened. They're educated people. Educated and honest. I've never once heard them blame religion for this ... for other things ... but not for this.
I guess this is a really long way of saying ... I think you have a point, but ....
I don't know how much of a point you have ... and ... I think it leaves a lot of things out.
Regarding your last comment on the Old Testament and the LDS .... One would think, if we went on OT views on God's chosen, the eugenic program would also put Christians on the list of suspect people. From my memory, the Jewish people are cited as God's chosen people. And, on this thread, some have contended that I shouldn't find truths in the teachings attributed to Jesus because ... I'd have to pick and choose ... cherry picker ... based on what ... my morals ... because Jesus called a gentile a dog ... the poor woman had to bow to him in order to ... etc.... So, .... I'm mildly confused.
Further, regarding the LDS ....
While Joseph Smith had his roots here, was born in Vermont and allegedly received his visions and plates in upstate New York, he and the other LDS members fled ... or were run out of the area upon threat of violence .... I'd say the latter was more accurate. There wasn't really an LDS influence in Vermont at that time. So, I don't think their beliefs would have fueled the ideas of Dr. Perkins.
Shannon wrote: "While Joseph Smith had his roots here, was born in Vermont and allegedly received his visions and plates in upstate New York, he and the other LDS members fled ... or were run out of the area upon threat of violence .... I'd say the latter was more accurate. There wasn't really an LDS influence in Vermont at that time. So, I don't think their beliefs would have fueled the ideas of Dr. Perkins."Just providing further info for this ...
Smith and his followers ended up in Nauvoo, IL-via Kirtland, OH and Independence, MO--where he was eventually killed in nearby Carthage, IL. His followers then eventually continued west (establishing a permanent presence in Utah) under the leadership of Brigham Young. Young's "transformation" of the original LDS religious tradition is a topic for another discussion.
Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_...
C-Cose wrote: "Travis wrote: "...At no point do I say either is a good thing, but I keep getting hammered because science can be and has been used for bad things. ..."Greetings Travis,
I've led my post with th..."
My comments about being hammered on was when I asked for an example and the very first response was the holocaust.
I then tried to edge the debate away from the holocaust, because unless you are discussing Indiana Jones movies, no conversation that includes nazis ever ends well.
Instead, I kept getting lectured about the holocaust. It was frustrating, as the more I tried to explain that this was going to go badly could I get a recent example instead, i got more lectures. Now, i was dismissing and diminishing the holocaust.
and eugenics.
and brown people.
So, in the end, i got treated as the bad guy, no one actually gave me an answer, and now I've been given a talking to on how to behave when talking in this thread.
All because somebody else had to bring up the holocaust.
and I'm afraid I don't really agree with most of your list, because it feeds into the same false equivalency that science and religion are some how both sides of the same coin that started the whole holocaust debacle in the first place.
you can stay and talk, I'm tired, and going to take a break from this thread.
to me this is philosophical and mental gymnastics, with some interesting bits of history and general chatting as all of these kind of debates have to be, because to seriously discuss science vs religion we would have to be honest and admit the false equivalency that exists between the two and that's not going to happen.
So, I'm going on sabatical. If the thread hits two hundred maybe I'll stop by for the celebrations.
We had quite a party when it hit one hundred.
Travis wrote: "So, in the end, i got treated as the bad guy, no one actually gave me an answer, and now I've been given a talking to on how to behave when talking in this thread. All because somebody else had to bring up the holocaust."Greetings Travis,
If I had known that the Holocaust was *booming voice of doom* forbidden territory, I wouldn't have brought it up .... or AIDS apparently.
Note, I didn't create the false equivalency that you propose. In the context of this discussion, it follows from the discussion topic. Blame the creator of this thread.
I'm sorry that you feel hammered. Enjoy your sabbatical.
Travis wrote." So, in the end, i got treated as the bad guy, no one actually gave me an answer, and now I've been given a talking to on how to behave when talking in this thread. All because somebody else had to bring up the holocaust. I know how you feel. I've been there, maybe I am still there. A break is the best way, recharge your batteries. The downside is some here will just welcome you back by saying you took a break to avoid the questions, as you did to me a few times.
You are right that some subjects are a bit taboo, your words can be twisted to put you in a bad light. It happens a lot here.
C-Cose wrote: "1. Both Science and Religion are mental constructs used to define a type of thought process, view of the world or surrounding environment, that can not in and of themselves be (in)tolerant."Well I would disagree strongly there. Science is a methodology, religion is an ideology. If the scientific method determines something is unhealthy, risky or detrimental to the public then that is based on evidence applied to a preferred set of parameters.
An ideology can easily be intolerant. The ideologies of White/Black Supremacy are intolerant of each other. The ideology of Anti-Semitism is intolerant. All because they do not tolerate a section of society for no independently verifiable reason.
The intolerance of religion is even codified into it, the First Commandment of Judeo/Christian belief is not to tolerate any other belief! Further expounded into a direct order to kill anyone who commits the "hateful" crime of encouraging you to worship other gods.
C-Cose wrote: "2. Science within the confines of how this discussion has developed further includes atheists and / or agnostics. I say this because the discussion topic has been phrased in a false dichotomy which places Science and Religion at opposite ends of the debate."
Actually it is usually the religious that have placed science and belief as equivalent. I do not count religion as the 'opposite' of science. At best its an incomplete attempt at science, at worst its just the absence of science.
C-Cose wrote: "3. Both Science and Religion have adherents that can--have done, do--act in extreme ways based on their interpretation of these mental constructs (1)."
No. Scientists (i.e. people) have done bad things in the "name of science" however unless you can cite a clear case where a scientifically derived theorem called for an atrocity I think you will find that those scientists acted based on unscientific ideologies. Whether that ideology was fascism, racism, colonialism or capitalism.
C-Cose wrote: "4. The actions or speech of said adherents can be described as intolerant behaviour regardless of whether those actions / speech are in strict keeping with the construct that they follow."
I can agree with that, but that does not automatically absolve the construct. If the construct contains within it instructions that encourage intolerance then than construct is intolerant. E.g. The mental construct of anti-Semitism calls for the intolerance of a group of people, therefore the construct is as intolerant as its adherents.
The mental construct of scientific methodology does not call for intolerance of any group, and correctly used can often demonstrate why intolerance is illogical.
C-Cose wrote: "5. Religion--specifically Abrahamic traditions--are mutually exclusive in their own sense of superiority, "truth" of claims, expectations from their adherents. I say this because there are many other religious traditions that couldn't give a toss one way or the other as to who has exclusive claim on "truth": e.g. Buddhism, many Pagan traditions, Shinto."
That is a nice claim, but I have debated with members of those faiths who would disagree. However, there tradition of superiority does not come from revelation like many Abrahamic traditions, but from mystery like many persian-eastern traditions. By this method a member of that religion often seems like they are not acting with the same overt superiority, however they do maintain their own ideas of what is true or not and they will continue to claim said truth when a supplicant starts along their path.
However, some do not take this approach and are indeed more tolerant of other ideas, however in modern secular Europe (and to a lesser extent the states) there are also a lot of people who do not practice their religion as strictly, and indeed ignore large portions of it. Therefore blaming Western religion with a sense of superiority is not really valid.
C-Cose wrote: "6. The actions of adherents must not be confused with the underlying construct(1)."
Yes, but when an adherent acts in accordance to the declared principles of that construct it is wrong to blame the person and absolve the ideology.
"Good people do good things, evil people do evil things, to get good people to do evil requires religion."
C-Cose wrote: "If we can agree on the majority of the above statements, then I think I can continue in this discussion."
I am not sure how you can have a discussion when you will not engage with people who disagree with you. Perhaps though we can find common ground to build on that both parties can agree on?
cHriS wrote: "The downside is some here will just welcome you back by saying you took a break to avoid the questions, as you did to me a few times."Actually you threw that same accusation out fairly recently, then tried to make the same accusation against me when I pointed out you had 15 questions outstanding from me.
Travis wrote: "Instead, I kept getting lectured about the holocaust. It was frustrating, as the more I tried to explain that this was going to go badly could I get a recent example instead, i got more lectures. Now, i was dismissing and diminishing the holocaust.
and eugenics.
and brown people."
I have several thoughts.
First, as I mentioned before ...
Questions, comments and the Holocaust .... Atheists, who question believers while often using language believers would find disrespectful regarding their "God" and faith, argue their right to do so. Nothing should be beyond question. Further, atheists will not respect "God" and believers need to, frankly, "Suck it up, Buttercup," and not be put off or offended. Yet, if anyone brings up experimentation during the Holocaust, stand back. It turns out there is ONE thing that can never be mentioned or questioned. Never.... That's a cheap shot and is off limits. Really. I thought nothing was beyond question. Is it that, when it comes to believers, nothing is beyond question and there are no cheap shots that an atheist can deliver? Anything goes. But, when it comes to atheists, well, there are things that can't be mentioned or questioned?
My next thought is the fact that this might be a learning lesson. While I don't like the fact that you felt you were hammered, Travis, I do think this might have illuminated something.
First, may I say, I went back and re-read all of my posts. Had I been disrespectful to you? Had I crossed a line? After re-reading everything, I truly don't think I was.
This might have been an illuminating experience for you and other atheists. (Or, not.) Imagine if, instead of making the points I was making, I'd done something like ...
Made those points and called you ...
Ignorant.
Travis, you have to be the most ignorant person who has ever posted to this thread.
Or, ... made my points and said ...
I find your comments to be the height of arrogance.
Or, ... Made my argument and said ...
Your views are so selfish.
Or ... threw in ...
All of you atheists are crazy. I don't need to listen to anything you say. I don't have anything to learn from any of you. None of you are different. You're just all a bunch of crazy people. Equally crazy.
Or ...
Imagine if, instead of just attempting to make an argument ... instead of just questioning you and your views, I threw out some of these names. And, C did the same. cHriS did likewise. And, one or two other people did.
All of us at once. And, in addition to that, we were telling you, all at once, that ....
You were single-handedly destroying the thread. You didn't make sense. You needed to stop posting.
Imagine if I said, "I'm not responding to you anymore!"
And ...
C started saying, "Don't respond to him, Shannon! Don't respond to him!" ... because I kept forgetting that I wasn't going to talk with you anymore ...
Imagine that, all at once ... and what something like that would feel like ... what would that experience be ...
Now, Travis, I'm fully aware you've not done that to anyone. You make jokes sometimes and use language to describe "God" that some find offensive. But, I know, well and truly, that you've been more respectful to people on this thread than most. Know that I know that and appreciate it. Very much.
You have, however, when these things have happened to believers, assumed, in my opinion, that it's about the believer not wanting to be questioned. If the believer cries foul or if I step in and cry foul on the person's behalf, you've often said something like ...
I've never understood why believers think they're beyond question.
The last go round we had ... in August ... I had a few words to say about that. You might recall.
It's not that the questions, in and of themselves are wrong. It's the way the person is questioned. And ... I gave examples. Your reply was that you've always tried to be respectful to the people here. True.
It might be interesting if you and some of the atheists who respond here were to think this through a bit.
It seems to me, from my point of view, that atheists believe, yes, believe, that they can question believers, to one extent or another, about anything, while hurling insults (though this doesn't apply to you, Travis), and, when a believer says they're offended or feel disrespected, the atheists believe it's okay to tell the believer they're also wrong about that ... we're adults and shouldn't be offended, we're choosing to participate and should grow up and take it ... etc....
Yet, ....
When a believer questions an atheist or brings up the Holocaust and AIDS or disagrees with an atheist, ....
That's a hammering. Or, in the words of another atheist ... that's believers vilifying atheists for their opinions.
I'm experiencing a disconnect here.
If you and other atheists truly believe or feel or think my posts and C's posts from Wednesday night and yesterday were a hammering, you might, I stress might, want to give this some thought. If this was a hammering, a cheap shot, or wrong in some way, you might, might, want to reassess how you treat believers or think about how believers are treated here.
Further, atheists might not want to claim that the atheists here are tolerant and question cHriS for saying otherwise. If this was a hammering, I question how any atheist who reads these posts can believe, yes, believe that atheists have acted with the utmost respect and tolerance.
and eugenics.
and brown people."
I have several thoughts.
First, as I mentioned before ...
Questions, comments and the Holocaust .... Atheists, who question believers while often using language believers would find disrespectful regarding their "God" and faith, argue their right to do so. Nothing should be beyond question. Further, atheists will not respect "God" and believers need to, frankly, "Suck it up, Buttercup," and not be put off or offended. Yet, if anyone brings up experimentation during the Holocaust, stand back. It turns out there is ONE thing that can never be mentioned or questioned. Never.... That's a cheap shot and is off limits. Really. I thought nothing was beyond question. Is it that, when it comes to believers, nothing is beyond question and there are no cheap shots that an atheist can deliver? Anything goes. But, when it comes to atheists, well, there are things that can't be mentioned or questioned?
My next thought is the fact that this might be a learning lesson. While I don't like the fact that you felt you were hammered, Travis, I do think this might have illuminated something.
First, may I say, I went back and re-read all of my posts. Had I been disrespectful to you? Had I crossed a line? After re-reading everything, I truly don't think I was.
This might have been an illuminating experience for you and other atheists. (Or, not.) Imagine if, instead of making the points I was making, I'd done something like ...
Made those points and called you ...
Ignorant.
Travis, you have to be the most ignorant person who has ever posted to this thread.
Or, ... made my points and said ...
I find your comments to be the height of arrogance.
Or, ... Made my argument and said ...
Your views are so selfish.
Or ... threw in ...
All of you atheists are crazy. I don't need to listen to anything you say. I don't have anything to learn from any of you. None of you are different. You're just all a bunch of crazy people. Equally crazy.
Or ...
Imagine if, instead of just attempting to make an argument ... instead of just questioning you and your views, I threw out some of these names. And, C did the same. cHriS did likewise. And, one or two other people did.
All of us at once. And, in addition to that, we were telling you, all at once, that ....
You were single-handedly destroying the thread. You didn't make sense. You needed to stop posting.
Imagine if I said, "I'm not responding to you anymore!"
And ...
C started saying, "Don't respond to him, Shannon! Don't respond to him!" ... because I kept forgetting that I wasn't going to talk with you anymore ...
Imagine that, all at once ... and what something like that would feel like ... what would that experience be ...
Now, Travis, I'm fully aware you've not done that to anyone. You make jokes sometimes and use language to describe "God" that some find offensive. But, I know, well and truly, that you've been more respectful to people on this thread than most. Know that I know that and appreciate it. Very much.
You have, however, when these things have happened to believers, assumed, in my opinion, that it's about the believer not wanting to be questioned. If the believer cries foul or if I step in and cry foul on the person's behalf, you've often said something like ...
I've never understood why believers think they're beyond question.
The last go round we had ... in August ... I had a few words to say about that. You might recall.
It's not that the questions, in and of themselves are wrong. It's the way the person is questioned. And ... I gave examples. Your reply was that you've always tried to be respectful to the people here. True.
It might be interesting if you and some of the atheists who respond here were to think this through a bit.
It seems to me, from my point of view, that atheists believe, yes, believe, that they can question believers, to one extent or another, about anything, while hurling insults (though this doesn't apply to you, Travis), and, when a believer says they're offended or feel disrespected, the atheists believe it's okay to tell the believer they're also wrong about that ... we're adults and shouldn't be offended, we're choosing to participate and should grow up and take it ... etc....
Yet, ....
When a believer questions an atheist or brings up the Holocaust and AIDS or disagrees with an atheist, ....
That's a hammering. Or, in the words of another atheist ... that's believers vilifying atheists for their opinions.
I'm experiencing a disconnect here.
If you and other atheists truly believe or feel or think my posts and C's posts from Wednesday night and yesterday were a hammering, you might, I stress might, want to give this some thought. If this was a hammering, a cheap shot, or wrong in some way, you might, might, want to reassess how you treat believers or think about how believers are treated here.
Further, atheists might not want to claim that the atheists here are tolerant and question cHriS for saying otherwise. If this was a hammering, I question how any atheist who reads these posts can believe, yes, believe that atheists have acted with the utmost respect and tolerance.
Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "The downside is some here will just welcome you back by saying you took a break to avoid the questions, as you did to me a few times."Actually you threw that same accusation out fai..."
Get it right Gary, you threw the recent accusation first and I pointed out to you that you do the same thing. Look above #7057. which you have not replied to.
Pot / kettle. :(
I am scared to live in either of the worlds!I have a feeling that there's a conservation rule of science and religion in the world. I am not saying when the religion is full, u dont need science, but may be when there's no science , religion comes and fills that void.
I am not an atheist. And I think people should need faith to live their life, but then I would rather live in an world where there's only science and no religion, and I will make peace with my own faith!
It's better to believe in religion without science. Science is just cold facts. It's lonely without God.
cHriS wrote: "Get it right Gary, you threw the recent accusation first and I pointed out to you that you do the same thing. Look above #7057. which you have not replied to. Pot / kettle. :( "
First I was responding to the audacity of you accusing others of not answering questions when most people claim it of yourself.
Second, the question I actually the asked in #6955 was "Do you believe males should not serve on the front line if they have children? If not, how do you justify the discrepancy?" (In response to your assertion that females should not if they have children.)
You claimed that #6961-#6963 contained the answer to my question. Analysing those posts we get (paraphrased for brevity, but anyone can check the source)
cHriS wrote: #6961: paragraph 1 "Robotic reply, you sound like HAL or overly PC"
#6961: paragraph 2 "Human emotion v logic"
#6961: paragraph 3 "Assertion that without religion we wouldn't have emotion"
#6961: paragraph 4 "Jews are Ok to hate Germans"
#6961: paragraph 5 "They have right to hate even if it's illogical"
#6962: paragraph 1 "Why do you have the right to state that"
#6962: paragraph 2 (I think, your quote of me went on a few lines) "Spurious reference to my approval of state spongers"
#6963: paragraph 1 "'pass judgement' may be a bit strong."
#6963: paragraph 2 "Does your type of 'freedom of choice' not extend to someone, not approving of certain behaviour""
So nowhere did you directly reply to the question. You may have replied to the post but as usual you evaded the direct question only to ask your own direct questions and expect them to be answered (which I did).
I also did check for answers to the list I had, so far you partially replied to one of them.
Oh and #7057 wasn't a question to me it was the reply saying you'd answered the question when you actually hadn't.
Get it right.
Shannon wrote: "Yet, if anyone brings up experimentation during the Holocaust, stand back. It turns out there is ONE thing that can never be mentioned or questioned. Never.... That's a cheap shot and is off limits."Hi Shannon, just so you know it isn't atheists that don't like that, it's an internet thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin&#...
The only thing that does tend to annoy Atheists is that Evangelists love to claim Hitler was an Atheist without any indication that he was, and in fact clear information that he was religious at least and Christian by lip service at the bare minimum. Certainly the overwhelming majority of Germans at the time were Christian, even those involved in the Holocaust.
So it's not a point atheists don't mention, it's just usually seen as a cheap shot whomever brings it up.
Daniel wrote: "It's better to believe in religion without science. Science is just cold facts. It's lonely without God."Could you tell us exactly how a methodology has started feeling human emotions? That would be noteworthy!
I don't feel that anyone has the right to say what subjects are taboo on this thread, except maybe the owner/moderator of the site. I've been reading and commenting on and off for a long time and I have seen a lot of subjects come up that I did not want to respond to. That's the beauty of it. If a subject is taboo in your mind or you don't feel comfortable discussing, don't. But don't tell the rest of us we aren't allowed to.
The way this thread runs, just pop back in a week or so and I guarantee we will be talking about something entirely different!
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Hi Shannon, just so you know it isn't atheists that don't like that, it's an internet thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin&#......
The only thing that does tend to annoy Atheists is that Evangelists love to claim Hitler was an Atheist without any indication that he was, and in fact clear information that he was religious at least and Christian by lip service at the bare minimum. "
But ....
I was responding to what I've read on this thread. I was responding to how atheists on this thread have responded when anyone brings up that particular topic.
Further, not all of us are as into the Internet and Internet lingo as everyone else. For example, I'd never heard of Godwin's Law prior to participating on this thread. There are actually a lot of things, Internet things, that I've not been aware of until participating here.
So ...
You can say it's an Internet thing.
Fine.
In thinking about perspective, it could appear to someone who isn't versed on all things cool and hip on the Internet that it's an atheist thing. Mouse. That was my thought. Now, I realize it's an Internet thing and something that drives most of the atheists here bonkers. Eagle and mouse.
Now, I know ...
One fact still remains true ... with regard to my initial perception.
It drives many of the atheists on this thread bonkers ... to the point that they say it's off limits and shouldn't be brought up or questioned ... due to the fact that it's a cheap shot.
Further, I continue to contend that ... if atheists here say anything is up for discussion, debate, and question ... at least when it comes to believers ... they should likely expect and welcome the same. But, that's my opinion.
Finally, I didn't say Hitler was an atheist the other day. Did I? C didn't say that? Did he? So, it's a cheap shot because ....
In the past ... other people (not me) ... but other people ... ists ... have made that claim ...
So, ....
You see where my brain is going, right?
While we're all human, I'd appreciate it if people would respond to me and to the actual words and thoughts I express.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin&#......
The only thing that does tend to annoy Atheists is that Evangelists love to claim Hitler was an Atheist without any indication that he was, and in fact clear information that he was religious at least and Christian by lip service at the bare minimum. "
But ....
I was responding to what I've read on this thread. I was responding to how atheists on this thread have responded when anyone brings up that particular topic.
Further, not all of us are as into the Internet and Internet lingo as everyone else. For example, I'd never heard of Godwin's Law prior to participating on this thread. There are actually a lot of things, Internet things, that I've not been aware of until participating here.
So ...
You can say it's an Internet thing.
Fine.
In thinking about perspective, it could appear to someone who isn't versed on all things cool and hip on the Internet that it's an atheist thing. Mouse. That was my thought. Now, I realize it's an Internet thing and something that drives most of the atheists here bonkers. Eagle and mouse.
Now, I know ...
One fact still remains true ... with regard to my initial perception.
It drives many of the atheists on this thread bonkers ... to the point that they say it's off limits and shouldn't be brought up or questioned ... due to the fact that it's a cheap shot.
Further, I continue to contend that ... if atheists here say anything is up for discussion, debate, and question ... at least when it comes to believers ... they should likely expect and welcome the same. But, that's my opinion.
Finally, I didn't say Hitler was an atheist the other day. Did I? C didn't say that? Did he? So, it's a cheap shot because ....
In the past ... other people (not me) ... but other people ... ists ... have made that claim ...
So, ....
You see where my brain is going, right?
While we're all human, I'd appreciate it if people would respond to me and to the actual words and thoughts I express.
Gary wrote: "I am not sure how you can have a discussion when you will not engage with people who disagree with you. Perhaps though we can find common ground to build on that both parties can agree on? "Gary,
Did you actually read--as in for comprehension--the list of statements that I'd hope some common ground could be found? They were not written in the form of:
If "A" then jump to the end and argue interpretation of that statement.
They were intended, and I think clearly written, as:
If "A" and / or "B" and / or "C" ... then we have some common ground on which to base a future discussion.
Whether Science is a "methodology" or "ideology" is is still a mental construct. Period.
Abrahamic Religions are mutually exclusive in that the "claims of truth" that they make cancel each other out. They are intolerant of each other first and foremost (although there appears to be a trend in some Baptist traditions to "heal the breach" between their version of Christianity and Judaism).
Scientists are adherents of Science--unless you have a completely different, yet again, definition of adherent.
Specifically when you wrote, "Actually it is usually the religious that have placed science and belief as equivalent. I do not count religion as the 'opposite' of science. At best its an incomplete attempt at science, at worst its just the absence of science."
Had you read further comments, you would have seen that I further explained that as a) a result of where this thread has moved to and b) a result of the implied dichotomy of the initial topic question where Science and Religion are placed as opposing "forces" that Science and Religion were placed in a false equivalency.
I continue to get the impression that you are more interested in picking sentences apart to their basic word structure rather than have an objective discussion about where this thread has lead.
But I'll play your game ... until you once again begin speaking as if to a "layperson".
Gary wrote: "The only thing that does tend to annoy Atheists is that Evangelists love to claim Hitler was an Atheist without any indication that he was, and in fact clear information that he was religious at least and Christian by lip service at the bare minimum. Certainly the overwhelming majority of Germans at the time were Christian, even those involved in the Holocaust."Gary,
You are partially correct in the first instance of Hitler's religious tradition and the second is completely erroneous to the discussion.
Hitler did, in fact, give "lip service" to Christianity before he took command of Germany. A part of his grand design involved creating a new religion based on Nordic and proto-Nordic traidtions; he was the new Ultimate Religious Leader. These are facts, supported by the findings of a whole host of investigators into Hitler's regime. You can google, or buy a few actual books on the subject, yourself.
**Note: the Time Life series of DVDs should never be taken as the ultimate authority on anything ... at all ... ever.**
Whether the "overwhelming majority" of Germans were Christian--although I doubt this as I have spoken to many Germans, living in Germany during the War that have described the general Religious climate as agnostic--they, the majority, were not directly involved in the Holocaust. They were too busy running from bombs, trying to put bread on the table, and mourning their own dead. Those that actively espoused the tenets of the Nazi party--and its new religion--were actually in the minority. Bavaria, is not Germany ... it's a region in the larger country.
Gary wrote: First I was responding to the audacity of you accusing others of not answering questions when most people claim it of yourself."...... but you did not understand why I had asked Travis that question. Not only did you take it upon yourself to respond on behalf of Travis, but you did what you have just accused me of. Not giving an answer to a question.... # 6963 Does your type of 'freedom of choice' not extend to someone, not approving of certain behaviour when they say openly that they do not approve?
Your posts do contain a lot of questions, and it does seem like a question and answer session rather than a debate... or what ever you want to call it. It seems that you are in your element when you are able to correct and inform rather than listen and discuss.
I may have replied to the post and not the question and that may have been an oversight, or maybe the question seemed more rhetoric..... but I replied to the post, which is more than you did.
Oh and I know the post I am replying to now, is just a smoke screen to cover the fact that you are as guilty as you think the person you are accusing, is. Hence the pot/ kettle remark.
Do you believe males should not serve on the front line if they have children? If not, how do you justify the discrepancy?
Assuming this is not a rhetoric question, I am happy to reply.
Yes they should, unless there are enough single troops to avoid this.
I don't have to justify anything because there is not a discrepancy from where I am standing, it is you that is seeing a discrepancy.
I know that my reply is not politically correct, but then I don't go along with politically correctness.
First I would question why our UK troops are in the countries they are in, and this is in complete contract to why our troops were fighting in World War 2 when we were at war.
I am of the old school where a man opens a door for a lady. (I know that I am just as likely to have it pushed back in my face, today, if I open it for the wrong type of female).
If our country was invaded and there was conscription, then men should be called to fight on the front line first. If there was not enough men, we then call up females or we surrender. Assuming that surrender is not something we would consider and we did not have enough woman we then start giving guns to twelve (and older) boys to fight.
The question is where do you draw the line? My line stops at woman fighting on the front line. But since we are in a pc world and woman can go to the front,and if they choose to do that when they have children at home, they don't get my respect.
I think if women want to be treated as equals to men if they are the same rank, in the same branch of service, all things being "equal" - then if their male counterparts get sent to the front, then off they go as well. You can't demand equal pay, equal treatment if you still expect exceptions to be made for you because of your sex. That's not equality. If they claim that they can't go, either because of physical limitations or because their children need them at home, then all things are not equal at all. Why would you accept a job where certain things are expected of you as part of the job description and then expect to be excused from those duties? Did they not get the brochure that informed them, hey, if you accept this assignment, it is a real possibility that you may be deployed, put in front of people shooting at you, and you may be killed. It should not come as a suprise to them that they will be put in harms way, and will be sent away from their families.
There is an old saying I believe from James Thurber - "you knew it was on fire when you laid down on it" - meaning no one tried to deceive you when you chose the military as your career, you did it knowing full well what you may be expected to do. If you have kids, maybe it wasn't such a wise career choice.
Maria wrote: "I think if women want to be treated as equals to men if they are the same rank, in the same branch of service, all things being "equal" - then if their male counterparts get sent to the front, then..."
I'm a little confused by your post, Maria. I know Gary and cHriS are talking about women in combat ... or mothers in combat. Right or wrong? What does cHriS think? But ....
Your post almost reads as if women are, after joining the military, asking not to be sent into combat and don't expect to be treated equally. The Thurber quote makes me wonder if you've heard about women or read about women who have complained about being sent into combat once they become mothers.
??
Not sure if that's how you meant the post or not.
I've heard of both men and women, parents, who have had serious issues regarding their children and deployment. These are single parents. There are all sorts of issues. They were given custody, but ... what to do when deployed ... Will they lose custody? Grandparents, etc... take the children. Etc.... I've not heard about or read about a bunch of women who signed up, knowing the job, then ....
But, again, perhaps I'm misreading your post or perhaps you know something that I don't.
Just curious ...
I'm a little confused by your post, Maria. I know Gary and cHriS are talking about women in combat ... or mothers in combat. Right or wrong? What does cHriS think? But ....
Your post almost reads as if women are, after joining the military, asking not to be sent into combat and don't expect to be treated equally. The Thurber quote makes me wonder if you've heard about women or read about women who have complained about being sent into combat once they become mothers.
??
Not sure if that's how you meant the post or not.
I've heard of both men and women, parents, who have had serious issues regarding their children and deployment. These are single parents. There are all sorts of issues. They were given custody, but ... what to do when deployed ... Will they lose custody? Grandparents, etc... take the children. Etc.... I've not heard about or read about a bunch of women who signed up, knowing the job, then ....
But, again, perhaps I'm misreading your post or perhaps you know something that I don't.
Just curious ...
cHriS wrote: "The question is where do you draw the line? My line stops at woman fighting on the front line. But since we are in a pc world and woman can go to the front,and if they choose to do that when they have children at home, they don't get my respect. "
I disagree with you, cHriS. But .... That's okay. I think we can do so amicably.
I remember being in middle school in the '80's. I'm pretty sure it was before the world became politically correct. ;) We were in history class and learned all American boys had to register at the age of 18 and could be drafted if there was ever a need. I was one of two kids in the class who thought that was wrong and unfair. Well, ... not quite. A lot of the boys were upset at the thought. Almost all of us thought it was wrong to force the boys to register. We thought it should be voluntary. I was one of only two students who thought, if we were going to make that sort of thing mandatory, it should be mandatory for girls and boys. My feelings came from a sense, my personal sense, of right and wrong and fairness.
I know people who have served in the military. Male and female. Some were single and had no children. Some were married with children. In my very limited experience, being deployed has been very hard on both the fathers and the mothers I've known. Further, their children seem to have equal difficulties ... regardless of whether their mother or father is deployed. So, today, for me, I'd have a hard time saying mothers should be treated differently than fathers ... based on this experience.
Further, this issue is more complicated ....
I know, when my father was serving on Diego Garcia in the early '70's, he and another man received orders that they were being sent to Vietnam. Both my father and this man were new fathers. Two men, both single, volunteered to take their place and did so. I was raised on that story. They were spoken of as heroes in my family. (Fortunately, they both lived.) I, as I was growing up and heard this story ... over and over ..., came to feel it was better for single people, without children, to "sacrifice" themselves ... if it came down to a person with children or ...
However, interestingly, we had an incident at a school I worked in several years ago. It was a dangerous situation. I made a comment about how I should have rushed into the situation ... instead of another woman I worked with. In fact, I told the other woman to go to her room and call for help ... I'd go into the situation. One of our colleagues asked why I did that and felt that way. My answer .... Simple. She had a child at home; I didn't.
My colleague went up one side of me and down the other. She went on and on about how I was, basically, assigning more value to the lives of people with children. People without children, in my mind, were expendable. How dare I feel that way?! (She also happened to be childless and took it quite personally ... that I felt, if a sacrifice should be made, it should be made by someone without children. She felt I was diminishing her value in the world by feeling that way.)
So, interestingly, I think this issue is more complicated than it might appear. It's not just about men and women, male and female roles. It's not even just about parents and people who are childless.
I do, personally, believe in equality. If men and women can do the job, they should be able to do so ... regardless of gender or whether or not they have children.
Having said that, I understand that different people have different views.
cHriS ... The one thing I wonder about, though, is your statement regarding respect. While you definitely have a right to your own opinions, I wonder at your taking it to that step.
While you might be against women fighting in combat ... or women with children fighting in combat, does it stand to reason that you don't give them respect if they do? I mean .... I don't know. That seems, in my opinion, to be going too far.
For example, there are people who do things I don't agree with. That doesn't mean that I don't give them respect. Things have to be pretty damned bad for me not to give someone respect. And, things do get pretty damned bad sometimes. I worked as a social worker for a year ... many years ago. I worked with women who, for example, allowed people to rape their children in exchange for drugs. I didn't respect those women. In fact, I was told I needed to work on my body language ... given that I was supposed to work with these women and it was obvious that I wanted to wipe the floor with their faces. I also worked with a woman who traded her body for drugs. While I don't think it's right to prostitute oneself ... times 10,000, I actually had the utmost respect for her ... on this point. People thought I was nuts. I respected her because she traded her own body ... not the bodies of her babies. Extreme examples, I admit .... They're true, though, and came to mind.
So, my question would be ....
While you might be vehemently against women fighting in combat ... or women with children fighting in combat, do you have to take it to the next step ... that you don't give them respect?
That might be the crux of this ....
We can disagree .... Okay. But, must we, when we disagree, take it that further step ... to a lack of respect or ... (not saying you're saying this cHriS) ... to a place of saying what other people can and can't do?
I disagree with you, cHriS. But .... That's okay. I think we can do so amicably.
I remember being in middle school in the '80's. I'm pretty sure it was before the world became politically correct. ;) We were in history class and learned all American boys had to register at the age of 18 and could be drafted if there was ever a need. I was one of two kids in the class who thought that was wrong and unfair. Well, ... not quite. A lot of the boys were upset at the thought. Almost all of us thought it was wrong to force the boys to register. We thought it should be voluntary. I was one of only two students who thought, if we were going to make that sort of thing mandatory, it should be mandatory for girls and boys. My feelings came from a sense, my personal sense, of right and wrong and fairness.
I know people who have served in the military. Male and female. Some were single and had no children. Some were married with children. In my very limited experience, being deployed has been very hard on both the fathers and the mothers I've known. Further, their children seem to have equal difficulties ... regardless of whether their mother or father is deployed. So, today, for me, I'd have a hard time saying mothers should be treated differently than fathers ... based on this experience.
Further, this issue is more complicated ....
I know, when my father was serving on Diego Garcia in the early '70's, he and another man received orders that they were being sent to Vietnam. Both my father and this man were new fathers. Two men, both single, volunteered to take their place and did so. I was raised on that story. They were spoken of as heroes in my family. (Fortunately, they both lived.) I, as I was growing up and heard this story ... over and over ..., came to feel it was better for single people, without children, to "sacrifice" themselves ... if it came down to a person with children or ...
However, interestingly, we had an incident at a school I worked in several years ago. It was a dangerous situation. I made a comment about how I should have rushed into the situation ... instead of another woman I worked with. In fact, I told the other woman to go to her room and call for help ... I'd go into the situation. One of our colleagues asked why I did that and felt that way. My answer .... Simple. She had a child at home; I didn't.
My colleague went up one side of me and down the other. She went on and on about how I was, basically, assigning more value to the lives of people with children. People without children, in my mind, were expendable. How dare I feel that way?! (She also happened to be childless and took it quite personally ... that I felt, if a sacrifice should be made, it should be made by someone without children. She felt I was diminishing her value in the world by feeling that way.)
So, interestingly, I think this issue is more complicated than it might appear. It's not just about men and women, male and female roles. It's not even just about parents and people who are childless.
I do, personally, believe in equality. If men and women can do the job, they should be able to do so ... regardless of gender or whether or not they have children.
Having said that, I understand that different people have different views.
cHriS ... The one thing I wonder about, though, is your statement regarding respect. While you definitely have a right to your own opinions, I wonder at your taking it to that step.
While you might be against women fighting in combat ... or women with children fighting in combat, does it stand to reason that you don't give them respect if they do? I mean .... I don't know. That seems, in my opinion, to be going too far.
For example, there are people who do things I don't agree with. That doesn't mean that I don't give them respect. Things have to be pretty damned bad for me not to give someone respect. And, things do get pretty damned bad sometimes. I worked as a social worker for a year ... many years ago. I worked with women who, for example, allowed people to rape their children in exchange for drugs. I didn't respect those women. In fact, I was told I needed to work on my body language ... given that I was supposed to work with these women and it was obvious that I wanted to wipe the floor with their faces. I also worked with a woman who traded her body for drugs. While I don't think it's right to prostitute oneself ... times 10,000, I actually had the utmost respect for her ... on this point. People thought I was nuts. I respected her because she traded her own body ... not the bodies of her babies. Extreme examples, I admit .... They're true, though, and came to mind.
So, my question would be ....
While you might be vehemently against women fighting in combat ... or women with children fighting in combat, do you have to take it to the next step ... that you don't give them respect?
That might be the crux of this ....
We can disagree .... Okay. But, must we, when we disagree, take it that further step ... to a lack of respect or ... (not saying you're saying this cHriS) ... to a place of saying what other people can and can't do?
I may have misread some of the comments. I have long since stopped reading the comments of Chris (cs) because he made some comments I did not feel were appropriate a while back. I actually have heard of cases where women in the military did not want to be placed in dangerous situations due to their kids back home. Not a lot, just some. I know you will all ask me to cite specifics and I can't do that so I won't mention it any more.
I think it's sad for whichever parent has to be away from their kids and I thank them for their service.
Maria wrote: "I may have misread some of the comments. I have long since stopped reading the comments of Chris (cs) because he made some comments I did not feel were appropriate a while back.
I actually have..."
No. I'm not going to ask you for cites. ;) I was wondering where you were coming from. Now I know. Thanks.
I actually have..."
No. I'm not going to ask you for cites. ;) I was wondering where you were coming from. Now I know. Thanks.
Shannon wrote: We can disagree .... Okay. But, must we, when we disagree, take it that further step ... to a lack of respect or ... (not saying you're saying this cHriS) ... to a place of saying what other people can and can't do? "I don't know if this makes a difference to the conversation across the pond, but we don't have conscription in the UK. I'm not sure if the US does.
I will cut to the chase...... governments should not allow woman with 'young' children to serve on the front line. I have included the word young, because children do grow up.
If I turned on my TV one evening to watch the news and the top story was that a soldier was killed while on duty on the front line in ....'where ever' and she was a mother with young children, I would have no respect for her as a soldier and a little less for her as a mother.
She had a choice not to put herself in a position where she could be sent to the frontline and possibly leave her children motherless. She made the wrong choice.
Shannon wrote: to a place of saying what other people can and can't do?
Shannon, it's not so much saying what people can and can't do. It's more, not allowing certain things to happen at particular times. You should not drive without a seatbelt, you should not drink if you are pregnant, you should not serve on the frontline while you have children.
If the government allow woman on the frontline while a mother of young children, some will go. Likewise if the government allow you to drive without a seatbelt people will.
Yes, the pc lot will say men amd woman are equal, full stop. Men and Woman are equal but they are not the same and we should respect the fact that we are not the same.
PS. Fighting a war is not something we should want to do, it should be something we have to do. And the less people that have to do it the better.
Was the 'woman and children first' order given on the Titannic the wrong one?
cHriS ...
I'm going to say the same thing to you as I said to Hazel the other day.
In your opinion ....
We disagree. But, in my opinion, that's okay ... and ... we can do so respectfully.
And, ultimately, we do disagree.
I'm going to say the same thing to you as I said to Hazel the other day.
In your opinion ....
We disagree. But, in my opinion, that's okay ... and ... we can do so respectfully.
And, ultimately, we do disagree.
Shannon wrote: "cHriS ...I'm going to say the same thing to you as I said to Hazel the other day.
In your opinion ....
We disagree. But, in my opinion, that's okay ... and ... we can do so respectfully.
An..."
It would be a funny world if we all agreed all the time. A lot of 'stuff'.... our history, our family our experiences, our personal things, our location, our politics, our religion/ or not, our ancestors and our chivalry goes into making us individuals.
cHriS wrote: "It would be a funny world if we all agreed all the time. A lot of 'stuff'.... our history, our family our experiences, our personal things, our location, our politics, our religion/ or not, our ancestors and our chivalry goes into making us individuals. "
Very true!
Very true!
So cs or cHriS does not think women should serve in the military because they have children. I believe their will not be equality in the world with a mindset such as his. The same could be said about single or divorced fathers in the military that do have kids also. And Shannnon, prostituting ones own body or their child's body doesn't equate for me either.
Robin wrote: "And Shannnon, prostituting ones own body or their child's body doesn't equate for me either. "
I don't know what you mean, Robin. Do you mean you think it's wrong that people would prostitute themselves or their children? Or, do you mean you think I was equating those examples with women serving in the military and you don't see the link? Or, do you mean the example just isn't working for you?
The point I made was NOT that women serving in the military are prostituting themselves or their children or that women serving in the military equates to this. It does not equate ... in any way.
I mean, you didn't think that's what I meant. Right?
When I used those real-life examples, I used them in talking about respect. That was about respect only and the comment cHriS made about not respecting women with children who serve in combat. Why, when we disagree with someone's choice, must we take it to the next step of ... and I give that person no respect?
My point, .... Even if I disagree with something someone has done or is doing, it has to be pretty damn bad for me to take it to the step of saying I don't respect them. The idea of prostituting oneself sickens me, especially the idea that some feel that's their only option. And, that there's a market for it. But, I don't disrespect people who prostitute themselves. I really and truly don't. I can disagree with their decision to do so but still respect them. It would have to be pretty damn bad for me to say I didn't respect a person. Like, the women who traded their children for drugs.
You see, when talking about something like ... not giving someone respect ... I searched my memory for times when I actually refused to give someone respect. It's a pretty rare occurrence for me. Frankly, the only instances I could think of involved abuse. Given my professional life, I have more experience with children being abused than any other group. I find no middle ground with people who abuse their children; I have no respect for them at all. This one particular woman, well.... I actually did still have respect for her ... despite the fact that she did things ... drugs and trading her body for drugs ... that I don't agree with.
Anyway ...
??
I don't know what you mean, Robin. Do you mean you think it's wrong that people would prostitute themselves or their children? Or, do you mean you think I was equating those examples with women serving in the military and you don't see the link? Or, do you mean the example just isn't working for you?
The point I made was NOT that women serving in the military are prostituting themselves or their children or that women serving in the military equates to this. It does not equate ... in any way.
I mean, you didn't think that's what I meant. Right?
When I used those real-life examples, I used them in talking about respect. That was about respect only and the comment cHriS made about not respecting women with children who serve in combat. Why, when we disagree with someone's choice, must we take it to the next step of ... and I give that person no respect?
My point, .... Even if I disagree with something someone has done or is doing, it has to be pretty damn bad for me to take it to the step of saying I don't respect them. The idea of prostituting oneself sickens me, especially the idea that some feel that's their only option. And, that there's a market for it. But, I don't disrespect people who prostitute themselves. I really and truly don't. I can disagree with their decision to do so but still respect them. It would have to be pretty damn bad for me to say I didn't respect a person. Like, the women who traded their children for drugs.
You see, when talking about something like ... not giving someone respect ... I searched my memory for times when I actually refused to give someone respect. It's a pretty rare occurrence for me. Frankly, the only instances I could think of involved abuse. Given my professional life, I have more experience with children being abused than any other group. I find no middle ground with people who abuse their children; I have no respect for them at all. This one particular woman, well.... I actually did still have respect for her ... despite the fact that she did things ... drugs and trading her body for drugs ... that I don't agree with.
Anyway ...
??
Actually one of them , if you do it right , will lead you to the other , eventually both of them become one path ... so doesn't matter who came first , because they have common characteristics and they are integrated ...
Shannon wrote: That was about respect only and the comment cHriS made about not respecting women with children who serve in combat Shannon, I did add ' as a soldier' I would not know her personally so the non respect would be limited to her action as a front line soldier, and would spill over to her roll as a mother.
If one becomes a parent then your children should come first. For me to alter my opinion I would have to hear a mother in that situation, justify her actions.
To keep things in perspective there are situations where fathers could put themselves at unnecessary risks and similar comments would apply.
@Shannon, I was not talking about women in the military prostituting themselves. I was saying in and of itself prostituting yourself or your child to get drugs to me is bad. And I agree that exploiting one's children to gain drugs is a no brainer. As for the military I think both men and women who do have children when they sign on for the military there is a distinct possibility that they will be called up, and I know personally of a mother of four who did get deployed since she was in the National Guard. And I felt for her but also she knew what she was up against when you sign on, so I don't believe that a women should stay home for the children when her time comes up. That is all I was commenting on. It is like the chicken and the egg debate, maybe the mother signed up for the military before she had the children, so should she quit the military and state her reason as because she had children. or should she not have had children at all?
Hey, cHriS ....
I didn't see "as a soldier" ....
Regardless, I still think we'd likely disagree. I also still think that's okay.
I do, personally, agree with you that children should come first. In my opinion, since we choose to have children, if we do, we should put them first. My guess .... Different people feel differently on that point. In addition, the people who agree with us might define that differently than you do or than I do.
When we discuss this sort of thing, in my mind, it extends to other areas ... not just people who serve on the front line in a war. If the concern is about young children .... What about law enforcement officers? Firefighters? Both professions are badly needed, in my opinion, and serve us well. Yet, both are extremely dangerous. Should parents not serve in those roles? Or, should mothers not serve? Then, if we're talking about putting oneself in danger, as a parent or as a mother, there are other occupations that, shockingly, are more dangerous than anyone expects. I read an article in the last year or two about the most dangerous jobs out there. Guess what one of them was ...? Hairstylist. The article contended that a MUCH higher percentage of hairstylists develop certain cancers. True or not? I've not researched it. I just read the article while waiting for an appointment. But .... If we felt we should put our children first and not put ourselves in dangerous occupations or situations that risked our lives, we'd have to open that up to SO many things. Where would it begin and where would it end?
Then, we have the idea I brought up regarding the value assigned to people with children vs. people without. While I don't agree with my colleague and would always rather put myself at risk over a colleague with young children, she made an interesting point. If it's okay for a single person to serve on the frontline but not for a parent, for example, are we placing a greater value on those who have children. (In my mind, the value is greater. You're dealing with more lives than just one when a parent is involved.)
I, personally, see this as a sticky topic ... and not just for reasons of equality. It's also one that doesn't have easy answers. Ultimately, I think it's for each individual to choose. And, unless we were dealing with an extreme situation, I'd still respect them.
But, again, different people have different views. In my mind, that's perfectly acceptable, even if I vehemently disagree. What did Hillary Clinton say the other day? I turned on the news a day or two ago and saw her say something like ... In this country, we believe in a person's right to make his or her own choices, no matter how abhorrent. I'll have to look it up. But, I heard that and thought ... Go, Hillary! I know there are people who would disagree. People have disagreed with me, to a certain extent, on this point on this thread. I truly hold this to be true, though.
So, yes, we all have a right to think as we will, in my opinion. It becomes a problem, in my mind, when and if we tell other people they can't think for themselves, must think as we do, or can't do what they feel is right for themselves.
I didn't see "as a soldier" ....
Regardless, I still think we'd likely disagree. I also still think that's okay.
I do, personally, agree with you that children should come first. In my opinion, since we choose to have children, if we do, we should put them first. My guess .... Different people feel differently on that point. In addition, the people who agree with us might define that differently than you do or than I do.
When we discuss this sort of thing, in my mind, it extends to other areas ... not just people who serve on the front line in a war. If the concern is about young children .... What about law enforcement officers? Firefighters? Both professions are badly needed, in my opinion, and serve us well. Yet, both are extremely dangerous. Should parents not serve in those roles? Or, should mothers not serve? Then, if we're talking about putting oneself in danger, as a parent or as a mother, there are other occupations that, shockingly, are more dangerous than anyone expects. I read an article in the last year or two about the most dangerous jobs out there. Guess what one of them was ...? Hairstylist. The article contended that a MUCH higher percentage of hairstylists develop certain cancers. True or not? I've not researched it. I just read the article while waiting for an appointment. But .... If we felt we should put our children first and not put ourselves in dangerous occupations or situations that risked our lives, we'd have to open that up to SO many things. Where would it begin and where would it end?
Then, we have the idea I brought up regarding the value assigned to people with children vs. people without. While I don't agree with my colleague and would always rather put myself at risk over a colleague with young children, she made an interesting point. If it's okay for a single person to serve on the frontline but not for a parent, for example, are we placing a greater value on those who have children. (In my mind, the value is greater. You're dealing with more lives than just one when a parent is involved.)
I, personally, see this as a sticky topic ... and not just for reasons of equality. It's also one that doesn't have easy answers. Ultimately, I think it's for each individual to choose. And, unless we were dealing with an extreme situation, I'd still respect them.
But, again, different people have different views. In my mind, that's perfectly acceptable, even if I vehemently disagree. What did Hillary Clinton say the other day? I turned on the news a day or two ago and saw her say something like ... In this country, we believe in a person's right to make his or her own choices, no matter how abhorrent. I'll have to look it up. But, I heard that and thought ... Go, Hillary! I know there are people who would disagree. People have disagreed with me, to a certain extent, on this point on this thread. I truly hold this to be true, though.
So, yes, we all have a right to think as we will, in my opinion. It becomes a problem, in my mind, when and if we tell other people they can't think for themselves, must think as we do, or can't do what they feel is right for themselves.
Robin wrote: "@Shannon, I was not talking about women in the military prostituting themselves. I was saying in and of itself prostituting yourself or your child to get drugs to me is bad. And I agree that explo..."
Okay. I wasn't sure what you meant. Thanks for clarifying.
Okay. I wasn't sure what you meant. Thanks for clarifying.
You know .... This is way off topic, but .... Since we're already there.
We are talking gender roles. Right? At least on some level. It's not just about people with young children serving in the military and at war. If it were, we'd be talking about mothers and fathers with young children ....
Is the role of a mother more valuable than the role of a father? And, ... these roles are rapidly changing. I know of at least three women who married, had children, and whose husbands were stay-at-home dads when the children were young. The women were the breadwinners. The men were the caretakers. I know some women who are AMAZING mothers. I also know some who don't seem to have a maternal bone in their bodies. It's not been my experience that women, for the sake of being women, are automatically gifted in areas of nurturing, protective instincts, etc.... Interestingly, while I've known men who lack these skills, I've also known many who are amazing with young children and truly seem to be their children's touchstones.
My point .... If gender roles are at play here (...and not just whether someone is the parent of young children, male or female), ....
It goes beyond whether or not we should have those ideas about gender and the roles we should play and equality.... It also goes to reality. What roles, in reality, do we play now? Are mothers always the caretakers? Or, are fathers ...?
We are talking gender roles. Right? At least on some level. It's not just about people with young children serving in the military and at war. If it were, we'd be talking about mothers and fathers with young children ....
Is the role of a mother more valuable than the role of a father? And, ... these roles are rapidly changing. I know of at least three women who married, had children, and whose husbands were stay-at-home dads when the children were young. The women were the breadwinners. The men were the caretakers. I know some women who are AMAZING mothers. I also know some who don't seem to have a maternal bone in their bodies. It's not been my experience that women, for the sake of being women, are automatically gifted in areas of nurturing, protective instincts, etc.... Interestingly, while I've known men who lack these skills, I've also known many who are amazing with young children and truly seem to be their children's touchstones.
My point .... If gender roles are at play here (...and not just whether someone is the parent of young children, male or female), ....
It goes beyond whether or not we should have those ideas about gender and the roles we should play and equality.... It also goes to reality. What roles, in reality, do we play now? Are mothers always the caretakers? Or, are fathers ...?
I think mothers are usually portrayed as the nurturers, but in my case my mother was the breadwinner during the day and my father emceed and entertained at night. So the bulk of the duties fell on my father who was not equipped to handle three youngsters at the time. I think the media and society in general places a huge value on women to become mothers whether married or not, and I do know of men who are more nurturing than women. I think whichever the parental role or gender and whoever is ultimately winning are the children. This is just my point of view, good topic, Shannon. And I am a mother also.
Shannon wrote: Is the role of a mother more valuable than the role of a father?."Maybe the rolls should be equal, but yes the mother roll is seen as more valuable. And I think nature intended it that way. That said I believe in 'the' family unit, one mother and one father and one marriage. And I think society should try and retain these values. Children need a mother and a father figure where possible.
Unfortunately the family for one reason or another is breaking down and here in the UK we are seeing the fallout from that.
It does make sense for the parent who has the better paid job to go to work and the other stay at home. And while there are stay at home dads this is still the exception to the rule. Of course some families will farm the kids out to a child minder in order to allow both parents to go to work, putting the children second to their career.
Are mothers always the caretakers? That is the roll nature gave the mothers. Nature is not interested in womans rights or equal rolls in bringing up children.
The kind of society we have created demands that woman be the same as the man rather than being equal.
The roll of bringing up children is a full time job and any career should be put on hold in order to do this. That included serving in the front line.
Hillary Clinton is right, but the choices have to be with-in the law and my point is that the law makers should not allow woman with young children to have to make such a choice.
But there is always to sides to the same coin.....
What if there is no choice, like my friend with the four children, who served. She still went and her husband stayed home to watch the children. It happens everyday. And Shannon made a good point about different facets of career, such as policemen, judges, lawyers, should all these women give up their jobs to stay home. I don't think so.
Robin wrote. And Shannon made a good point about different facets of career, such as policemen, judges, lawyers, should all these women give up their jobs to stay home. No not give up their jobs, but take a career break, assuming the family was planned.
Joining the services is a career, going to war is not, so the comparisons are not justifiably.
I think women do take a career break. Sometimes going to war is not an option, either.
Religions per se are horrible because they always rely on power to push their agendas. If they would just rock with the fundamental root of all their groups, LOVE, everything would be great. But that rarely seems to happen. Individual faith and spiritualism are the way to go. I would rather live in a world without religion. It is the reason there is no world peace. Ironic, isn't it?
cHriS wrote: "No not give up their jobs, but take a career break, assuming the family was planned.
Joining the services is a career, going to war is not, so the comparisons are not justifiably. "
Why do I feel like this would be a good reason to practice abstinence or use birth control?
;)
In all seriousness, I have a few thoughts ....
First, cHriS, if I understand the above, you see a difference between being a law enforcement officer, firefighter, etc... (careers) and going to war. Is that right? I know I mentioned people doing this service and, sometimes, we refer to these people as civil servants, etc.... But, in America, the Army, Navy, etc... are also referred to as the services. So, I wanted to clarify.
If I understand you correctly, in my opinion, choosing to join the military is also a career. Choosing to be a regular soldier, a pilot, a doctor, a nurse, etc... for the military is absolutely a career. Service in the National Guard, in this country, hmmmm.... I don't know if that would be a career or not. I think it would be more of a second job. Would that count as a career? I don't know.
But .... If the point is that parents shouldn't work in jobs that are dangerous, there are a lot of careers that would be "closed" to parents. I say parents for a reason. I can't bring myself to say mothers.
My next thought .... Women have been warriors for a long time. Maybe since time began. All women? No. But, think about it. First of all, war has been made upon women and children for ... how long ...? Spoils of war. Slaves. Grrr.... We have instances of women fighting alongside men and not just women who dressed as and pretended to be men. During the Crusades, which one I can't remember, there was supposedly a woman, wearing a green cape, who was an archer on the wall of one of the cities, which one I can't remember. The Muslim soldiers were, allegedly, desperate to kill her. Catherine of Aragon's mother .... Women and children, openly, played a role in the American Revolution. Look at the women spies from the UK who went into France during WWII. Were any of them mothers? I don't know. But, I know PBS ran a series in this country about them back when I was in high school or college. It was fiction but based on fact. Real facts ran before or after. And, if accurate, unlike the men who were captured, not one of those women, the ones who were captured, broke under torture. Not one.
Clearly, in my mind, women weren't just meant to be or made to be caretakers. I know that's not what you said cHriS. Frankly, despite being born with a uterus, I know many a woman who, in my opinion, is no more fit to parent a child than a blade of grass. Is that because society has degenerated, if it has? Or, is it because ... not everyone is meant to live out a certain role?
Regarding nature, I don't know. At first blush, I guess it seems that nature meant women to be caretakers ... in that, we're the ones who are able to get pregnant, carry a child, and nurse a child ... if we're able to get pregnant and carry to term, of course. But, .... I just don't know. Does that necessarily mean nature meant women to be the caretakers after that point? I mean, if we were to talk about nature, I feel like I remember certain birds and other animals co-parent. I also believe there is a bird or something that, well ... the female lays the eggs or whatever ... but the male is the one who cares for the babies. Right?
Regarding lawmakers making laws that state mothers can't fight in wars, well ....
First, I think that would be discriminatory. In my country, we have protected categories. One of the categories is gender. So, law makers would have to also overturn harassment/discrimination laws, in my country at least. Else ... they'd be making laws that violate the law.
Second, I will never ... ever ... think it's appropriate to force one's opinions on others. I'm guessing, at this point, that the idea that mothers have more value to their children is an opinion. Unless and until I see evidence that says otherwise ....
Atheists might think believers are a bunch of idiots for following a religion or a spiritual path. Okay. If they were to cross the line to attempt to pass legislation to make it illegal for believers to believe, stand back. If Americans lost their ever-loving minds and attempted to pass a law stating that all citizens had to follow a state sponsored religion, stand back. I would not support and would fight against either stance. Those examples are different but similar, I know. I don't think anyone, including the government, has the right to tell people what call they should feel on their lives ... what career path they shouldn't follow.
This would be an instance of opinions being taken to the extreme, forcing them on others. Yeah.... This would cross a serious line, in my opinion.
I have no desire to give the government, regardless of which government, that much power over me.
Further, I'd feel the same way if the idea was to make laws that said mothers and fathers can't serve in times of war. While I don't like the idea of anyone dying in battle, I really hate hearing stories of mothers and fathers dying. However, I don't think it's for me to tell another person what he or she can and can't do.
You can't murder. Okay.
You can't rape. Okay.
We do have and should have laws that protect people, ha, protect people, against having their liberties violated. Mothers fighting in battle is not an example of a violation of civil liberties. Yes, they might die. That would be horribly sad. But, a female FBI agent might die. A female working with the State Department at a foreign embassy might die. And, ... they might be mothers. A hairstylist might be diagnosed with terminal cancer tomorrow due to the chemicals she works with. She might be a mother. Where does this begin and where does it end? In my opinion, it shouldn't begin .... Sad but not akin to murder, rape, assault, theft, etc.... Not even a little bit.
Yup. There are things that need to be legislated. Career choice? Who should serve in war? Whether or not women are more valuable than men when it comes to parenting? I, personally, don't think those questions should be answered by our governments ... and forced on another person ... or on a group of people.
Joining the services is a career, going to war is not, so the comparisons are not justifiably. "
Why do I feel like this would be a good reason to practice abstinence or use birth control?
;)
In all seriousness, I have a few thoughts ....
First, cHriS, if I understand the above, you see a difference between being a law enforcement officer, firefighter, etc... (careers) and going to war. Is that right? I know I mentioned people doing this service and, sometimes, we refer to these people as civil servants, etc.... But, in America, the Army, Navy, etc... are also referred to as the services. So, I wanted to clarify.
If I understand you correctly, in my opinion, choosing to join the military is also a career. Choosing to be a regular soldier, a pilot, a doctor, a nurse, etc... for the military is absolutely a career. Service in the National Guard, in this country, hmmmm.... I don't know if that would be a career or not. I think it would be more of a second job. Would that count as a career? I don't know.
But .... If the point is that parents shouldn't work in jobs that are dangerous, there are a lot of careers that would be "closed" to parents. I say parents for a reason. I can't bring myself to say mothers.
My next thought .... Women have been warriors for a long time. Maybe since time began. All women? No. But, think about it. First of all, war has been made upon women and children for ... how long ...? Spoils of war. Slaves. Grrr.... We have instances of women fighting alongside men and not just women who dressed as and pretended to be men. During the Crusades, which one I can't remember, there was supposedly a woman, wearing a green cape, who was an archer on the wall of one of the cities, which one I can't remember. The Muslim soldiers were, allegedly, desperate to kill her. Catherine of Aragon's mother .... Women and children, openly, played a role in the American Revolution. Look at the women spies from the UK who went into France during WWII. Were any of them mothers? I don't know. But, I know PBS ran a series in this country about them back when I was in high school or college. It was fiction but based on fact. Real facts ran before or after. And, if accurate, unlike the men who were captured, not one of those women, the ones who were captured, broke under torture. Not one.
Clearly, in my mind, women weren't just meant to be or made to be caretakers. I know that's not what you said cHriS. Frankly, despite being born with a uterus, I know many a woman who, in my opinion, is no more fit to parent a child than a blade of grass. Is that because society has degenerated, if it has? Or, is it because ... not everyone is meant to live out a certain role?
Regarding nature, I don't know. At first blush, I guess it seems that nature meant women to be caretakers ... in that, we're the ones who are able to get pregnant, carry a child, and nurse a child ... if we're able to get pregnant and carry to term, of course. But, .... I just don't know. Does that necessarily mean nature meant women to be the caretakers after that point? I mean, if we were to talk about nature, I feel like I remember certain birds and other animals co-parent. I also believe there is a bird or something that, well ... the female lays the eggs or whatever ... but the male is the one who cares for the babies. Right?
Regarding lawmakers making laws that state mothers can't fight in wars, well ....
First, I think that would be discriminatory. In my country, we have protected categories. One of the categories is gender. So, law makers would have to also overturn harassment/discrimination laws, in my country at least. Else ... they'd be making laws that violate the law.
Second, I will never ... ever ... think it's appropriate to force one's opinions on others. I'm guessing, at this point, that the idea that mothers have more value to their children is an opinion. Unless and until I see evidence that says otherwise ....
Atheists might think believers are a bunch of idiots for following a religion or a spiritual path. Okay. If they were to cross the line to attempt to pass legislation to make it illegal for believers to believe, stand back. If Americans lost their ever-loving minds and attempted to pass a law stating that all citizens had to follow a state sponsored religion, stand back. I would not support and would fight against either stance. Those examples are different but similar, I know. I don't think anyone, including the government, has the right to tell people what call they should feel on their lives ... what career path they shouldn't follow.
This would be an instance of opinions being taken to the extreme, forcing them on others. Yeah.... This would cross a serious line, in my opinion.
I have no desire to give the government, regardless of which government, that much power over me.
Further, I'd feel the same way if the idea was to make laws that said mothers and fathers can't serve in times of war. While I don't like the idea of anyone dying in battle, I really hate hearing stories of mothers and fathers dying. However, I don't think it's for me to tell another person what he or she can and can't do.
You can't murder. Okay.
You can't rape. Okay.
We do have and should have laws that protect people, ha, protect people, against having their liberties violated. Mothers fighting in battle is not an example of a violation of civil liberties. Yes, they might die. That would be horribly sad. But, a female FBI agent might die. A female working with the State Department at a foreign embassy might die. And, ... they might be mothers. A hairstylist might be diagnosed with terminal cancer tomorrow due to the chemicals she works with. She might be a mother. Where does this begin and where does it end? In my opinion, it shouldn't begin .... Sad but not akin to murder, rape, assault, theft, etc.... Not even a little bit.
Yup. There are things that need to be legislated. Career choice? Who should serve in war? Whether or not women are more valuable than men when it comes to parenting? I, personally, don't think those questions should be answered by our governments ... and forced on another person ... or on a group of people.
Shannon, you said it much more succinctly than I tried to do.
Robin wrote: "Shannon, you said it much more succinctly than I tried to do."
Thanks. I tend to be very wordy, though ....
Thanks. I tend to be very wordy, though ....
Why does anyone think there must be a choice between science and religion? They're hardly mutually exclusive. Indeed, who is the Author of the science of the universe? It's brilliant and awe-inspiring. I am a student of both.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Reality put in the tie breaking vote and it wasn't for religion...."
Is this a reference to what happened in Yemen. If so, Yemen is not really a good example.
Islam, unlike most other Religions, is a way of life and not just a religion. So to use this as anti religious propaganda is not very credible.