Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
cHriS wrote: "If you agree with me that children should come first then how do you justify a female soldier leaving her baby/child at home to follow a dangerous career. "
Hmmmm.... It's that it's my opinion. Not her opinion. Mine. I think that's the best way to describe it.
I know how I feel about children. I know what I would do or wouldn't do. In my mind, marriage is a sacred bond. And, ... the duty to one's children, if one has children, is even more sacred and of paramount concern. In my opinion ....
I know what that means to me. For example, back when I still thought I'd have children, I said I wouldn't work in the school I was in while pregnant. We called those years at that school the Tombstone years. They're still referred to as the Tombstone years. I can't tell you how many fights I broke up. How many times I was punched and kicked. Someone took an icepick to one of my tires once ... didn't realize it until I was on the road. And, ... I was in a "safe" job. I was a teacher. But, I realized the danger and knew it was a danger that I would not visit upon my child, regardless that said child would be in my uterus. No. Sure, I could have told myself I'd not break up another fight, another drug deal, another .... But, truly, given my nature, I knew it wasn't likely that I'd be able to stop myself. No way would I put a child of mine in that kind of danger. I'd never forgive the school, the student, or myself if something happened. Now, had I had children, would I have continued to work at that school? Hmmmm.... The school has since changed. But, at the time I was thinking along those lines, I couldn't imagine that I'd want to risk it. Sure, the worst thing that happened to me was a slipped disk when someone body checked me into a wall and the floor. It's going to be a lifelong issue, pops out a bit from time to time, but it wasn't fatal. The chances of a fatal injury were slim. But, would I knowingly put myself at risk like that ... take the chance that I'd leave a child behind? I'm guessing I wouldn't have. Further, I knew at the time, having lost a relationship due to my unwillingness to leave that school mid-year when something happened, that, likely, any man I'd be attracted to, would love, and would marry would have some serious things to say about my continuing there.
But, like I said, that's me. I know who I am, what makes me tick, what's important to me, the lines I have and won't cross. I know what my priorities are and what I will and won't do. That doesn't necessarily mean every woman is going to feel the same way ... or that every man will feel the same way.
As an aside, one of the reasons I was involved in these things as often as I was involved the fact that the men wouldn't engage. These things would happened and ... no one reacted ... including the men. And, no, it wasn't all girl fights, leaving the men to feel uncomfortable, etc.... Though, to be fair, not many of the women engaged either. In the entire building at that time, two men and two women, including myself, would engage. So, that leaves me thinking .... Dealing with a crisis, with a dangerous situation, ... it isn't the domain of men, regardless of history and the roles of men and women throughout our past. It doesn't come naturally to all men. It just doesn't. Now, are male teachers different than other men? That's a question I can't answer. Was it just the men at that school who didn't act and react in a crisis ... who didn't protect others? Not male teachers? Not men in general? Did men from the past engage more in these things? I don't know ....
If people have a call on their lives, if they truly feel called to do something ... if they have certain gifts and talents .... It's just not for me to tell them what to do with them or what not to do with them.
If I wouldn't teach school in a dangerous building while pregnant or as a mother, there's no way I'd sign up for the military and risk deployment. But, that's me. I have a call on my life to teach and protect children. That's my purpose. How could I, with that sort of call, leave my children without my guidance or protection? Do all people feel the same call on their lives? I'm guessing they don't. That makes all the difference, I think.
How can I respect someone for making a choice that flies in the face of what I hold to be sacred? Well, .... It has to do with that old saying about walking a mile in someone else's shoes. If I don't know the person and if I don't know their situation, it's not for me to judge them, at least and especially when they're serving the country ... not committing a crime.
Now, regarding career choice, .... I don't know about how it's done in the UK, but being deployed is not a choice in America. So, when someone signs up to have a career in the military, s/he knows they can be re-stationed and deployed at any time. Saying no to a deployment isn't an option. They come part and parcel.
Making judgments about wars ... WWII vs. Afghanistan. Shoot. I agree. While I think the US should have hit Afghanistan and wiped out Osama's operatives, in my opinion, I don't think we should have made it a decades long project. I also didn't agree with Iraq. Nor am I in any way excited to put boots on the ground in Africa or Syria. Shoot. And, when I say that, I really want to say something else.
But, if you feel a call on your life and your heart to be a soldier or a fighter pilot or a combat medic, I don't know, given the present structure of our governments and the military, that you can do that and pick and choose which wars you want to involve yourself in. And, .... I know of people who, didn't necessarily believe in these wars, who went back into the military. Why? They felt a call to work as military doctors and nurses. There was a need. They felt a call. It wasn't about the war. It was about the men and women who were being blown to bits. They felt moved to help them. As far as I'm concerned, some of them are serving on the frontline. I don't know about now, but Kandahar was taking fire regularly a year or two ago ... for example.
I'm going on and on ... when really ... my point is ... it's not that easy. This question, in my mind, is a sticky one and there aren't easy and definitive answers. Given that and the fact that so much of it has to do with individual opinions, I sure as damn hell don't want the government to legislate it. I think it should be up to the individual. Individuals make good decisions and poor choices all the time. That is what that is .... But, as much as possible, even though there might be serious consequences, I think it should be about individual choice.
Regarding missing points, .... I think you did just fine, two fingers and all. ;)
Hmmmm.... It's that it's my opinion. Not her opinion. Mine. I think that's the best way to describe it.
I know how I feel about children. I know what I would do or wouldn't do. In my mind, marriage is a sacred bond. And, ... the duty to one's children, if one has children, is even more sacred and of paramount concern. In my opinion ....
I know what that means to me. For example, back when I still thought I'd have children, I said I wouldn't work in the school I was in while pregnant. We called those years at that school the Tombstone years. They're still referred to as the Tombstone years. I can't tell you how many fights I broke up. How many times I was punched and kicked. Someone took an icepick to one of my tires once ... didn't realize it until I was on the road. And, ... I was in a "safe" job. I was a teacher. But, I realized the danger and knew it was a danger that I would not visit upon my child, regardless that said child would be in my uterus. No. Sure, I could have told myself I'd not break up another fight, another drug deal, another .... But, truly, given my nature, I knew it wasn't likely that I'd be able to stop myself. No way would I put a child of mine in that kind of danger. I'd never forgive the school, the student, or myself if something happened. Now, had I had children, would I have continued to work at that school? Hmmmm.... The school has since changed. But, at the time I was thinking along those lines, I couldn't imagine that I'd want to risk it. Sure, the worst thing that happened to me was a slipped disk when someone body checked me into a wall and the floor. It's going to be a lifelong issue, pops out a bit from time to time, but it wasn't fatal. The chances of a fatal injury were slim. But, would I knowingly put myself at risk like that ... take the chance that I'd leave a child behind? I'm guessing I wouldn't have. Further, I knew at the time, having lost a relationship due to my unwillingness to leave that school mid-year when something happened, that, likely, any man I'd be attracted to, would love, and would marry would have some serious things to say about my continuing there.
But, like I said, that's me. I know who I am, what makes me tick, what's important to me, the lines I have and won't cross. I know what my priorities are and what I will and won't do. That doesn't necessarily mean every woman is going to feel the same way ... or that every man will feel the same way.
As an aside, one of the reasons I was involved in these things as often as I was involved the fact that the men wouldn't engage. These things would happened and ... no one reacted ... including the men. And, no, it wasn't all girl fights, leaving the men to feel uncomfortable, etc.... Though, to be fair, not many of the women engaged either. In the entire building at that time, two men and two women, including myself, would engage. So, that leaves me thinking .... Dealing with a crisis, with a dangerous situation, ... it isn't the domain of men, regardless of history and the roles of men and women throughout our past. It doesn't come naturally to all men. It just doesn't. Now, are male teachers different than other men? That's a question I can't answer. Was it just the men at that school who didn't act and react in a crisis ... who didn't protect others? Not male teachers? Not men in general? Did men from the past engage more in these things? I don't know ....
If people have a call on their lives, if they truly feel called to do something ... if they have certain gifts and talents .... It's just not for me to tell them what to do with them or what not to do with them.
If I wouldn't teach school in a dangerous building while pregnant or as a mother, there's no way I'd sign up for the military and risk deployment. But, that's me. I have a call on my life to teach and protect children. That's my purpose. How could I, with that sort of call, leave my children without my guidance or protection? Do all people feel the same call on their lives? I'm guessing they don't. That makes all the difference, I think.
How can I respect someone for making a choice that flies in the face of what I hold to be sacred? Well, .... It has to do with that old saying about walking a mile in someone else's shoes. If I don't know the person and if I don't know their situation, it's not for me to judge them, at least and especially when they're serving the country ... not committing a crime.
Now, regarding career choice, .... I don't know about how it's done in the UK, but being deployed is not a choice in America. So, when someone signs up to have a career in the military, s/he knows they can be re-stationed and deployed at any time. Saying no to a deployment isn't an option. They come part and parcel.
Making judgments about wars ... WWII vs. Afghanistan. Shoot. I agree. While I think the US should have hit Afghanistan and wiped out Osama's operatives, in my opinion, I don't think we should have made it a decades long project. I also didn't agree with Iraq. Nor am I in any way excited to put boots on the ground in Africa or Syria. Shoot. And, when I say that, I really want to say something else.
But, if you feel a call on your life and your heart to be a soldier or a fighter pilot or a combat medic, I don't know, given the present structure of our governments and the military, that you can do that and pick and choose which wars you want to involve yourself in. And, .... I know of people who, didn't necessarily believe in these wars, who went back into the military. Why? They felt a call to work as military doctors and nurses. There was a need. They felt a call. It wasn't about the war. It was about the men and women who were being blown to bits. They felt moved to help them. As far as I'm concerned, some of them are serving on the frontline. I don't know about now, but Kandahar was taking fire regularly a year or two ago ... for example.
I'm going on and on ... when really ... my point is ... it's not that easy. This question, in my mind, is a sticky one and there aren't easy and definitive answers. Given that and the fact that so much of it has to do with individual opinions, I sure as damn hell don't want the government to legislate it. I think it should be up to the individual. Individuals make good decisions and poor choices all the time. That is what that is .... But, as much as possible, even though there might be serious consequences, I think it should be about individual choice.
Regarding missing points, .... I think you did just fine, two fingers and all. ;)
cHriS ...
I forgot something ....
I think, though I'm not certain, that things are changing in the family courts ... at least in my area. I know a lot, A LOT, of fathers who are raising their children on their own. I don't always know the reasons behind it. Did the mother give up her rights? Were things so bad that she lost her rights? I don't know. But, I do know a truly surprising number of men who have custody and children whose mothers, literally, are almost non-existent from their lives. Again, that might have been decided by the women or it might be that New England has more progressive courts.
I, personally, believe fathers should have rights in these situations. The children should be placed in the best possible situation; that likely is a very individual thing and, in my mind, should be determined as such. Case by case ...
I forgot something ....
I think, though I'm not certain, that things are changing in the family courts ... at least in my area. I know a lot, A LOT, of fathers who are raising their children on their own. I don't always know the reasons behind it. Did the mother give up her rights? Were things so bad that she lost her rights? I don't know. But, I do know a truly surprising number of men who have custody and children whose mothers, literally, are almost non-existent from their lives. Again, that might have been decided by the women or it might be that New England has more progressive courts.
I, personally, believe fathers should have rights in these situations. The children should be placed in the best possible situation; that likely is a very individual thing and, in my mind, should be determined as such. Case by case ...
Shannon, I know what you posted about if you were pregnant and working in a school such as the one you portrayed. I work at a school, but I don't teach there where women do work while pregnant, but I know of one teacher who was working 5th gr last year, but opted for 1st grade this year she is pregnant still. I also know men teachers who do not believe their students do the things that I have seen them do. So we run the gamut of good teachers and not so good ones. Do you work with high school students?
Robin wrote: "Shannon, I know what you posted about if you were pregnant and working in a school such as the one you portrayed. I work at a school, but I don't teach there where women do work while pregnant, bu..."
I work with high school students now, at a different school. I just changed. ;)
At the time I was speaking about, I worked at the high school. After eight or nine years of dealing with "Tombstone" and my parents, cousins, and friends begging me to leave the school, I requested to be moved down in grade to teach 7th and 8th. I wasn't willing to leave at that time but did think moving to the middle school would be safer. They're smaller.... ;) Of course, the climate changed around that time, so it wasn't really necessary.
I really prefer teaching high school, though, and decided to, finally, change schools ... one relationship, one slipped disk, one tire and many sleepless nights and worry for those who loved me later ....
All this at a small New England school, fairly rural. I can't imagine what it might be like, given this, to teach in other places. (!)
I work with high school students now, at a different school. I just changed. ;)
At the time I was speaking about, I worked at the high school. After eight or nine years of dealing with "Tombstone" and my parents, cousins, and friends begging me to leave the school, I requested to be moved down in grade to teach 7th and 8th. I wasn't willing to leave at that time but did think moving to the middle school would be safer. They're smaller.... ;) Of course, the climate changed around that time, so it wasn't really necessary.
I really prefer teaching high school, though, and decided to, finally, change schools ... one relationship, one slipped disk, one tire and many sleepless nights and worry for those who loved me later ....
All this at a small New England school, fairly rural. I can't imagine what it might be like, given this, to teach in other places. (!)
I am just an Adult Supervisor but I deal with elementary kids at breakfast and lunchtime, and recess. so I see more of the character of the kids and their differing personalities. I worked at the preschool level prior to this so I do see similarities since we do have a JK program here as well. I commend you for working with high schoolers, I don't think I would want to work in that environment.
Mark wrote: "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-inspir..."I must agree with you Mark! I am a proud student of both and a teacher of both as well! The ability of a human to see the power of the creator in the universe around them is a blessing beyond all blessings. I love watching as my students open their eyes and realize what they are learning in science is but a miracle of the creator.
Robin wrote: "I am just an Adult Supervisor but I deal with elementary kids at breakfast and lunchtime, and recess. so I see more of the character of the kids and their differing personalities. I worked at the p..."
That's a tough job, Robin. I'm sure you definitely see a whole range of behaviors. Thank you for working with "our" children.
That's a tough job, Robin. I'm sure you definitely see a whole range of behaviors. Thank you for working with "our" children.
Some days are crazier than others. But I feel that this is my life job. And it doesn't hurt that I am five minutes away, so the commute is bearable.
Shannon wrote: "While we're all human, I'd appreciate it if people would respond to me and to the actual words and thoughts I express."No problem. I just wanted you to know that it wasn't necessarily an "atheist" thing. For example I will happily discuss it, though I admit that I try not to bring it up, for no other reason than it does feel to me as a cheap shot.
I also am not saying that you brought it up or that it's right to complain when it's brought up. Just supplying information :-)
C-Cose wrote: "Did you actually read--as in for comprehension--the list of statements that I'd hope some common ground could be found?"Yes I read and comprehended them, hence my analysis, apologies if I misunderstood your list for being "you must agree" when you meant "can you agree".
C-Cose wrote: "Whether Science is a "methodology" or "ideology" is is still a mental construct. Period."
Agreed, in fact you can possibly extend each definition to include parts of the set. The real difference I feel between the two is that a methodology can be self-referential and self-modifying, while an ideology at its core is based on a fixed set of 'ideals'. At least that's my best understanding of the terminology.
C-Cose wrote: "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)."
Agreed. Also to be seen in the Sunni/Sh'ia rift and many historical rifts of Christianity from Catholic/Orthodox to Catholic/Protestant.
As for baptists, there is a certain amount of end-time evangelicals that have a very cynical reason to support Judaism and Israel, which is to fulfil end-time prophecy when Israel is destroyed by its enemies. Quite a scary concept when US Presidents under the sway of evangelicals are sworn in. Even Reagan was quoted as saying "For the first time ever, everything is in place for the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ." (1971) Quite worrying from a man with his finger on 'the button'.
C-Cose wrote: "Scientists are adherents of Science--unless you have a completely different, yet again, definition of adherent."
From www.dictionary.com (I use this as it's google's dictionary and therefore probably highly used by consensus. Being English I would probably prefer Oxford's!)
C-Cose wrote: "adherent (noun)
1. a person who follows or upholds a leader, cause, etc.; supporter; follower."
So I would have to disagree. A scientist may follow a leader, a scientist may follow a cause, or even a particular theory, however the very term adherent (to adhere to something) is an anathema to how good science works. A scientist cannot be an adherent as their first purpose is to question, the second to question themselves, and finally to pose possible answers and repeat the process.
Meanwhile a religious or spiritual person adheres to a given set of ideas/ideals.
So I'd say the term adherent is inaccurate at best unless the term is widened to the point it is meaningless beyond "thinking person" and definitely highly misleading.
C-Cose wrote: "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."
Agreed then.
C-Cose wrote: "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."
Funnily enough I got the same impression from you, especially when you try to define my usage of terminology according to your own differing definition. However, I agree it would be more constructive to try to understand each others definitions and ideas rather than argue about terms.
C-Cose wrote: "But I'll play your game ... until you once again begin speaking as if to a "layperson". "
I thought earlier that you disliked the idea this was 'a game' but fair enough :-)
To be fair though, I am sorry if you found my comment insulting, it wasn't meant to be. Part of (current) scientific training is the adoption of two modes of writing. One is to a technically skilled audience in the field you are studying (i.e. fellow Astrophysicists or molecular biologists) the other mode is to an educated audience unfamiliar with your field (i.e. everyone else). This is what is meant by a layperson, someone who isn't studying or working within your field.
The reason for the difference is that in the technical mode you can assume a lot of background knowledge and agreement with accepted theory (even when you are about to undermine that theory). Whereas with a layperson you cannot assume that they are familiar with technical details from your field and therefore you sometimes end up filling it details that some people already know.
So no offence intended.
C-Cose wrote: "You are partially correct in the first instance of Hitler's religious tradition and the second is completely erroneous to the discussion."Actually, I don't know about "partially" correct or the "facts" as you've read them, as I have certainly read that there is conflicting views about the development of Hitler's faith during the war. He definitely started out as a Christian (referenced in "Mein Kampf") and did perpetuate certain Christian ideas of deicide etc. During the War and the holocaust there was some sign that this religion may have mutated into either some form of hybrid occultism or even messiah complex (either for political expediency or actual delusion) but what is completely correct is that Hitler was not an atheist (and in fact despised) atheism.
The second part is still entirely relevant as whether or not faith and its practices were prevalent, the common folk of Germany (and indeed Europe) would have claimed to be Christian. There was nothing in Nazism that precluded this and indeed no great outcry was made by the catholic church against the state.
So in either case Germany nor it's leaders had not suddenly embraced atheism, correct?
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "While we're all human, I'd appreciate it if people would respond to me and to the actual words and thoughts I express."
No problem. I just wanted you to know that it wasn't necessarily an "atheist" thing. For example I will happily discuss it, though I admit that I try not to bring it up, for no other reason than it does feel to me as a cheap shot.
I also am not saying that you brought it up or that it's right to complain when it's brought up. Just supplying information :-) "
Right ....
So, first, .... That quote was in relation to why atheists might think bringing up Nazi experimentation is WRONG on the part of believers or anyone else I imagine. The fact that "ists" in the past have claimed Hitler was an atheist. Therefore .... But, I'm not an "ist" and I don't think C is either. That's not the point that was being made the other day. So, it would be nice if atheists here would respond to the words I actually use vs. responding to what "ists" have said in the past.
If you're happy and willing to discuss this topic, Gary, I commend you. That means you're not one of the "many atheists" here who cry foul when it's brought up ... who even say they'll discontinue "talking" with anyone who brings it up. And, I truly do mean it when I say I commend you on that. If you believe anything is up for questioning when it comes to believers, as I said, you should welcome the same. If you do, that's a good thing.
No problem. I just wanted you to know that it wasn't necessarily an "atheist" thing. For example I will happily discuss it, though I admit that I try not to bring it up, for no other reason than it does feel to me as a cheap shot.
I also am not saying that you brought it up or that it's right to complain when it's brought up. Just supplying information :-) "
Right ....
So, first, .... That quote was in relation to why atheists might think bringing up Nazi experimentation is WRONG on the part of believers or anyone else I imagine. The fact that "ists" in the past have claimed Hitler was an atheist. Therefore .... But, I'm not an "ist" and I don't think C is either. That's not the point that was being made the other day. So, it would be nice if atheists here would respond to the words I actually use vs. responding to what "ists" have said in the past.
If you're happy and willing to discuss this topic, Gary, I commend you. That means you're not one of the "many atheists" here who cry foul when it's brought up ... who even say they'll discontinue "talking" with anyone who brings it up. And, I truly do mean it when I say I commend you on that. If you believe anything is up for questioning when it comes to believers, as I said, you should welcome the same. If you do, that's a good thing.
cHriS wrote: "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?"I have said before, if I've missed a question please state it and I will endeavour to answer. I had answered this question in a verbose manner which may not have been clear, so I will summarise.
In my opinion of freedom of choice stops when you take away someone else's freedom of choice. In conflicts were two people's freedom of choice are in conflict then I would advocate that each side justifies their choice with independent verified rational and evidence.
For example; do I agree that people have the freedom of choice to deplore sexism, racism and other bigotry, yes I do as there exists obvious rationale and evidence to do so. Do I agree with other people judging people's actions based on unsupported dogmatic prejudice, no I don't.
Some conflicts of course have grey areas.
cHriS wrote: "It seems that you are in your element when you are able to correct and inform rather than listen and discuss."
I 'correct and inform' as you say when people use incorrect or incomplete information to support a point. As for questions, I tend to ask them to try to understand where a person is coming from. Sometimes I would disagree with someone unless I understood the context, hence asking politely seems to be the best way to establish context.
cHriS wrote: "I replied to the post, which is more than you did."
Well to be fair that was only a few posts grace that you gave me before complaining I hadn't responded, and yet I was still waiting for your answer. Also I have answered many of your questions directly, while I still have a list of your unanswered ones.
cHriS wrote: "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."
It is amusing that you continually accuse other people of your own habits. As I have done, and have done so in the past, I will answer direct questions put to me, and if I miss them I've asked for them to be repeated. I invite you to do so again. I invited you to do so when I produced a list for you.
cHriS wrote: "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."
Yes the discrepancy being that you are judging the actions of people based solely on their gender and your opinion of the roles and responsibilities of that gender.
cHriS wrote: "I know that my reply is not politically correct, but then I don't go along with politically correctness."
'Political correctness' is often nothing more than a label for people to demean and disparage the concept of tolerance. Personally I do not care if it is PC or not, my point is that you are judging people based on your prejudice view of their gender and refusing to even consider justifying it because you place your beliefs over other people's beliefs, opinions and facts.
You see my question was directly related to yours. In my opinion people do not have the automatic right to take away or criticise the rights of others unless they can demonstrate independently a fault or problem with that right.
cHriS wrote: "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."
Agreed, but that has nothing to do with gender roles.
cHriS wrote: "I am of the old school where a man opens a door for a lady."
I do the same, but I will also do it for men out of politeness. I have never had one shoved back in my face by either gender, though if a woman says "after you" I respect that decision and say "thank you" and proceed.
cHriS wrote: "If our country was invaded and there was conscription, then men should be called to fight on the front line first."
Well that is conscription and is forcing people to fight. Arguably there may be a point here as in such a circumstance, after the war, men are less important to re-population (as long as you temporarily abandon traditional ideas of monogamy.)
However, that is not addressing peoples personal choice so is not relevant.
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. "
Personally I draw the line at respecting the decisions of women, or indeed a couple. A family who has a parent go to war faces exactly the same prospects, whether it's the woman or the man. It is up to them to discuss the effect on their children and indeed it's likely they have done as in modern war the concept of "the frontline" is vague at best.
Where do you draw the line? You have so far (in the posts that you said I didn't respond to so I will do so here) justified racism by the emotions of the racist. Saying that it's justifiable for the woman you spoke about to hate blacks because that was one of the attributes of the murderer that wrecked her life. Does this mean that people are ok to hate Jews when they lose their jobs because some Jews are rich? Where do you draw the line against unjustified prejudice?
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 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."Agreed. Yet it is military women who want the right to make that choice and not have the choice taken away because of their gender.
A person (and indeed a family) has to make a lot of hard choices when choosing to enlist and fight. In my opinion it is wrong for 'bleeding heart conservatives' to deny them the same choices based on their gender based on what used to be 'political correctness' 50 years ago.
cHriS wrote: "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."The difference is; the seatbelt saves lives provably (regardless of gender), not drinking (to excess) while pregnant provably improves the chances of a healthy child, however there is no proof that the loss of a mother in war is any less devastating than the loss of a father.
cHriS wrote: "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."
Fine. So lets deal with facts rather than inbuilt prejudice, after all your disrespect of women soldiers is founded on what used to be PC decades ago. Political correctness has just been updated with concepts of equality which means both equal rights and equal responsibilities.
Mark wrote: "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-inspir..."Why does there have to be an author?
Shannon wrote: "I truly do mean it when I say I commend you on that. If you believe anything is up for questioning when it comes to believers, as I said, you should welcome the same. If you do, that's a good thing."Thank you :)
Gary wrote: however there is no proof that the loss of a mother in war is any less devastating than the loss of a father."I don't know if that is true or not, but if it is you will be able to show me links to the reports.
We are in danger of creating a catch 22 situation with words in order to prove a point that is not a 'point'.
If the mother is away from her children for months at a time and the father, rather than an other family member, is looking after the children, then maybe the children would not be as attached to the mother as perhaps they should be.
If the mother was not away, at least while the children are young, we would not have potentially motherless children because the mother puts her career before her children.
..... I will say again that it's my opinion. Maybe it is an old fashion way of looking at life today but it is still a valid way. And using my Titannic example again......
If we had another Titannic type of disaster, would be be wrong to suggest that woman and children go first?
after all your disrespect of women soldiers
Gary, you are doing it again. You are taking what I said out of context.
Gary wrote: Yes the discrepancy being that you are judging the actions of people based solely on their gender and your opinion of the roles and responsibilities of that gender"I am judging the actions of a person as a mother, a mother who has the sole choice to have children or not. I am not making it a gender issue since only one gender can be a mother. And it is not just my opinion, it is a view that society has regarding 'putting children first'.
If a parent makes a choice not to put a child first, when it comes to a career, thats fine and I an sure they can justify why they have done so. But others do not have to agree with that justification. And because we are talking in general terms one can say why they do not agree.
In my opinion of freedom of choice stops when you take away someone else's freedom of choice. In conflicts were two people's freedom of choice are in conflict then I would advocate that each side justifies their choice with independent verified rational and evidence
And the evidence may well be a law that has been passed, which has removed someone's freedom of choice in the first place.
Where do you draw the line? You have so far (in the posts that you said I didn't respond to so I will do so here) justified racism by the emotions of the racist
It is comments like that, that has helped create a pc world. Racism, trumps everything else.
A few years ago, a neighbour of mine, he was 82, had words with another neighbour and voices were raised. Then one neighbour pushed the other (82 year old) to the ground. The 82 years retaliated from the ground with racial abuse. The police were called. They were more concerned about the racial abuse than the assault.
......... you are looking at things with a clinical, text book, pc eyes and are unconcerned about how or why a mother should/could/would feel the way she does.
Does this mean that people are ok to hate Jews when they lose their jobs because some Jews are rich? Where do you draw the line against unjustified prejudice?
Yes it is ok for anyone to hate anyone else. I do not see how you do not understand that. As long as the person does not express that hate in a way that could for example incite violence.
If I burn your house down for fun and you died, I would get less of a sentence that if I burned your house down because I hated you. At first read that sounds right, but is it?
Some make a distinction between emotions and feelings, hate can be both and not everyone can supress their emotions.
cHriS wrote: "I don't know if that is true or not, but if it is you will be able to show me links to the reports."I said that there is no proof, not that there is proof that there is no effect. In absence of clear evidence to the contrary I would advocate treating people equally. If you have proof that there is a difference then that proof would at least support your conjecture that the mother should not volunteer for risk.
However,
http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/D...
http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/F...
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore...
These are references to LGBT parents but I think that if there was a gender difference then it would show blatantly in a couple that lacked one gender or another.
"Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents."
cHriS wrote: "If the mother is away from her children for months at a time and the father, rather than an other family member, is looking after the children, then maybe the children would not be as attached to the mother as perhaps they should be."
Yes you are right about attachment but your last words (my emphasis) are a value judgement on their choices based on traditional gender roles. Personally I don't think you have the right to tell another family what role each person takes, or to judge them on their choices.
cHriS wrote: "I will say again that it's my opinion. Maybe it is an old fashion way of looking at life today but it is still a valid way."
That's fine if you choose it for yourself, or your family. It's not fine when you claim that your way is the only valid way.
cHriS wrote: "If we had another Titannic type of disaster, would be be wrong to suggest that woman and children go first?"
An extremely good and thought provoking question. Yes there exists an inherent gender bias there, and perhaps in the modern world 'children and parents' first would be more appropriate? Though perhaps 'children first' would be better as if the whole point is to rescue those with the longest lives to live and most untapped potential, then that is better? Of course the idea of women & children first was that at the time the woman was usually the primary carer so that kept them together, while 'children and one of their parent/guardians first' is potentially too confusing and too easy to cause arguments in a crisis situation.
Yep, I think that one deserves thinking about more. Anyone else have an opinion?
cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote: after all your disrespect of women soldiers
Gary, you are doing it again. You are taking what I said out of context. "
No. You said that a mother who chose to go to the frontline you would not respect as a mother or soldier. So you disrespect woman soldiers. You automatically disrespect the other female soldiers as being unfit to make their own choices should they find themselves having to make that choice.
Gary wrote: In absence of clear evidence to the contrary I would advocate treating people equally. ..."Maybe you would advocate that; people are equal regardless of evidence, but a male and a female are not the same.
I said that there is no proof, not that there is proof that there is no effect. This is just playing with words.
My main point was about the children and not the female soldier, you have reversed the scenario to make it fit with your reply. Children come first. They have the right to have a mother raise them and that mother has a duty of care towards her children. A degree of responsibility by the mother should be given, after all she and she along should have made the final decision to get pregnant. It is that responsibility that I question.
Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents
That could be a debate for another day, but is not relevant here.
Yep, I think that one deserves thinking about more. Anyone else have an opinion?
Does it, really?
You said that a mother who chose to go to the frontline you would not respect as a mother or soldier. So you disrespect woman soldiers. You automatically disrespect the other female soldiers as being unfit to make their own choices should they find themselves having to make that choice.
Again you are taking what I said right out of context, MP's do this a lot.
cHriS wrote: "I am judging the actions of a person as a mother, a mother who has the sole choice to have children or not. I am not making it a gender issue since only one gender can be a mother. And it is not just my opinion, it is a view that society has regarding 'putting children first'."Yet you support the idea of 'family' and in a family there are two parents. Once a child is born and weaned there is no reason why a father cannot take the nurturing role based on the choices of that family. You may prefer that this be your partners task rather than yours, but that is a choice for you and your partner. It is not your choice or place to judge the choices of others unless you can prove that they are being neglectful.
cHriS wrote: "If a parent makes a choice not to put a child first, when it comes to a career, thats fine and I an sure they can justify why they have done so. But others do not have to agree with that justification. And because we are talking in general terms one can say why they do not agree."
That is an entirely different argument to gender roles.
cHriS wrote: "And the evidence may well be a law that has been passed, which has removed someone's freedom of choice in the first place."
Yes, like the criminalisation of homosexuality in the past for example. A law that removed someone's choice to follow their natural attractions and love.
cHriS wrote: "It is comments like that, that has helped create a pc world. Racism, trumps everything else."
Again you cite "PC" as the bogeyman of modern society, but in fact it has existed as long as civilisation. In Victorian times it was politically correct to protect the 'weaker sex' in Roman times it was politically correct to accept homosexual or heterosexual sex, but to consider the 'receiving partner' as being 'unmanly'.
Personally I am more interested in what is ethical than what is politically correct.
cHriS wrote: "A few years ago, a neighbour of mine, he was 82, had words with another neighbour and voices were raised. Then one neighbour pushed the other (82 year old) to the ground. The 82 years retaliated from the ground with racial abuse. The police were called. They were more concerned about the racial abuse than the assault."
Yes things like this happen, but can you swear to the context? For a start I know that police have to be alert for such things as it can form the basis of ongoing problems beyond an isolated incident of assault. Also it rather undermines the 'innocence' of the victim if he is using racial epithets as this can indicate an ongoing problem of abuse that may have culminated in the assault.
Yes a physical assault is worse, but part of the job of policing is prevention as well as prosecution.
cHriS wrote: "you are looking at things with a clinical, text book, pc eyes and are unconcerned about how or why a mother should/could/would feel the way she does."
That's because I do not presume to know how she feels, or her partner. I respect people's right to make their own choices unless those choices have a demonstrable negative impact on others. This is not Political Correctness, this is morality.
cHriS wrote: "Yes it is ok for anyone to hate anyone else. I do not see how you do not understand that. As long as the person does not express that hate in a way that could for example incite violence."
In what way can you express hatred that does not lead to prejudice or violence? Though from your previous comments it does appear that you support the right of people to be prejudice, which means you place some peoples rights above other people based on prejudice.
I guess you don't agree with the claimed Christian principles of "love thy neighbour" and "love thy enemy" then?
cHriS wrote: "If I burn your house down for fun and you died, I would get less of a sentence that if I burned your house down because I hated you. At first read that sounds right, but is it?"
Depends why you burned the house down. I.e. accidental manslaughter versus murder versus premeditated murder. Legally the distinction has been made that there is an ethical difference between killing someone accidentally during another crime, killing someone in the heat of passion and deliberately and coldly planning the murder of someone else.
cHriS wrote: "Some make a distinction between emotions and feelings, hate can be both and not everyone can supress their emotions."
People have emotions and feelings, fine, people undoubtedly have bias opinions of others with no founding, or are prejudice against others, whether that is people with a certain skin colour, creed, accent or clothing style. (I know I certainly am). However none of this makes prejudice or hatred excusable. It is the path of the ethical person to try to minimise these prejudices whenever they occur.
Some people as you say cannot suppress their emotions, that doesn't make them immoral. Claiming that their emotions give them the right to be prejudice is.
cHriS wrote: "Maybe you would advocate that; people are equal regardless of evidence, but a male and a female are not the same."Deliberate distortion?
I said people have the right to be treated equally, I did not say they were the same, I also did clearly indicate that I would base this on evidence. The difference is that you advocate different rights based on gender without any proof, while I advocate treating everyone the same unless their is clear evidence that this should not be done.
cHriS wrote: "This is just playing with words."
If you cannot understand the clear difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence then you should give up your claimed faith now.
That is not playing with words it is an important difference.
cHriS wrote: "My main point was about the children and not the female soldier, you have reversed the scenario to make it fit with your reply. Children come first. They have the right to have a mother raise them and that mother has a duty of care towards her children."
Again your prejudice shows. Replace the word "mother" with the word "parent" and I would agree. It is up to the family to decide which parent.
cHriS wrote: "A degree of responsibility by the mother should be given, after all she and she along should have made the final decision to get pregnant. It is that responsibility that I question."
Yes because women are never denied contraception and women never get pregnant without having a clear choice whether to get pregnant or not.
What about the responsibility of the Father?
cHriS wrote: "That could be a debate for another day, but is not relevant here."
Well debate the clear evidence if you like but my reason for including it was that if one gender was favoured over the other for childhood nurturing then it would have obviously shown up in those studies. That was the quickest set of evidence that I could find to answer your query.
cHriS wrote: "Does it, really?"
Yes, because I agree I have the knee-jerk response that I would prefer women and children first, but that could be a feature of the remnant of gender bias. I would especially like to hear what the girls would think about it? If they were on the sinking ship, would they be glad of the consideration, or would they prefer the choice to sacrifice themselves for their man? Do they feel the intrinsic bias to be demeaning?
cHriS wrote: "Again you are taking what I said right out of context, MP's do this a lot."
Oh dear, I have been compared to an MP, my one weakness... Curses.... Foiled....
:-D
No I didn't take it out of context. You said you would not respect a woman as a mother or soldier if they went to the frontline. They were your words.
I certainly know of a few servicewomen who would find that incredibly insulting, as much as their husbands. I also find it somewhat disrespectful of the women who have died in service.
Gary wrote: "Yep, I think that one deserves thinking about more. Anyone else have an opinion?"
I think it does deserve more thought. I'll come back to that point after I give my opinion.
We definitely, in my opinion, should save the children first. For me, it's not just about the fact that they'll live longer, hopefully, have such potential, etc.... It's also about the fact that "we" chose to have them. Given that, "we" have a responsibility to care for and protect them. Further, depending on age, children actually require care in order to survive.
Who next? Personally, I would say parents of said children ... male and female. This is a sticky wicket, though. As I mentioned this weekend, I grew up on stories of single men who risked all to spare married men with babies. That story made a strong impression on me. However, some single people, who don't have children, argue that I shouldn't place such value on people who have children. Rightly or wrongly, that is my opinion. And, ... I wouldn't differentiate between mothers and fathers. I think both mothers and fathers play vital roles ... if the children have mothers and fathers.
Now, why do I think the question deserves further thought? Why isn't it as easy as saying we should save the women and children first? We do live in a different day. As I mentioned this weekend, I know a lot of men who are raising their children themselves ... alone ... totally and completely. In a few of those instances, their wives/the mothers died. If those men and their children were on this "Titanic" ship or what have you, would it be right to sacrifice those men ... when they're the only one who parents their children? Even if the cases weren't that extreme, there could be problems in saving only the mothers. What if the mothers are ill and ill-equipped to be the sole caregiver? What if they've never in their lives held a job outside the home and wouldn't be able to just run out and get a job that would support the family? What if the mother was an alcoholic who neglected the children when the father wasn't there to keep things running? Veering toward the extreme again, but .... I do know families who have lived those scenarios, minus being on a sinking ship, literally.
So, no ... I don't think it's an easy question to answer.
Of course, truth be told, it wasn't an easy question to answer on the Titanic either. Who should go first? Women and children or those who can buy their way out? Hmmm....
I think it does deserve more thought. I'll come back to that point after I give my opinion.
We definitely, in my opinion, should save the children first. For me, it's not just about the fact that they'll live longer, hopefully, have such potential, etc.... It's also about the fact that "we" chose to have them. Given that, "we" have a responsibility to care for and protect them. Further, depending on age, children actually require care in order to survive.
Who next? Personally, I would say parents of said children ... male and female. This is a sticky wicket, though. As I mentioned this weekend, I grew up on stories of single men who risked all to spare married men with babies. That story made a strong impression on me. However, some single people, who don't have children, argue that I shouldn't place such value on people who have children. Rightly or wrongly, that is my opinion. And, ... I wouldn't differentiate between mothers and fathers. I think both mothers and fathers play vital roles ... if the children have mothers and fathers.
Now, why do I think the question deserves further thought? Why isn't it as easy as saying we should save the women and children first? We do live in a different day. As I mentioned this weekend, I know a lot of men who are raising their children themselves ... alone ... totally and completely. In a few of those instances, their wives/the mothers died. If those men and their children were on this "Titanic" ship or what have you, would it be right to sacrifice those men ... when they're the only one who parents their children? Even if the cases weren't that extreme, there could be problems in saving only the mothers. What if the mothers are ill and ill-equipped to be the sole caregiver? What if they've never in their lives held a job outside the home and wouldn't be able to just run out and get a job that would support the family? What if the mother was an alcoholic who neglected the children when the father wasn't there to keep things running? Veering toward the extreme again, but .... I do know families who have lived those scenarios, minus being on a sinking ship, literally.
So, no ... I don't think it's an easy question to answer.
Of course, truth be told, it wasn't an easy question to answer on the Titanic either. Who should go first? Women and children or those who can buy their way out? Hmmm....
Gary wrote:Yes things like this happen, but can you swear to the context? For a start I know that police have to be alert for such things as it can form the basis of ongoing problems beyond an isolated incident of assault. Also it rather undermines the 'innocence' of the victim if he is using racial epithets as this can indicate an ongoing problem of abuse that may have culminated in the assault.Yes a physical assault is worse, but part of the job of policing is prevention as well as prosecution."
This is an example of how a debate can feel like a cross examination when everything said starts from the premise of disbelief.
What about the responsibility of the Father?
The woman always has the final say, why would she get pregnant if she was not sure she wanted to get pregnant?
Again you cite "PC" as the bogeyman of modern society
That is because it is.
I guess you don't agree with the claimed Christian principles of "love thy neighbour" and "love thy enemy" then?
No I don't. Love is a much over used word.
Oh dear, I have been compared to an MP, my one weakness... Curses.... Foiled....
.......not so much addressing the issue at hand, but more saying why the opposition is to blame.
People have emotions and feelings, fine, people undoubtedly have bias opinions of others with no founding,
But you are now doing what you are accusing me of doing....... why are people not allowed to have such bias opinions. It is a trait of the politically correct brigade to end a debate or at least score points by dropping words like racist' into a discussion.
or are prejudice against others, whether that is people with a certain skin colour, creed, accent or clothing style. (I know I certainly am).
Interesting.
Yes, because I agree I have the knee-jerk response that I would prefer women and children first, but that could be a feature of the remnant of gender bias. I would especially like to hear what the girls would think about it? If they were on the sinking ship, would they be glad of the consideration, or would they prefer the choice to sacrifice themselves for their man? Do they feel the intrinsic bias to be demeaning?
How far would your respect extend to a man who, on a Titannic situation said to his wife 'I better go with the kids since I look after the at home, a bit more than you do'?
Well debate the clear evidence if you like but my reason for including it was that if one gender was favoured over the other for childhood nurturing then it would have obviously shown up in those studies. That was the quickest set of evidence that I could find to answer your query.
I think we could find 'sets' of evidence that would swing both ways. A male/male or female/female family is the execption to the rule, rather than the rule and is really another debate.
If you cannot understand the clear difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence then you should give up your claimed faith now.
I understand that we all go off topic at times and this is one of 'these' times, but this is the second time you have managed to bring religion back into the discussion.
Shannon I had to acknowledge this post.Shannon wrote: "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."
If you'll forgive the irony, 'amen' to that.
Shannon wrote: "My next thought .... Women have been warriors for a long time."
"The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them.", Eowyn (The Two Towers)
Fictional I know, but a sentiment that I feel is all too real. After all if there truly is merit to fighting and risking death for freedom, honour or to save your fellow countryfolk, how hateful would it be to deny that honour of sacrifice based on gender (or sexuality for that matter).
Shannon wrote: "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?"
Again, amen. Though I don't think that there is that much evidence of the actual breakdown of society. Certainly society is changing and change is painful, but in the west at least violence and crime is actually on a downwards trend.
Shannon wrote: "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?"
In many species gender roles are different and when it comes down to it what is 'natural' is not always what is best. It is 'natural' for us to hunt and gather, but we instead have agriculture, indeed we could not survive without it in our current numbers.
Shannon wrote: "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 .... "
Agreed.
Shannon wrote: "Okay. If they were to cross the line to attempt to pass legislation to make it illegal for believers to believe, stand back."
Agreed. If only for the reason that this would form a forced dogma every bit as insidious as the very worst excesses of religion.
I'd never support the outlawing of religion, I just hope that one day reason will become more compelling than belief.
Shannon wrote: "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."
Agreed.
Shannon wrote: "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."
As long as there is no proof it harms others, I agree.
Shannon wrote: "I, personally, don't think those questions should be answered by our governments ... and forced on another person ... or on a group of people."
Agreed. Law and government should be there to protect our freedom to choose our own path, as long as that path does not harm others, whether directly or by prejudice.
May I ask though Shannon, as I'd appreciate your point of view, about cs's postulation about "Women and Children first" in a disaster being still valid in modern society, or is it a relic of institutionalised sexism?
Gary wrote: "If they were on the sinking ship, would they be glad of the consideration, or would they prefer the choice to sacrifice themselves for their man?"
Ahahaha...! Don't know why, but that just struck me as hysterical. I think I'm overtired.
At this moment, I'm single and don't have a man. It's hard to know how people would react in life and death situations. But, given how I've reacted in dangerous situations before, I truly think, given that I'm single and without children, that I would willingly sacrifice myself for a parent ... male or female.
Now, if I had a man, would I willingly sacrifice myself for my man? (I'm using a weird accent in my head at this moment for some reason ....) I don't know. That's a kicker, isn't it. I've never been in that sort of position before. To save my man or not?! I'm going to have to think on that one awhile. I'm guessing it might come down to which one of us had a stronger will. Whose stubbornness would win out, in that situation? Or, if we were both childless, would we both choose to sacrifice ourselves, together?
Having said all of this, I'm not averse to "my man" standing for me or beside me or in front of me ... protecting me. Though, I can also protect myself. I would have serious issues if I were with a man who didn't do so ... who was cowardly.
I just don't know ...
Ahahaha...! Don't know why, but that just struck me as hysterical. I think I'm overtired.
At this moment, I'm single and don't have a man. It's hard to know how people would react in life and death situations. But, given how I've reacted in dangerous situations before, I truly think, given that I'm single and without children, that I would willingly sacrifice myself for a parent ... male or female.
Now, if I had a man, would I willingly sacrifice myself for my man? (I'm using a weird accent in my head at this moment for some reason ....) I don't know. That's a kicker, isn't it. I've never been in that sort of position before. To save my man or not?! I'm going to have to think on that one awhile. I'm guessing it might come down to which one of us had a stronger will. Whose stubbornness would win out, in that situation? Or, if we were both childless, would we both choose to sacrifice ourselves, together?
Having said all of this, I'm not averse to "my man" standing for me or beside me or in front of me ... protecting me. Though, I can also protect myself. I would have serious issues if I were with a man who didn't do so ... who was cowardly.
I just don't know ...
Shannon wrote:I, personally, believe fathers should have rights in these situations. The children should be placed in the best possible situation; that likely is a very individual thing and, in my mind, should be determined as such. Case by case ... ..."
Maybe we are just looking at the same problem, but from a different view point, and we still want the best outcome...... I have always thought that mothers should have the children if she wanted then, unless there were issues against her.
Gary wrote: "...[snipped for brevity]...To be fair though, I am sorry if you found my comment insulting, it wasn't meant to be. Part of (current) scientific training is the adoption of two modes of writing. One is to a technically skilled audience in the field you are studying (i.e. fellow Astrophysicists or molecular biologists) the other mode is to an educated audience unfamiliar with your field (i.e. everyone else). This is what is meant by a layperson, someone who isn't studying or working within your field...."Greetings Gary,
I have to admit that I read through your response looking for a "gotcha"; I was pleased to see that there wasn't one. I have to ask myself whether our previous "disagreements" are at least partially a result of not being familiar with each other's mode of expression. Well that's water under the bridge, spilled milk, the road already traveled ....
To the task at hand :)
I used to use dictionary.com for reference but have since changed to Cambridge's online source. My reason is that I've found the former to include far too many "common usage" values ... ymmv. I can't recall where I got the adherent definition from, but Cambridge does include "support [of] an idea ..." in it's definition. Hence, my use of that word. I fully accept that your definition differs.
Earlier in your response, you wrote, "Agreed, in fact you can possibly extend each definition to include parts of the set. The real difference I feel between the two is that a methodology can be self-referential and self-modifying, while an ideology at its core is based on a fixed set of 'ideals'. At least that's my best understanding of the terminology."
I agree with your analysis. In the context of our growing discussion (and the statements I provided earlier), I had "elevated" both Science and Religion to master sets that include ideology (a set of beliefs) and methodology (the methods / behaviour which result from those beliefs).
At best, I've tried to form rough analogies (~) in an effort to have common terms between the (imposed) dichotomies of Science and Religion:
Ideology:
~ facts internal to Science (data points), set of theorems, experimentation (Science).
~ facts internal to Religion (tenets of various Holy Books), view of life (theorems), questioning or believing those facts.
Methodology: In both cases used to describe the behaviours / actions taken in relation to the internal "ideology" as described above in response to observations of the same.
This is not an intended obfuscation of the terms, but merely an attempt to find "like" terms for this discussion. Some of my favourite university studies were in logic and cognitive behaviour so I have a tendency not only to find a logical basis, but also to find terms that fit both sides of the "equation". Blame the mediator in me :)
I also found your quote from Reagan to be both interesting and profoundly disturbing. My views on US political "contributions" to this discussion could fill up a separate thread; if you're seriously interested, please feel free to invite me and I'll discuss them. Fair warning that I have some "coined" terms to delineate between players in that fracas ....
Regarding Hitler's history in #7117 ...
Although we have different understandings of Hitler and pre-WWII Germany--both supported by a variety of facts--I hope we can agree that although Hitler was the architect of the Holocaust, he was not the scientist that carried out the experiments. His own religious beliefs have a reduced effect on the scientific study that was being carried out under his banner by scientists that may, or may not, have been religious themselves. He was not the first to try his hand at eugenics.
Further, the religious beliefs of the common populace in Germany at the time have no direct effect on the results of the Holocaust--my mention of which was the unfortunate start of this tangent. Nor do we have clear evidence as to the distribution of religious belief at the time. Anecdotally, I would argue that many Germans had given up any firmly held beliefs in a "God" as a result of the depression and other elements that preceded Hitler's regime and the eventual war--they were at best "roll call" Christians of many stripes. The lack of opposition from the RC is a topic for another discussion entirely as their abuses and uses of power are always about the hierarchy first ... all other concerns are, at best, tertiary.
As to this being a game for me .... it isn't. Not in any way. I was responding to my perception that your mode of discussion was point / counterpoint. I can't stand tennis :) My perception may have been in error as I've thoroughly enjoyed responding this time.
cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote:I, personally, believe fathers should have rights in these situations. The children should be placed in the best possible situation; that likely is a very individual thing and, in my ..."Greetings Shannon and cHriS,
It seems to me--as an observer to your discussion re parenting and parental rights--that you are both saying that the only "right" is that of the child to be raised in the most loving, nurturing, and well-balanced environment. In some cases, that may be in the mother's care, sometimes the father, sometimes another relation entirely, sometimes neither.
For me .... when the courts / legal system wake up to this realization and act on it, case by case, then we will truly have assigned custody rights to the proper individuals .... the children. In my view, nobody has the "right" to be a parent but a child definitely has the right to beneficial parenting.
Shannon wrote: " 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?""I'm taking a back seat at the moment, just enjoying reading the conversation. But yes, the red legged pharalope, and the grey pharalope, and the rhea are all birds in which the male sits on the eggs and raise the chicks alone. On top of this, we have emperor penguins, in which it is the males who sit out the worst of winter incubating the egg while the females go off and feed. with ostriches, the females all lay their eggs in one communal nest, which is then cared for by the local dominant male, while the females wander off to do as they please. Even more interesting is that there are recorded cases of male black swans mating with a female, and then chasing her off after she's laid the egg, and incubating and raising the young with a male partner. Also, with seahorse, the female lays the eggs in the males brood pouch, and he even undergoes labour when his young hatch and emerge from the pouch. And for a primate example, marmosets in south america are raised by their fathers, who carries them, grooms them, and the mothers only involvement is to suckle the young when dad brings the baby to her, until they're weaned, then the father feeds them, and teaches them how to feed themselves.
I'm going back to lurking now.
C-Cose wrote:In my view, nobody has the "right" to be a parent .".........is that not a bit like saying, no one has the right to grow hair?
C-Cose wrote: "It seems to me--as an observer to your discussion re parenting and parental rights--that you are both saying that the only "right" is that of the child to be raised in the most loving, nurturing, and well-balanced environment. In some cases, that may be in the mother's care, sometimes the father, sometimes another relation entirely, sometimes neither.
For me .... when the courts / legal system wake up to this realization and act on it, case by case, then we will truly have assigned custody rights to the proper individuals .... the children. In my view, nobody has the "right" to be a parent but a child definitely has the right to beneficial parenting. "
I agree. No easy answers. The best interests of the child should be paramount ... that will differ on a case by case basis. ;)
For me .... when the courts / legal system wake up to this realization and act on it, case by case, then we will truly have assigned custody rights to the proper individuals .... the children. In my view, nobody has the "right" to be a parent but a child definitely has the right to beneficial parenting. "
I agree. No easy answers. The best interests of the child should be paramount ... that will differ on a case by case basis. ;)
cHriS wrote: "C-Cose wrote:In my view, nobody has the "right" to be a parent .".........is that not a bit like saying, no one has the right to grow hair?"
Not at all cHriS,
Producing offspring and hair growth are both biological processes. Parenting--as in the care and raising of any offspring--would be more analogous to choosing one's hairstyle.
C-Cose wrote: nobody has the "right" to be a parent ."........ the 'right' is there as soon as the baby is conceived, not only is it a right but it is also a duty.
Depending on the law of the land you live on, that right could be taken away, as it is all to often is, but 'right' is not something you earn, it comes with the territory.
All to often in the UK, young men don't seem to think it's their right or duty to be a parent. They will walk away from the mother and child and leave the tax payer to pick up the tab.
Like Shannon as a mother I am ambivalent about the "women and children first" I agree the question is slightly hysterical. That being said prior to having my sons I had no fear of dying and would have in a heart beat stood back for a parent to go first, I still don't fear dying but but now I would fight, for my sons,(for reasons peculiar to the personalities in this marriage they need me and not because I have a XX chromasome)
There is only one thing a father can't do when it comes to caring for his children... Breastfeed
cHriS wrote: "C-Cose wrote: nobody has the "right" to be a parent ."........ the 'right' is there as soon as the baby is conceived, not only is it a right but it is also a duty.
Depending on the law of the l..."
Greetings cHriS
I understand where you're coming from but duty =/= right. Yes, parents have a duty to raise their children as an ingrained part of our biology, but that does not give them any specific rights to parenting. You wouldn't say that you have the "right" to eat, would you?
Children have a right to be parented; parents have a duty / obligation to parent. Although there are various "rights" that come with parenting, the action in and of itself is not a right.
I have the biological duty to feed myself .... I have the right to eat whatever I please (within societal norms).
Do you see where I make the distinction? I find it interesting that "parental rights" tends to come up in discussions where there are generally two parents involved. In societies where children are actively raised by the larger community, I've yet to see any serious discussion about these "rights".
A Facebook comment this evening linked a blurb from a Fox-run news agency, in which the individual attempts to make the point that Christians are more progressive/advanced (who knows what?), because when Christians get angry they don't kill people. That convoluted, self-righteous reasoning is indicative for my vote for a world free from religion. I guess the newscaster is no student of history, since they conveniently forgot about the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Grand Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, and the systematic decimation of natives peoples throughout North, Central,and South America, along with the Caribbean. I live in the buckle of the Bible belt, have a degree in theology, have served as an ordained minister, until I am sick of the upheaval, censorship and hypocrisy.
Evan wrote: "A Facebook comment this evening linked a blurb from a Fox-run news agency, in which the individual attempts to make the point that Christians are more progressive/advanced (who knows what?), becaus..."
Evan ...
Would you really vote for a world free from religion due to the reasoning of one person on Fox? Or ... based on wrongs committed by Christians living in the Middle Ages ... during the Salem Witch trials ... during colonization?
There are more people than these ... more religions than these ...
Personally, if I'm sick of anything, it's extremism. I find that in a lot of places ... not just on Fox or in Christian churches.
Evan ...
Would you really vote for a world free from religion due to the reasoning of one person on Fox? Or ... based on wrongs committed by Christians living in the Middle Ages ... during the Salem Witch trials ... during colonization?
There are more people than these ... more religions than these ...
Personally, if I'm sick of anything, it's extremism. I find that in a lot of places ... not just on Fox or in Christian churches.
C-Cose wrote:Do you see where I make the distinction"I do, but you have to state the path you are going down, biological or social, you can't mix and match to fit into a discussion.
The context we are talking about is social and that is how todays society views "parental rights."
Biological rights, if you want to go way back to very early man, would I guess be very limited, if existing at all. Once the baby is born it is on it's own, except that nature or nurture kicks in.
C-Cose wrote: "I have to ask myself whether our previous "disagreements" are at least partially a result of not being familiar with each other's mode of expression."That's good to hear.
Cambridge does include "support [of] an idea ..." in it's definition. Hence, my use of that word. I fully accept that your definition differs."
I think the reason for the definition differing is the basic point. To my mind a scientific "adherent" would be supporting an "idea" and therefore failing to do science. Science requires ideas to be accepted, maintained and potentially rejected as evidence shows. Religion requires the maintenance of a certain set of ideas without modification or indeed 'doubt'.
To my mind an adherent of science fails science by definition.
C-Cose wrote: "I've tried to form rough analogies (~) in an effort to have common terms between the (imposed) dichotomies of Science and Religion:
Ideology:
~ facts internal to Science (data points), set of theorems, experimentation (Science).
~ facts internal to Religion (tenets of various Holy Books), view of life (theorems), questioning or believing those facts.
Methodology: In both cases used to describe the behaviours / actions taken in relation to the internal "ideology" as described above in response to observations of the same."
I understand the comparison, but it leaves out the big difference. When science is properly done (using the methodology) it modifies the ideology in a complicit relationship. Whereas religion traditionally does not change ideology except where a religious schism happens.
C-Cose wrote: "I have a tendency not only to find a logical basis, but also to find terms that fit both sides of the "equation". Blame the mediator in me :)"
Terminology is indeed one of the biggest difficulties because a mismatch in comprehension of that terminology can result in complete inability to comprehend the alternative viewpoint.
C-Cose wrote: "I also found your quote from Reagan to be both interesting and profoundly disturbing. My views on US political "contributions" to this discussion could fill up a separate thread; if you're seriously interested, please feel free to invite me and I'll discuss them. Fair warning that I have some "coined" terms to delineate between players in that fracas ...."
Indeed, as could I. I mention it here because people in modern society often have a laissez-fair attitude to belief, and wonder why 'atheists' and others are so concerned about belief. Yet belief informs people's everyday actions and the way they treat others and indeed the way they exercise power over others, whether its the use of a position of authority to impose their beliefs and values, or the choices they make when voting.
Whenever belief is selected over reason and evidence I see a problem. Whether that belief is religious, spiritual, economic or political.
C-Cose wrote: "I hope we can agree that although Hitler was the architect of the Holocaust, he was not the scientist that carried out the experiments."
True, but the reason why it was considered ok to proceed was not based on science, but was based on the Nazi policies toward people of other creeds and faiths. So it is somewhat misleading to blame 'scientists' for the atrocity, just as it would be misleading to blame all males (assuming the people who conducted the experiments were male), or blame all white people, or blame all people who speak German.
The experimentation was just a small sliver of the atrocities that made up the Holocaust, and the cause was not scientific methodology or theorems, the cause was a political and social ideal partially based on Christian cultural prejudice.
If you do not accept the latter then please research the long history of anti-Semitism in Europe (including a few massacres in England), the fictitious religious crimes of "blood libel" and "host desecration". Finally, look at some of the other people who shared in the holocaust with the Jews; gypsies, 'heretics' (i.e. Jehovahs Witnesses and even Catholics) and homosexuals, groups also reviled within Christianity.
C-Cose wrote: "He was not the first to try his hand at eugenics."
No, but eugenics is based on belief too. The belief in the intrinsic value of certain people over others. I would not say that Eugenics was an established science. Genetics is, but genetics does not derive arbitrary values for people.
C-Cose wrote: "Further, the religious beliefs of the common populace in Germany at the time have no direct effect on the results of the Holocaust"
Again I feel it is no coincidence that the Holocaust fell primarily on religious enemies. The two main reasons that Jews in particular made such a great scapegoat was that by being Jewish they intrinsically deny that Christ was the prophesied Messiah, and because Christians used to observe the sin of usury some Jewish families made a lot of money with banking and loaning. This earned them a lot of envy which blossomed during the end of the depression of the 30's. Add to that a long history of self-imposed apartheid with the people and thanks mainly to religion Jews were the perfect scapegoat for the Nazi's to unite people against.
No it wasn't entirely religion, but religion permeates every level of the issue that led to the Holocaust.
C-Cose wrote: "Nor do we have clear evidence as to the distribution of religious belief at the time."
"The German census of May 1939 indicates that 54 percent of Germans considered themselves Protestant and 40 percent considered themselves Catholic, with only 3.5 percent claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5 percent unbelievers." - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gm...
This was about 5-6 years into Hitler's rule.
C-Cose wrote: "Anecdotally, I would argue that many Germans had given up any firmly held beliefs in a "God" as a result of the depression and other elements that preceded Hitler's regime"
Anecdotal evidence would suggest the same for the modern UK with its low Church attendance and secular focus, yet how is it that things like Gay Marriage are still able to sway so much opinion against them thanks to the Anglican & Catholic church amongst others?
Add to that the fact that times of strife such as the depression and Hitler's rise usually increase religious faith, not the opposite. Look at the effects of 9/11.
In any case, if the Holocaust had no religious context then it would be a vanishingly small coincidence that it was targeted on a particular group of people traditionally vilified by that religion.
"We are at fault for not slaying them [the Jews]."
"What shall we do with...the Jews? I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."
- Martin Luther (German leader of the Protestant reformation)
C-Cose wrote: "I was responding to my perception that your mode of discussion was point / counterpoint. I can't stand tennis :) My perception may have been in error as I've thoroughly enjoyed responding this time."
Apologies for the point/counterpoint but it is a conscious effort to rein in verbosity. I do try to respond to everyone that responds to me but time and space requires me to at least try to be concise. :-)
(It's even worse when Shannon and I both start waxing verbose!)
Shannon wrote: "Ahahaha...! Don't know why, but that just struck me as hysterical. I think I'm overtired.":-D
Shannon wrote: "Now, if I had a man, would I willingly sacrifice myself for my man? (I'm using a weird accent in my head at this moment for some reason ....) I don't know. That's a kicker, isn't it. I've never been in that sort of position before.
...
I just don't know ... "
Good answer. Of course you never know until you're in the situation, but I feel that I would have an extremely hard time letting someone I love sacrifice themselves for me, and a difficult time not doing everything I could to ensure they survived.
Kind of selfish in a bizarre way. I would not want to be the one who lived on without them.
Shannon wrote: "Would you really vote for a world free from religion due to the reasoning of one person on Fox? Or ... based on wrongs committed by Christians living in the Middle Ages ... during the Salem Witch trials ... during colonization?"To be fair it sounded to me like just a few examples, not a sole reason. As for the "Middle Ages" well has the Bible been fully revised since or does the reasoning for those wrongs still live on the page to be read and used as justification for the next set of wrongs?
Shannon wrote: "Personally, if I'm sick of anything, it's extremism. I find that in a lot of places ... not just on Fox or in Christian churches. "
You see I am more concerned about the mainstream, if only in terms of numbers. It may be extremists that kill people over their beliefs, but its the 'moral' majority who are voting to dehumanise their fellows, to deny healthcare, to teach dogma as if it had scientific credence or to remove a woman's intrinsic right to make decisions about her own body.
cHriS wrote: "C-Cose wrote:Do you see where I make the distinction"I do, but you have to state the path you are going down, biological or social, you can't mix and match to fit into a discussion.
The context ..."
Agreed cHriS,
That was the reason for the closing paragraph of my original post in this mini-discussion. When the courts begin to act on a view that the "rights" belong to the child, then hopefully legislation will follow to reflect that. Many are already taking the needs / desires of children into their decision-making when the child is of an age when they can be heard.
I find that "rights", "freedoms", and other terms are used far too broadly in situations like these. By that I mean, that we--as a society--don't tend to really take a look at what that word requires of us.
C-Cose wrote: don't tend to really take a look at what that word requires of us. ...."I think that we are mostly in agreement on this one.
Gary wrote: "When science is properly done (using the methodology) it modifies the ideology in a complicit relationship. Whereas religion traditionally does not change ideology except where a religious schism happens."Greetings Gary,
I've started my response with this quote because it seemed as good a place as any :)
[begin GR rant]
Oh ... before I begin ... is anyone else bothered by GR's posting method for discussions? I mean, would it really be that hard to include an option to open a response / new post in another window so that one didn't have to constantly scroll up and down?!?!?!?
[end GR rant]
Now that I have that out of my system....
You make some excellent points and not once did I feel like I had to return a volley. I agree--to a point--with many of them and find myself beginning to see a view of the world that I had been unable to do in the past. I have to admit to having somewhat "blinders" on wrt how Scientists / atheists may view the world due to my own distinctions between Religion and Spirituality ...
Odd sounding as I write it ... but .... as I've never--in my adult life--seen myself as religious (rather as spiritual), I had always downplayed / ignored / lessened the value of those that identify as atheists (practitioners of Science for this discussion) as I've always perceived them to be opposite to Religion, therefore not effecting me as a Spiritual person.
In the above quote you said, "When science is properly done (using the methodology) it modifies the ideology in a complicit relationship. Whereas religion traditionally does not change ideology except where a religious schism happens."
Can you see where I have made the distinction for both Science and Religion in point #6 of my long-ago post emphasizing that behaviour and ideology must not be confused?
Both Science and Religion are capable of "good" and "bad" practices in the furtherance of their underlying principles. A lot of "bad science" has been practiced for no other reason than to investigate: e.g. who can build a better, bigger, more destructive weapon when something that already exists would do the job just fine. All the appropriate methodology and "best practices" in Science are followed ... but the result is the same--a more destructive weapon. The underlying ideology of Science is not necessarily changed by the result(s) of the investigation into that weapon.
Alternately, Religion has a whole host of bad practices under its belt--examples are too numerous to count. In this case, the behaviours also do not necessarily have a positive effect on the underlying ideology of Religion. There have been cases of change, but they are woefully outnumbered by those "beliefs" that have remained.
Wrt WWII atrocities ... you see Religion as having an underlying--possibly fundamental--effect on the actions (and results) of Science. I see Science as having the same fundamental effect on those that may or may not have been religious. I think we are both seeing a net negative effect but assign the responsibility for that differently.
Did religious dogma play a part in the Holocaust? Abolutely! Was it the primary driving force behind the atrocities? I don't understand that to be the case. I don't, in any way, say that you are wrong in your understanding--merely that mine is different from yours.
I find the stats that you found on WWII Germany interesting and agree that they give the perception that Christianity was prevalent in Germany at that time. I also happen to think that statistics--especially census--are at best a simplistic overview / snapshot of a specific moment in time. They may be the easiest tool that we have .... but they certainly aren't the best.
As for anti-Semetism in Germany / Europe / the world at that time, you will get no argument from me. My own ancestry gives me clear and unwavering evidence of that. My concern is that a prevailing attitude (not necessarily yours) of "They were all anti-Semites so ...." tends to negate / lessen the responsibility that Science had in that dark chapter of history.
Here's a current example of shoddy / incorrect Science that I was just made aware of--as still being the prevailing opinion:
Gay men in the US, UK, and Canada, are ineligible for both blood and organ donation. Against all scientific evidence to the contrary, they are still considered too high a risk for fatal disease transfer through those donations, although all other major groups that used to share "high risk" status are able to donate freely. Policy makers continue to use "scientific evidence" to support this decision.
Some would say that this is an instant where religious belief has over-ridden scientific investigation. I say that this is an instant where "bad science" has been further twisted as a means to an end.
Earlier in your response, you write, "people in modern society often have a laissez-fair attitude to belief, and wonder why 'atheists' and others are so concerned about belief. Yet belief informs people's everyday actions and the way they treat others and indeed the way they exercise power over others, whether its the use of a position of authority to impose their beliefs and values, or the choices they make when voting."
You wouldn't "believe" how many times I had to find a different word for belief as I've been writing this response ...lol.
As I remember it, you wrote in an earlier post that "belief" was something temporary until a better explanation made itself known. Please correct me if I've mis-stated that. I find it interesting that as this discussion has progressed, I've redefined "belief" for myself as "a value that is unlikely to change." Although we are at polar opposites for the definition of that word, it's been useful for me as I've had to find new words to replace "belief" when it does not mean what I assign to it. I could as easily find a different word that fits my own definition but I admit that I like the way "belief" rolls off the tongue :D
Oddly, your implied definition above, as something that informs and effects how we treat others, serves to strengthen my own definition. If I am acting on a belief, rather than an understanding or perception, how will that effect others? How do I best limit that effect on others--while still recognizing that others' perceptions of my actions are not mine to control? How do I live my life where "best practices" dovetail with either my scientific or spiritual beliefs?
In summary, our discussion has taught me some things about myself today. I've also become more familiar with your mode of discussion. I can't say that we fully agree on many things but I can say that I can understand your point of view.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Would you really vote for a world free from religion due to the reasoning of one person on Fox? Or ... based on wrongs committed by Christians living in the Middle Ages ... during the Salem Witch trials ... during colonization?"
To be fair it sounded to me like just a few examples, not a sole reason. As for the "Middle Ages" well has the Bible been fully revised since or does the reasoning for those wrongs still live on the page to be read and used as justification for the next set of wrongs?"
I actually didn't read it that way, but that's okay....
Your above post misses part of my statement and the point I made in my post.
There are more people than these.... There are more religions than this....
Yes, Evan spoke of the person on Fox and atrocities committed by Christians during the Middle Ages, the Salem Witch trials, and colonization as reasons for him to vote for a world free from religion.
My point .... Really? And, .... There are more people than these and more religions than this ....
Given that, I'm not going to argue a point based on the Bible and the acts of Christians during the Middle Ages. I'm attempting to broaden our focus a bit, instead of solely focusing on a certain religion or set of religions.
To be fair it sounded to me like just a few examples, not a sole reason. As for the "Middle Ages" well has the Bible been fully revised since or does the reasoning for those wrongs still live on the page to be read and used as justification for the next set of wrongs?"
I actually didn't read it that way, but that's okay....
Your above post misses part of my statement and the point I made in my post.
There are more people than these.... There are more religions than this....
Yes, Evan spoke of the person on Fox and atrocities committed by Christians during the Middle Ages, the Salem Witch trials, and colonization as reasons for him to vote for a world free from religion.
My point .... Really? And, .... There are more people than these and more religions than this ....
Given that, I'm not going to argue a point based on the Bible and the acts of Christians during the Middle Ages. I'm attempting to broaden our focus a bit, instead of solely focusing on a certain religion or set of religions.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Personally, if I'm sick of anything, it's extremism. I find that in a lot of places ... not just on Fox or in Christian churches. "
You see I am more concerned about the mainstream, if only in terms of numbers. It may be extremists that kill people over their beliefs, but its the 'moral' majority who are voting to dehumanise their fellows, to deny healthcare, to teach dogma as if it had scientific credence or to remove a woman's intrinsic right to make decisions about her own body. "
Believe it or not, this isn't about nitpicking; it's about the truth of my statement. Please do me a favor and look back at what I wrote ....
I said I was sick of extremism and found extremism in a lot of places, not just Fox and Christian churches. In response, you discuss extremists ... "that kill people over their beliefs" ....
The two are different.
I see extremism in a lot of places, including views on equality, race, etc.... In addition, I shudder when believers say atheists are immoral. An example of extremism, an extreme view. I'm deeply concerned when atheists say they live for the day when there aren't religious people. In my opinion, that's an extreme view.
Whether extremists hold the extreme view or people in the mainstream do, extremism disturbs me. And, ... I don't just see those sorts of views within Christianity (or religion in general) or within the conservative segment of society. Extreme views and the human tendency to judge other people ... because they're those "other" people and not like us ... is the root of many of our problems, in my opinion.
(Though ... it might not tackle greed.)
You see I am more concerned about the mainstream, if only in terms of numbers. It may be extremists that kill people over their beliefs, but its the 'moral' majority who are voting to dehumanise their fellows, to deny healthcare, to teach dogma as if it had scientific credence or to remove a woman's intrinsic right to make decisions about her own body. "
Believe it or not, this isn't about nitpicking; it's about the truth of my statement. Please do me a favor and look back at what I wrote ....
I said I was sick of extremism and found extremism in a lot of places, not just Fox and Christian churches. In response, you discuss extremists ... "that kill people over their beliefs" ....
The two are different.
I see extremism in a lot of places, including views on equality, race, etc.... In addition, I shudder when believers say atheists are immoral. An example of extremism, an extreme view. I'm deeply concerned when atheists say they live for the day when there aren't religious people. In my opinion, that's an extreme view.
Whether extremists hold the extreme view or people in the mainstream do, extremism disturbs me. And, ... I don't just see those sorts of views within Christianity (or religion in general) or within the conservative segment of society. Extreme views and the human tendency to judge other people ... because they're those "other" people and not like us ... is the root of many of our problems, in my opinion.
(Though ... it might not tackle greed.)
C-Cose wrote: "Gay men in the US, UK, and Canada, are ineligible for both blood and organ donation. Against all scientific evidence to the contrary, they are still considered too high a risk for fatal disease transfer through those donations, although all other major groups that used to share "high risk" status are able to donate freely. Policy makers continue to use "scientific evidence" to support this decision."
WHAT?! Really...?
The first thing that comes to mind is .... I thought taking a blood transfusion is "safe" ... the blood is tested, etc.... I thought accepting an organ is "safe" ... testing is done, etc.... So, if this is the case, is it not safe to accept a blood transfusion? That's my first thought.
My second thought .... If what you're saying is true, ....
Blood drives, hospitals, etc... might accept the blood of a man who has a TON of unprotected sex with a TON of women ...
But ...
They wouldn't accept the blood of a gay man who has been in a monogamous relationship for years ....
Is that what you're saying?
So, .... Which is the truth and which is the lie?
Is the blood really not "safe" after all? Given that, they think gay men pose a greater threat to the blood supply. (Despite the fact that I believe I've read HIV and AIDS is showing up in a greater percentage of heterosexual women right now. True or not ... I'm not sure.)
Or, is there a ridiculous bias against gay men?
Or ... is there another option I'm not coming up with?
WHAT?! Really...?
The first thing that comes to mind is .... I thought taking a blood transfusion is "safe" ... the blood is tested, etc.... I thought accepting an organ is "safe" ... testing is done, etc.... So, if this is the case, is it not safe to accept a blood transfusion? That's my first thought.
My second thought .... If what you're saying is true, ....
Blood drives, hospitals, etc... might accept the blood of a man who has a TON of unprotected sex with a TON of women ...
But ...
They wouldn't accept the blood of a gay man who has been in a monogamous relationship for years ....
Is that what you're saying?
So, .... Which is the truth and which is the lie?
Is the blood really not "safe" after all? Given that, they think gay men pose a greater threat to the blood supply. (Despite the fact that I believe I've read HIV and AIDS is showing up in a greater percentage of heterosexual women right now. True or not ... I'm not sure.)
Or, is there a ridiculous bias against gay men?
Or ... is there another option I'm not coming up with?
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...
;) ."
............... don't most people do just that? :)
But, in America, the Army, Navy, etc... are also referred to as the services. So, I wanted to clarify.
Yes, same here.
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.
Yes and it is the same here as well. But, going to war is not a career choice, at least I hope it's not.
But .... If the point is that parents shouldn't work in jobs that are dangerous,
....no thats not the point at all. As you said a hairdresser's job could be dangerous but I see no reason why anyone should have to serve on the front line of a war, unfortunatly governments dictate that we have to and yes in MY opinion it is no place for woman let along mothers with young children.
Women have been warriors for a long time
Up to a point, yes that is true, but if you are going to use the standards of the generations that went before us as an analogy, then that could also be used in favour of not allowing woman to have certain careers. Also there is a vast differance (from a Uk standpoint) between World War 2 and what is happening now. We do not need to be, for example, in Afghanistan now so every life lost, could be a life that needn't have been lost.
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
Of course not, but we know how nature works and we know that almost every court will give the children to the mother in a divorce. So society still views the mother as the first, in your words 'caretaker'.
...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?
No, thats why I am in favour of marriage, a man and a woman to be caretakers together and work out for themselves who does what. But I also think that babies/children in the first few years need as much contact with their mother as possible and planning the best and most affordable time, makes sense. Affordable, not just money wise but also time wise. If a mother does not have the time to spend with the baby, or is not willing to put her career on hold then maybe it's the wrong time to have the baby.
If you agree with me that children should come first then how do you justify a female soldier leaving her baby/child at home to follow a dangerous career.
Of course she can do it, it's her right, just as a mother has the right to smoke, drink and take drugs while she is pregnant, but do you have to respect her choice?
Second, I will never ... ever ... think it's appropriate to force one's opinions on others.
I don't see how this is possible even if you wanted to? Unless you change the law, which happens all the time.
If you think that Americans should not be allowed to buy guns and police should no longer carry guns. You could possibly campaign against guns..... is that not trying to force your opinion? But like I said you are looking to get the law changed.
Most animals look after their young until it's time for them to leave the nest ot until they are independent; is that not much the same with children.
I understand your point about the police and fire service and woman serving. But that is in no way comparable with Afghanistan, for example.
Phew! Shannon, let me know if I have missed any points, Gary sometimes thinks I miss questions on purpose, but the truth is I am just a mere male who types with two fingers.