NationStates Jolt Archive

You do speak a lot of sense, but I can see problems with this. One such problem is subjectivity. What for example is parenthood done properly?

Not slacked-off on, not secondary to a social life, done properly in the sense of done to the best of a parent's ability.
In a (admittedly abstract) way, we all do what we think is best. I suggest only that they should do their best -- and that includes making lifestyle choices in the interests of their kids, educating themselves to overcome bad habits of parenting, and a humility and self-sacrifice to develop firmness if they lack it or gentleness if the world has made them too hard.

Hmm, perhaps my unrealistic ideals account for my lack of offspring. Too hard to do "properly."

If my ideas on this thing differ from yours then first of all how do we decide whos ideas are better, and then while we decide that how should I be peranting in the interim?

They should do their best. As fluffy as that.

Two examples: one parent works long hours and makes a lot of money. They procure a good education for their kid and good childcare for the time they can't parent the kid because they're at work. They provide a lot of resources and set an example of ambition and hard work for their kid.
A second parent (of another kid) borrows money or sells assets to spend all their time with their infant, and once the kid is off to school, they take some part-time work but only in school hours, greatly limiting their earning power and barely putting food on the table. But the kid is the focus of their life, and they never ever say "don't bother me."

No, I couldn't possibly say one of these is right and the other wrong. Those two people are going to raise a different kid, with a different character and a different attitude to family and quite different lives. As I would not judge one kid right, and the other wrong, I wouldn't judge the parenting styles either.

Also to do as you suggest takes up an awfull lot of brain power, and then to be aware of every word and gesture at all times a lot of willpower.

I wasn't really saying that one must be aware of how all observers will react or what lessons they might learn, which would be huge burden indeed.
I'm just pointing to the false dualism which is driving this disagreement: the spankers say it is all about the message, the non-spankers say it is all about the action. Once one takes one side or the other of that, one is at best half-right.

Hmm, I think you might have said that already. Oh well.

Heh tell me are you a Sikh?

Wha?

*...*

Yep, I held out hope, but nothing in your post actually addresses what I said. How unfortunate.

OK if I try again?

OK if I try again?

Always.

thanks fass.

what language is that so I can translate and read it.

The ".se" in the URLs should tip you off.

The ".se" in the URLs should tip you off.

Soviet Europe?

Soviet Europe?

http://www.paladinsoftware.com/Generic/countries.htm

http://www.paladinsoftware.com/Generic/countries.htm

For someone so sarcastic...

For someone so sarcastic...

... I know when not to entertain it.

... I know when not to entertain it.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me know when I have your permission to be sarcastic.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me know when I have your permission to be sarcastic.

You don't need my permission. You need my participation. I can easily withhold that. Just watch me.

You don't need my permission. You need my participation. I can easily withhold that. Just watch me.

*watches*

Can you give an example of one of these?
Donald E. Brown's list of human universals (http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm), a list of traits found in all human societies, discusses many, including:

actions under self-control distinguished from those not under control
copulation normally conducted in privacy
death rituals
distinguishing right and wrong
fairness (equity), concept of
generosity admired
incest between mother and son unthinkable or tabooed
murder proscribed
rape proscribed
reciprocal exchanges
redress of wrongs

So you would disagree that we are products of our enviroment?
Not at all. But I wouldn't argue that we are only products of our environment. Our nature influences us as much as our nurture.

Heh challenge taken up.

Racism. Even with people from the same culture, you will find some bigots and some more liberal minded. With politics you find the same thing. Politics is nothing more than what the morality of the people demand. Why then don't we have only one politcal stance, why do we have consevative, and socialism, and liberal, and fascist minded indiviuals and people?
Yes people have differing political views, but these views all form within a framework. Fascist, communist, liberal, anarchist, whatever; all desire the betterment of society and, usually, progress towards a utopia or at least a better social make-up. They just differ on what this utopia or social betterment requires.

I too belive much the same as you, except that I do not belive in such an objective morality. Perhaps the nearest that I could concede would be along biolgical grounds, but I place morality as a congnative function, not as a purley biological one.
Well, as someone who views body and mind, biological and cognitive, as different ways of talking about the same thing, I'd say your point as moot.

Always.

Nope, sorry. I wred it again.

As such, I was reacting to what he actually said rather than adding context that wasn't there.


Look, I was wrong about your extension of spanking to grounding being a red herring. The point was made and argued and I would have simply left it alone if it'd known that. I messed up, missed an hour or more of posts because I refreshed the wrong tab. In case you missed it, I regret that and I apologize.

I think it's about time "strawman" went the way of "godwinning" -- into the trashcan of worn-out memes. I'm going to blatantly strawman here, I'm going to put your post into my own words. I simply can't understand it the way it stands (sorry, two hours of reading the thread since it became largely about spanking, reading your post, trying to compose a reply, and reading the thread again hasn't worked) so I'm going to try to simplify it.

Then you can tell me what I'm getting wrong. Yep, I'm going to make a strawman, and you can kick my strawman into some shape resembling the opinion or position or rhetorical figure you had in mind when you made the post which I am trying to answer. Here is your post:

Never say never. Humans are animals, but all animals are not human. Because we distinguish ourselves as human, we are not bound only by the what we observe in animals.

Perhaps we will never be free of what all animals have in common. But we can try, and I believe we should use the gifts of language and politics, and the vast flexibility of the individual human to be formed by their society, to pursue something more than being animals.

Never say never. As human society, we have a lot of growing up to do yet.
I think we do our children a disservice if we do not teach them how to react against those that want to visit violence upon them, as will certianly happen more than once or twice throughout their lifes.

We do our children a disservice by teaching them that the response to violence is obedience.

I chalk your post up as a point to Smunkee.

Peep was responding to the general point. Not the point you guys are claiming. As such, I was reacting to what he actually said rather than adding context that wasn't there.

Meanwhile, I'll avoid that red herring if you avoid the "spanking teaches that whenever someone is violent they should obey." Your claim is no different than mine. The only difference being that I realize that extending grounding to kidnapping is idiotic, but no one seems to realize that comparing spanking to punching a stranger in the face is also idiotic.

And here's what I think it means:

Peep was responding to the general point. Not the point you are claiming. As such, I was reacting to what he actually said rather than adding context that wasn't there.

This stands. I concede that I was ignorant of the whole argument-by-analogy about grounding. I hadn't seen it at this time, due to a mistake of mine in refreshing the page after I'd been away for some time having dinner.

If this is the all you require for an answer, we can leave it here. I was wrong.

I disagree that "We do our children a disservice by teaching them that the response to violence is obedience." Your claim is no more supportable than mine. Grounding is not equivalent to kidnapping, and spanking is not equivalent to assault.

Notes on the strawman's stuffing:
I removed the reference to red herrings, and inserted my actual words in place of the summary of "us guys"s position, which quite frankly I can't speak for because I don't know which 'guys' I might be one of. I changed "different" to "more supportable" because clearly our claims are not identical. Yes, you qualify how my claim is unlike yours, but the qualification does nothing to equate smacking with grounding, the claims remain unalike in that. I radically rewrote this sentence, taking out the concept "idiotic" and replacing it with "not" and removing the "punching a stranger in the face" which really doesn't seem to be anything but "assault." I don't know where you got the stranger, but I probably just missed it.

I doubt you will be happy with this, but that's the point. I could reply to this, but if you want a proper reply to your point I will obviously have to wait until you have approved this as a restatement, or modified it in some way.

Yes, I have still not answered your post. But you see, it would be wrong to offer you a proper reply, and then reply to something I could not understand.

Nope, sorry. I wred it again.




Look, I was wrong about your extension of spanking to grounding being a red herring. The point was made and argued and I would have simply left it alone if it'd known that. I messed up, missed an hour or more of posts because I refreshed the wrong tab. In case you missed it, I regret that and I apologize.

I think it's about time "strawman" went the way of "godwinning" -- into the trashcan of worn-out memes. I'm going to blatantly strawman here, I'm going to put your post into my own words. I simply can't understand it the way it stands (sorry, two hours of reading the thread since it became largely about spanking, reading your post, trying to compose a reply, and reading the thread again hasn't worked) so I'm going to try to simplify it.

Then you can tell me what I'm getting wrong. Yep, I'm going to make a strawman, and you can kick my strawman into some shape resembling the opinion or position or rhetorical figure you had in mind when you made the post which I am trying to answer. Here is your post:



And here's what I think it means:



This stands. I concede that I was ignorant of the whole argument-by-analogy about grounding. I hadn't seen it at this time, due to a mistake of mine in refreshing the page after I'd been away for some time having dinner.

If this is the all you require for an answer, we can leave it here. I was wrong.


Notes on the strawman's stuffing:
I removed the reference to red herrings, and inserted my actual words in place of the summary of "us guys"s position, which quite frankly I can't speak for because I don't know which 'guys' I might be one of. I changed "different" to "more supportable" because clearly our claims are not identical. Yes, you qualify how my claim is unlike yours, but the qualification does nothing to equate smacking with grounding, the claims remain unalike in that. I radically rewrote this sentence, taking out the concept "idiotic" and replacing it with "not" and removing the "punching a stranger in the face" which really doesn't seem to be anything but "assault." I don't know where you got the stranger, but I probably just missed it.

I doubt you will be happy with this, but that's the point. I could reply to this, but if you want a proper reply to your point I will obviously have to wait until you have approved this as a restatement, or modified it in some way.

Yes, I have still not answered your post. But you see, it would be wrong to offer you a proper reply, and then reply to something I could not understand.

No, I don't disagree with your post. How you reworded is exactly what I was saying. I was attacking the comparison by showing that one could make equally absurd comparisons. Rewording my post is only a strawman if it isn't an honest attempt to understand what I said. Yours was an honest attempt and you understood correctly.

Donald E. Brown's list of human universals (http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm), a list of traits found in all human societies, discusses many, including:

actions under self-control distinguished from those not under control
copulation normally conducted in privacy
death rituals
distinguishing right and wrong
fairness (equity), concept of
generosity admired
incest between mother and son unthinkable or tabooed
murder proscribed
rape proscribed
reciprocal exchanges
redress of wrongs



Yet ... you cherry-picked DEB's list to make the "universals" a bit more credible.

Wouldn't it be much more fun if you'd included:

magic to sustain life
males dominate public/political realm
biological mother and social mother normally the same person

etc?

:p

Donald E. Brown's list of human universals (http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm), a list of traits found in all human societies, discusses many, including:

actions under self-control distinguished from those not under control
copulation normally conducted in privacy
death rituals
distinguishing right and wrong
fairness (equity), concept of
generosity admired
incest between mother and son unthinkable or tabooed
murder proscribed
rape proscribed
reciprocal exchanges
redress of wrongs

I'm impressed by the number of those supposedly-universal behaviors which are blatantly non-universal.

Rape, in particular, has been frequently and commonly tolerated or even condoned in human societies, though different societies will designate different "rape-worthy" classes. Certain groups are considered fair game for rape in most cultures, or even deserving of being raped. Hell, in the USA it was legal for a man to rape his wife as recently as 15 years ago.

Copulation occuring in privacy is another one that's pretty obviously not universal. For instance, throughout much of Japanese history the concept of privacy as we know it was essentially unheard of. It was neither expected nor required that people copulate in privacy, because there WAS no privacy.

The admiration of generosity isn't admired in many human societies today, so it's hard to imagine how blind somebody would have to be to put that on the list.

The proscription of "murder" is pretty meaningless, since murder is--by definition--the killing of a human being against the laws of the society. It's proscribed by definition. However, definitions of what does and does not constitute an illegal killing of a human being have varied wildly across human cultures. In the USA, there was a time when the killing of a dark-skinned human being by a light-skinned human being was not murder, but was merely a property crime (akin to the unlawful slaughter of somebody else's livestock). In many societies throughout human history, the killing of infants or young children was perfectly lawful. And so forth.

Yet ... you cherry-picked DEB's list to make the "universals" a bit more credible.

Wouldn't it be much more fun if you'd included:

magic to sustain life
males dominate public/political realm
biological mother and social mother normally the same person

etc?

:p
Yeah, that list is definitely bunk.

Numerals (counting) and pronouns are on that list, and the Piraha tribe of the Amazon has neither. They also have no creation myths or art.

The list mostly reads like a very Western male writing down his personal assumptions, and then assuming that everybody all over the world must share them because, um, they're universal! Meh. Sloppy, unoriginal projection. Boooooorrring.

Yeah, that list is definitely bunk.

Numerals (counting) and pronouns are on that list, and the Piraha tribe of the Amazon has neither. They also have no creation myths or art.

What do they talk about on their forums then? :eek:

What do they talk about on their forums then? :eek:
It is unlikely they could function well on forums, because they don't believe outsiders can ever learn to speak their language...even if they have just carried on a conversation with one. It would also be hard to follow a conversation with one of them, since they often change their names because they believe spirits regularly take them over and intrinsically change who they are.

No, I don't disagree with your post. How you reworded is exactly what I was saying. I was attacking the comparison by showing that one could make equally absurd comparisons. Rewording my post is only a strawman if it isn't an honest attempt to understand what I said. Yours was an honest attempt and you understood correctly.

Then we agree after all. Which is good, because I suck at disagreeing.

I'm not sure if other people see it this way, but I'm quite often just jabbing at the bits I don't understand in others' posts, seeking more explanation rather than trying to destroy them.

If I get absolutely nothing out of a post, I move on to the next one. It's not my place, and nor do I have the time, to fight ignorance and stupidity. Well, that's the plan, even if I do lose it sometimes.

Then we agree after all. Which is good, because I suck at disagreeing.

I'm not sure if other people see it this way, but I'm quite often just jabbing at the bits I don't understand in others' posts, seeking more explanation rather than trying to destroy them.

If I get absolutely nothing out of a post, I move on to the next one. It's not my place, and nor do I have the time, to fight ignorance and stupidity. Well, that's the plan, even if I do lose it sometimes.

Well, I'm sorry if I was unclear. You did actually capture the point and I'm glad we agree.

I've decided that when I finally get around to making that thread about the future of cars ... I will call the thread "MEN ARE PIGS: Will there still be private cars in 2050?"

Just to make sure it's a real go-er, I might add a poll with the most divisive and mutually irrelevant options I can manage, just to get that "vote, read a line of the OP, come in swinging" thing happening. Beyond 300 or so, it doesn't seem to make much difference what the thread subject was!

Er, I know I made fun, but Donald E. Brown (http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm)'s list was actually on-topic.

First off... thanks for the articles Fass.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=145&a=411369

A case where a father was convicted of assault for one singular slap (he had never slapped the girl before or since) and push of his daughter. following the translations I could obtain...
that he gave the daughter a box on the ear and pushed her backward in the snow. a box on the ear is NOT a spank. your own use of the word SLAP also follows that he hit his daughter on the face/head. added to that, he Pushed her down which is also NOT a spank.

that he gave the daughter a box on the ear and pushed her backward in the snow is not a conviction of only spanking.

on a side note, did his appeal fail?

http://hd.se/bjuv/2007/06/19/pappa-faelld-foer-misshandel/

A case where a father was seen slapping his son. While there were allusions to other kinds of maltreatment (a witness says that he had seen him subsequently using a twig, although he could not attest to it having made contact with the child's person), the man admitted to having spanked the child on a couple of occasions and the court ruled that that was sufficient to convict.
hmmm.. If the translater I used got it right, he hit the child hard enough to push the child into the bushes(?)... then when the witness returned, he saw the man push the child down, kick the child and hit the boy with a twig/stick.

the translation's english was so broken, it's hard to say that he was convicted solely on the instances he said he did spank the child, or if the witnesses accounts were also included.

Yet ... you cherry-picked DEB's list to make the "universals" a bit more credible.

Wouldn't it be much more fun if you'd included:

magic to sustain life
males dominate public/political realm
biological mother and social mother normally the same person
No, as the list of Human Universals isn't a list of Human Universal Morals. I 'cherrypicked' the moral universals from the list as one would pick out oranges from apples. The universal of males dominating the public/political realm isn't a moral universal, but a societal one.

I'm impressed by the number of those supposedly-universal behaviors which are blatantly non-universal.

Rape, in particular, has been frequently and commonly tolerated or even condoned in human societies, though different societies will designate different "rape-worthy" classes. Certain groups are considered fair game for rape in most cultures, or even deserving of being raped. Hell, in the USA it was legal for a man to rape his wife as recently as 15 years ago.
Yet rape was still proscribed at some levels. The existence of "rape-worthy" classes suggests there are classes that are deemed "unrapeable".

Note that Brown classes rape in society as a human universal too. He isn't suggesting that all forms of rape in every society are proscribed, just that there will be some form of rape proscribed.

Copulation occuring in privacy is another one that's pretty obviously not universal. For instance, throughout much of Japanese history the concept of privacy as we know it was essentially unheard of. It was neither expected nor required that people copulate in privacy, because there WAS no privacy.
I find that extremely hard to believe, but would be interested to find out more.

However, my first thoughts are that it sounds like bunk to me. Historical Japanese society seems to very much have the concept of privacy; clearly defined private spaces, family homes, etc. As I say, if you can show me more, I'd be very interested.

The admiration of generosity isn't admired in many human societies today, so it's hard to imagine how blind somebody would have to be to put that on the list.
I would completely disagree.

Not sure how we'd solve this one though. :)

The proscription of "murder" is pretty meaningless, since murder is--by definition--the killing of a human being against the laws of the society. It's proscribed by definition. However, definitions of what does and does not constitute an illegal killing of a human being have varied wildly across human cultures. In the USA, there was a time when the killing of a dark-skinned human being by a light-skinned human being was not murder, but was merely a property crime (akin to the unlawful slaughter of somebody else's livestock). In many societies throughout human history, the killing of infants or young children was perfectly lawful. And so forth.
But that's just my point.

Murder is proscribed; societies and individuals merely differ on what constitutes 'murder'.

Numerals (counting) and pronouns are on that list, and the Piraha tribe of the Amazon has neither. They also have no creation myths or art.
According only to Daniel Everett, and disputed by several other researchers. WP and its linked articles are an interesting read. Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language).

Everett goes against Chomsky's universal grammer, which, IMO, is a mistake.

blah.
blah.

No, as the list of Human Universals isn't a list of Human Universal Morals. I 'cherrypicked' the moral universals from the list as one would pick out oranges from apples. The universal of males dominating the public/political realm isn't a moral universal, but a societal one.

Thanks for the Apples and Oranges thing. That's about the level my brain's working at just now. Just don't start cutting oranges into halves and apples into thirds and putting them together and asking me "what does that make?"

You were supporting an argument which I'll freely admit I wasn't following. I just clicked a link, read a bit and laughed. I smilied. One of my spammier moments I guess.

Yet rape was still proscribed at some levels. The existence of "rape-worthy" classes suggests there are classes that are deemed "unrapeable".

Yer wot? A prohibition on rape is a universal value if there is an "unrapeable class" somewhere in society?

*covers eyes, tries not to read thread again*

Science and Religion cannot Co-exist. Ever. It's just plain impossible. One of the only things left to prove is that there is nothing after death, which is next to impossible to perceive. You think you'll know what it feels like to be dead, but then you realize that you can't FEEL what it's like to be dead.

These are the thoughts that keep me up at night

Science and Religion cannot Co-exist. Ever. It's just plain impossible. One of the only things left to prove is that there is nothing after death, which is next to impossible to perceive. You think you'll know what it feels like to be dead, but then you realize that you can't FEEL what it's like to be dead.

These are the thoughts that keep me up at night

Are you actually claiming that can't coexist or are you just saying this is a stereotype?

Yer wot? A prohibition on rape is a universal value if there is an "unrapeable class" somewhere in society?

*covers eyes, tries not to read thread again*
Erm, yeeah, I think I should probably walk away from this one, too.

As a member of my culture's designated rape class, I find it pretty revolting to hear somebody tell me that it doesn't count as rape as long as only certain human beings are assigned to be targets.

I'm Saying it isn't a stereotype, it's true. Well, in my opinion, Religion and science will never be able to co-exist peacefully.

Yer wot? A prohibition on rape is a universal value if there is an "unrapeable class" somewhere in society?
A prohibition on some kind of rape. Not a blanket prohibition.

Within all societies some form(s) of rape is proscribed by the societal elite. However, it also appears that some form(s) of rape are, abhorrently, "allowed".

As a member of my culture's designated rape class, I find it pretty revolting to hear somebody tell me that it doesn't count as rape as long as only certain human beings are assigned to be targets.
Exactly where was that said?

Once again folks, before Bottle has a heart attack, I am suggesting that some form(s) of rape are proscribed, while some are, abhorrently, not proscribed.

I fail to see how this view equates to dismissing the existence of rape.

I'm Saying it isn't a stereotype, it's true. Well, in my opinion, Religion and science will never be able to co-exist peacefully.

It's not an opinion. It's either true or not. Any example where they do would prove you wrong and since I could list examples all day where religions don't conflict with science and vice versa, you're wrong.

i halfway believe a jumbled form of your stereotypes:

Men are weak
Ladies are stupid
(we can all think of many anecdotes to support these statements i'm sure)
Old people are annoying, especially when they drive.
or shop.
Kids are dumb
"isn't little petunia bright?" no lady, she's barely functional.
White people aren't half as clever as they suppose they are
Christians can't dance
unless they're pentecostal

well, that was fun!

I dunno about trueness or falsidity, but I have to say, I actually like some stereotypes. I guess that's kinda weird, so I'll list the ones I don't like first.

Bad stereotypes:

1. France is the romance capital of the world. (That's actually a reference to a world record that they set, but that you can't really tell kids about.)

2. Asian people spend their lives just getting really good at a single skill. (You're probably thinking of autistics, for whom that's also not entirely true, due to the absolutes involved with the statement. For instance, people with Aspergers' syndrome, a mild form of autism, generally spend about a month obsessing over a given field and skills associated with it, not just one skill.)

3. British people are snooty. (No, no, nononono. They're just weird.)

4. Germans are all about efficiency. (The word is "organization.")

5. Russians tend to be transvesties.

6. Teenagers are lazy. (It's true, but it would be less true if people didn't insist on its truth.)

7. Asian people are only good at math. (This just happens a lot because their home countries lack any Asian version Western concept of "nerdiness," so they value whatever they're taught in school, and don't bother to question how it applies to their daily lives. In Asia, the stupid kids are the nerds.)

8. Smart people aren't very fit. (Working out has been proven to make you smarter. Look it up. I need to work out sometime soon. Dang.)

9. Abstract art is random and could be drawn by a little kid. (Abstract art tends to involve complex combinations shapes that aren't duplicates of objects that we see in our everyday lives... I doubt most little kids know how to draw parabolas or hyperbolae.)

10. (Associating gender with intelligence without doing any actual valid IQ testing isn't really fair... Although, I guess education might matter here. Feminism has recently put boys at a huge disadvatange in that area, but I guess it's a necessary ideology, since society is still very patriarichical at the moment. That's one way in which men [I]are stupid, come to think of it.)

And now, the good stereotypes!

1. Asian males are less masculine than their European counterparts. (This is backed up by science in soo many ways, the most mentionable of which is the 75% lactose intolerance rate being caused mostly by China's high population. See, lactose intolerance occurs mainly in those of Asian descent, so they have to use soy instead of dairy... and soybeans contain natural estrogen hormones! Oh, and sometimes, I enjoy feeling as though I am an Asian water goddess. xD Don't judge me.)

2. Irish people are easy to anger and difficult to work with. (Absolutely true and absolutely hilarious. I'm fairly sure that I'm more than 25% Irish, and I know just how the associated hormones feel. It's like the feeling you get when you're licking the glue part of an envelope, y'know? That stuff is totally made out of Irish voices, which happen to be the world's finest. I guess it's their unchecked emotion or something.)

3. Boys are stupid. (I'm a boy, but for some reason, I can't help but love that one. I say it all the time. =D)

4. Girls are nicer and more sensitive than boys. (This is, like, the inverse or maybe opposite of the teenagers one. Some guys are annoyed by how sensitive girls are, but I have to say, their highly developed social skills are wayyy more annoying. >_> I guess that's how they avoid hurting peoples' feelings, though...)

5. Asian people are really good at Starcraft. (I know I didn't like the other Asian sterotypes, but this one is just plain fun. You can be all, "I'm only half Asian, so I can only collect minerals at half the speed as you guys." Besides, videogames need some kind of elite group that didn't form before the games were even released on the market.)

6. Germans are weird. (That's why ya gotta love 'em! =D)

7. British people are very attuned to aesthetics. (Watch the work of David Firth and tell me you don't love British people with all your heart. Then, realize that David Firth is an atypical British person, but decide that the group in general is still pretty spiffy, and aesthetic.)

8. The British and the Irish don't get along. (That's why the British oppressed the Irish for so long, and why 'true Americans' today (most of whom are actually Irish) like to call the British snooty. In any case, we shouldn't be too harsh on the British, because they're basically just little Irish children who got lost along the way, and decided to start making bizzare, black and white, stop-motion music videos of 35-year-olds running around the streets completely naked. I rest my case.)

9. French people are lazy. (Ask yourself- what do the French actually do?)

10. Indian people are all in contact with one another. (Firstly, this stereotype was more or less made up by Indians. Secondly, it's flipping hilarious. I was in the movie theater yesterday with my friend, Shankara, and he pointed out this guy in a turban and said, "dude, I know that guy." xD

-Bertoffski

heterosexual men aren't pigs, they are apes. And for the most part, I make no attempt to talk to them, because my expectations of them are quite low. (this comes from a gay man, not some deranged feminist).

Blast away. :rolleyes:
They're alright behind a screen. :p Otherwise I am not too fond of most of them either.

3. British people are snooty. (No, no, nononono. They're just weird.)

2. Irish people are easy to anger and difficult to work with. (Absolutely true and absolutely hilarious. I'm fairly sure that I'm more than 25% Irish, and I know just how the associated hormones feel. It's like the feeling you get when you're licking the glue part of an envelope, y'know? That stuff is totally made out of Irish voices, which happen to be the world's finest. I guess it's their unchecked emotion or something.)

8. The British and the Irish don't get along. (That's why the British oppressed the Irish for so long, and why 'true Americans' today (most of whom are actually Irish) like to call the British snooty. In any case, we shouldn't be too harsh on the British, because they're basically just little Irish children who got lost along the way, and decided to start making bizzare, black and white, stop-motion music videos of 35-year-olds running around the streets completely naked. I rest my case.)



1) Can I be the first to say that 25% Irish heritage DOES NOT make you Irish.

2)Neither does being Irish mean you have specific hormones.

3) British does not equal English. They are the ones with the stereotype of arrogance.

4) The English and Welsh are not "lost Irish"

5) Once again you are NOT Irish. You are American by the sounds of things. You were born and raised there I am guessing.

Theatre Majors are loud, out-going, and boisterous, and dress in flashy clothes.
Natives are poor, uneducated alcoholics.
Girls with eating disorders are stupid and vain.
Homeless people get what they deserve.
Prositutes are just whores who are doing what they want to do.
Girls should have nice printing.
Dramatic sopranos are fat and like to wear horns on their heads.
Pacifists are pot-smoking hippies.
Feminists are lesbians and man-haters.

Strong points, but frankly few will read it all without a bigger postcount to your name.

Oh, bang on topic too. Noob! :p

So, what, I should spam enough small posts until I have a large post count, and THEN post all my meaningful stuff? Seems a bit silly...

Not slacked-off on, not secondary to a social life, done properly in the sense of done to the best of a parent's ability.
In a (admittedly abstract) way, we all do what we think is best. I suggest only that they should do their best -- and that includes making lifestyle choices in the interests of their kids, educating themselves to overcome bad habits of parenting, and a humility and self-sacrifice to develop firmness if they lack it or gentleness if the world has made them too hard.

Hmm, perhaps my unrealistic ideals account for my lack of offspring. Too hard to do "properly."



They should do their best. As fluffy as that.

Two examples: one parent works long hours and makes a lot of money. They procure a good education for their kid and good childcare for the time they can't parent the kid because they're at work. They provide a lot of resources and set an example of ambition and hard work for their kid.
A second parent (of another kid) borrows money or sells assets to spend all their time with their infant, and once the kid is off to school, they take some part-time work but only in school hours, greatly limiting their earning power and barely putting food on the table. But the kid is the focus of their life, and they never ever say "don't bother me."

No, I couldn't possibly say one of these is right and the other wrong. Those two people are going to raise a different kid, with a different character and a different attitude to family and quite different lives. As I would not judge one kid right, and the other wrong, I wouldn't judge the parenting styles either.



I wasn't really saying that one must be aware of how all observers will react or what lessons they might learn, which would be huge burden indeed.
I'm just pointing to the false dualism which is driving this disagreement: the spankers say it is all about the message, the non-spankers say it is all about the action. Once one takes one side or the other of that, one is at best half-right.

Hmm, I think you might have said that already. Oh well.



Wha?

Ahhhh well then I agree, yes do your best seems like the only sensible advice.

Heh I asked if you are a Sikh, you know do you belong to the Sikh religion?

Donald E. Brown's list of human universals (http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm), a list of traits found in all human societies, discusses many, including:

actions under self-control distinguished from those not under control
copulation normally conducted in privacy
death rituals
distinguishing right and wrong
fairness (equity), concept of
generosity admired
incest between mother and son unthinkable or tabooed
murder proscribed
rape proscribed
reciprocal exchanges
redress of wrongs

Okay fine there does seem to be a pattern amongst that lot that fits the wider society(obvious cultural differances not withstanding). How many in this list would you deem to be moral choices though as opposed to subconsiuse or biolgicaly inbuilt programing?


Not at all. But I wouldn't argue that we are only products of our environment. Our nature influences us as much as our nurture.

When I say products of our inviroments I take into account both nature and nurture.



Yes people have differing political views, but these views all form within a framework. Fascist, communist, liberal, anarchist, whatever; all desire the betterment of society and, usually, progress towards a utopia or at least a better social make-up. They just differ on what this utopia or social betterment requires.

Again this betterment of society, does the stem form a moral choice, or is it part of our biological makeup that forces us to live and group together? In a pride of lions, are they not solitary for reasons of moral choices, or for reasons of biology.


Well, as someone who views body and mind, biological and cognitive, as different ways of talking about the same thing, I'd say your point as moot.

Heh I knew you where going to respond in that manor. Of course ultimatly all of our cognative functions stem from our biology to suggest other wise is simple stupidity. Yet what I said was 'not soley biological'

I am talking about the differances between a moral choice, and a biological function. It is biology that makes us have sex, it is morality(or a lack of) that will cause a man to rape a woman)

So in all of your examples above, as i have asked how many truely count as moral choices?

So, what, I should spam enough small posts until I have a large post count, and THEN post all my meaningful stuff? Seems a bit silly...

It is silly, not just a bit.

Science and Religion cannot Co-exist. Ever. It's just plain impossible. One of the only things left to prove is that there is nothing after death, which is next to impossible to perceive. You think you'll know what it feels like to be dead, but then you realize that you can't FEEL what it's like to be dead.

These are the thoughts that keep me up at night

Heh you are soooo wrong you know, scince and religoin can and has exsited side by side for years. Where do you think science originaly sprung from?

Men are pigs.

Men are pigs.

Umm then why are we called men?

Umm then why are we called men?

Don't know.

Don't know.

I do it is because of the fact that we are men and not pigs!;)

I do it is because of the fact that we are men and not pigs!;)

No. That can't be it.

No. That can't be it.

No that is it, you see the clue is in the word!

Men are pigs.

Im sure that poses serious problems for Jewish and Muslim women.

Im sure that poses serious problems for Jewish and Muslim women.

Then I guess they can't touch us. Too bad for them, eh? :p

Im sure that poses serious problems for Jewish and Muslim women.
Only if they plan on consuming their men.

Okay fine there does seem to be a pattern amongst that lot that fits the wider society(obvious cultural differances not withstanding). How many in this list would you deem to be moral choices though as opposed to subconsiuse or biolgicaly inbuilt programing?
But that's just my point: a large part of our morality is evolved inbuilt 'programming'. Which, if you think about it, isn't that much of a shocking statement. We all quite happily accept that mothers have a natural, instinctual, drive to protect their children; indeed, it could be argued that all humans share this drive. Is it so hard to believe that humans also harbour other instinctual, moral drives?

We must remember that humans are animals. We are not separated from the rest of the animals by some sort of magic force; we have a larger brain and more complex social arrangements, yes (perhaps this is what allows us to form 'advanced' moral theories and beliefs, which, after all, are in the vast majority guides to live within society), but many animals, especially the higher primates, also follow what could be called moral drives. Think for example of the complex social structures, politics even, of gorillas, elephants or dolphins.

Perhaps human 'morality' can only be defined as such due to our advanced language centres? Morality, after all, is a human concept, framed in human language.

Again this betterment of society, does the stem form a moral choice, or is it part of our biological makeup that forces us to live and group together? In a pride of lions, are they not solitary for reasons of moral choices, or for reasons of biology.
Or is it a combination of biological drive and environmental factors? The BBC's Big Cat Diary, a nature documentary following, among other big cats, a couple of prides of lions, showed how the two prides, and the lions within the prides, behaved very differently when their environmental factors differed. The pride with plentiful food and a secure 'home' were much larger than your average pride, and the males stayed with the pride, seemingly unperturbed by the male cubs. In contrast, the pride with little food and many rivals were more 'anti-social'; the males left the pride extremely early.

So environmental factors effected the behaviour of the lions, but only to an extent. None of them became vegetarians! :p But if animals are driven to actions because of both environmental factors and biological drives, why would we humans be any different?

Heh I knew you where going to respond in that manor.
;) You knows it.

Of course ultimatly all of our cognative functions stem from our biology to suggest other wise is simple stupidity. Yet what I said was 'not soley biological'

I am talking about the differances between a moral choice, and a biological function. It is biology that makes us have sex, it is morality(or a lack of) that will cause a man to rape a woman)
I would disagree; morality comes into play when deciding to have sex, while biological sexual drives, albeit abnormal and perhaps over-heightened sexual drives, come into play when deciding to rape. It is morality that can point to the act of rape and denounce it.

So in all of your examples above, as i have asked how many truely count as moral choices?
distinguishing right and wrong
fairness (equity), concept of
generosity admired
incest between mother and son unthinkable or tabooed
murder proscribed
rape proscribed
reciprocal exchanges
redress of wrongs

I'd say all the above are clearly moral choices.

Im sure that poses serious problems for Jewish and Muslim women.but that would only mean they won't eat them...

I would disagree; morality comes into play when deciding to have sex, while biological sexual drives, albeit abnormal and perhaps over-heightened sexual drives, come into play when deciding to rape. It is morality that can point to the act of rape and denounce it.


Everyone who has studied social mammals, (people and wolves[which includes dogs] in my case) knows that rape is a form of domination. If it was purely sexual, it wouldn't be as bad. Rape, at least the forced kind (not going into sex with minors), is about power. It's the equivelant of forcing food into a fat guy's mouth. The fat guy might like eating food, but take away his control over something as biological as consuming solid nuroushment or reproduction, and you have terror on your hands. Terror. From a raping terrorist. Don't be a terrorist. Aquire consent before engaging in an evolutionary and biologically vital, but abused activity involving usually two (sometimes more ;) ) participants.

Everyone who has studied social mammals, (people and wolves[which includes dogs] in my case) knows that rape is a form of domination. If it was purely sexual, it wouldn't be as bad.
I'm not saying it's purely sexual. Almost the opposite, in fact.

Aquire consent before engaging in an evolutionary and biologically vital, but abused activity involving usually two (sometimes more ;) ) participants.
Well put.

I'm not saying it's purely sexual. Almost the opposite, in fact.


Well put.

You made it sound like the motive was sexual. That's why I assumed you meant the motive was sexual.

Yay, somebody agrees with my stance. Don't be a terrorist. Aquire consent.

I don't find anger at that statement problematic at the least.

The stereotype that bugs me lately is that Democrats are wimps, etc.

every dem i ever knew ran for cover when something was going down,and yes..women are irrational.

That small means weak.
That sensitive and artistic means weak (or gay, which leads me to my next one)
That gay means weak.
That fat means lazy.