Sat Mar 20, 2004 11:18 am
First off I'd like to tip my hat to the people contributing to this thread. Some excellant arguments are raised in thoughtful manners. Trully a debate and not a series of slanderous attacks.
2ndly, I shouldn't be commenting on anything as I just woke up and it's never a good to compose.
And with that disclaimer....
Eugenics. Ack. Horrifying. Monstrous. Unavoidable. And it's already here to a large extent. Hundreds of thousands of blacks being sterilized in the government experiements years ago. Sterilization of mentally challanged people not so long ago. And today.... if you're rich, well connected, there are a host of genetic 'influences' which can be added/subtracted to your potential children.
I was glancing over some stats the other day of labour jobs being slashed world-wide and it's indicative of trends which started about a hundred years ago and have been escalating ever since. Soon there will be very few 'labour' jobs (from around 80% of all available jobs down now to around 30%). The various governments' doll programs are barely adequate to keep someone alive, and seem, for the most part, to be nothing more than a base-minimum to strangle the working class or 'poor' into oblivion quietly. ie, give them a few bucks,just enough to eat basic, low-quality foods, enough to afford some tiny ill-placed abode. Certainly not enough for people to consider raising children in. Not enough to build healthy relationships with themselves or others in.
Then there's the criminal aspect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard some 80% of the inmates in American prisons are black. Here in Canada a goodly percentage of our inmates are aborigines. Looking beyond race or color, what do probably 95% of inmates have in common? They are poor.
So.... how many children do jailed men or women beget? A few, no doubt, but for the most part this whole group is sterilized in a sense.
I'm rambling and the whole eugenics thing isn't what I wanted to address anyway. I will say a bit more on it before putting this Hydra back into it's cage. Many of our most significant souls have come from the poorest, most ill-treated of families. Many of our 'geniuses' can easily be classified as nut-cases. We all inherently want to pussy-foot around the topic of eugenics, especially after the late-great Adolf made such a point of tackling the issue head-on. Yet we are in a system which actively, in one way or another, supports various forms of eugenics.
A brief, but related story, one pointing out the conflict I have with this topic. I was sitting in my car one day (I live out of my car at work) and this guy comes along in a souped-up wheel chair. The kind which is designed for someone who's very disabled. I noticed him coming up the street in my rear-view mirror, noticed that he was yelling and screaming. Then he comes up beside my car and smashes it with his fist as hard as he can. I sat there.... fuming. My taxes keep that guy alive. He'd never have survived 5,000 years ago more than 10 minutes after birth. He's around 50 years old now and my taxes have been keeping him going this whole time and he smashes my car. My car which costs me way too much and is the source of endless taxings. So, being a writer, a wrote a poem about the whole thing. Which I'll save you all from reading as poets garner as much love as used bubble-gum stuck under railings.
ANYway.... it seems to me that this whole topic has started to address the legitimacy of the marriage concept. I'm 39 and not married. Nor will I ever. Yes it's convenient, especially legally in a variety of ways, and offers a ready-made legal shelter program for children, but honestly.... our species just isn't cut out for it. We've been given the marriage idea as a religious necessity, a state sanctioned necessity, and have swallowed the hook along with the bait.
No, it isn't necessary for the raising of children. Throughout our history, and on-going today in very healthy cultures, the tribe as a whole raises the children (something we're leaning towards, albeit in an awkward way, with day-cares). Someone made the point that children need to be raised by opposite-sex parents to be healthy. In point of fact most day cares are run by and staffed by women. The child spends most of it's day-time hours there and certainly recieves most of it's tutoring there. Does this mean these women are lesbians? That they will have horrific impact on the children?
A greek, some 5,000 years ago wrote something which has become famous, and which I can't quote directly, but paraphrased, "The children of today, unlike any other time, behave horribly. Clearly their behaviour is indicative of our declining culture and values."
Children don't need to be housed in a home with opposite sex parents to be healthy. They need a vareity of healthy guides throughout their early years. They need good nutrition, exposure to stimulating ideas and activities and someone willing to change those toxic diapers they so happily fill.
Personally I co-habitate with someone until the point that the relationship is stagnant. Would I eat steak every day, every meal for the rest of my life even if I love steak? No... I need diversity in diet, whether that be nutrition, spiritual, emotional, mental, physical etc. That doesn't mean I date someone new every week. I usually settle down with a girl for about 5 years.
Ok... my rambling tirade is done. My appologies it wasn't as succinct as many of the arguments posted here.
Cheers folks, and cudos to everyone for being so vocal.
Keekanoo.
2ndly, I shouldn't be commenting on anything as I just woke up and it's never a good to compose.
And with that disclaimer....
Eugenics. Ack. Horrifying. Monstrous. Unavoidable. And it's already here to a large extent. Hundreds of thousands of blacks being sterilized in the government experiements years ago. Sterilization of mentally challanged people not so long ago. And today.... if you're rich, well connected, there are a host of genetic 'influences' which can be added/subtracted to your potential children.
I was glancing over some stats the other day of labour jobs being slashed world-wide and it's indicative of trends which started about a hundred years ago and have been escalating ever since. Soon there will be very few 'labour' jobs (from around 80% of all available jobs down now to around 30%). The various governments' doll programs are barely adequate to keep someone alive, and seem, for the most part, to be nothing more than a base-minimum to strangle the working class or 'poor' into oblivion quietly. ie, give them a few bucks,just enough to eat basic, low-quality foods, enough to afford some tiny ill-placed abode. Certainly not enough for people to consider raising children in. Not enough to build healthy relationships with themselves or others in.
Then there's the criminal aspect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard some 80% of the inmates in American prisons are black. Here in Canada a goodly percentage of our inmates are aborigines. Looking beyond race or color, what do probably 95% of inmates have in common? They are poor.
So.... how many children do jailed men or women beget? A few, no doubt, but for the most part this whole group is sterilized in a sense.
I'm rambling and the whole eugenics thing isn't what I wanted to address anyway. I will say a bit more on it before putting this Hydra back into it's cage. Many of our most significant souls have come from the poorest, most ill-treated of families. Many of our 'geniuses' can easily be classified as nut-cases. We all inherently want to pussy-foot around the topic of eugenics, especially after the late-great Adolf made such a point of tackling the issue head-on. Yet we are in a system which actively, in one way or another, supports various forms of eugenics.
A brief, but related story, one pointing out the conflict I have with this topic. I was sitting in my car one day (I live out of my car at work) and this guy comes along in a souped-up wheel chair. The kind which is designed for someone who's very disabled. I noticed him coming up the street in my rear-view mirror, noticed that he was yelling and screaming. Then he comes up beside my car and smashes it with his fist as hard as he can. I sat there.... fuming. My taxes keep that guy alive. He'd never have survived 5,000 years ago more than 10 minutes after birth. He's around 50 years old now and my taxes have been keeping him going this whole time and he smashes my car. My car which costs me way too much and is the source of endless taxings. So, being a writer, a wrote a poem about the whole thing. Which I'll save you all from reading as poets garner as much love as used bubble-gum stuck under railings.
ANYway.... it seems to me that this whole topic has started to address the legitimacy of the marriage concept. I'm 39 and not married. Nor will I ever. Yes it's convenient, especially legally in a variety of ways, and offers a ready-made legal shelter program for children, but honestly.... our species just isn't cut out for it. We've been given the marriage idea as a religious necessity, a state sanctioned necessity, and have swallowed the hook along with the bait.
No, it isn't necessary for the raising of children. Throughout our history, and on-going today in very healthy cultures, the tribe as a whole raises the children (something we're leaning towards, albeit in an awkward way, with day-cares). Someone made the point that children need to be raised by opposite-sex parents to be healthy. In point of fact most day cares are run by and staffed by women. The child spends most of it's day-time hours there and certainly recieves most of it's tutoring there. Does this mean these women are lesbians? That they will have horrific impact on the children?
A greek, some 5,000 years ago wrote something which has become famous, and which I can't quote directly, but paraphrased, "The children of today, unlike any other time, behave horribly. Clearly their behaviour is indicative of our declining culture and values."
Children don't need to be housed in a home with opposite sex parents to be healthy. They need a vareity of healthy guides throughout their early years. They need good nutrition, exposure to stimulating ideas and activities and someone willing to change those toxic diapers they so happily fill.
Personally I co-habitate with someone until the point that the relationship is stagnant. Would I eat steak every day, every meal for the rest of my life even if I love steak? No... I need diversity in diet, whether that be nutrition, spiritual, emotional, mental, physical etc. That doesn't mean I date someone new every week. I usually settle down with a girl for about 5 years.
Ok... my rambling tirade is done. My appologies it wasn't as succinct as many of the arguments posted here.
Cheers folks, and cudos to everyone for being so vocal.
Keekanoo.
Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:10 pm
So what happens if one day a homosexual couple decides they really desire to be married in a Catholic or Baptist church? What will the government do when said priest or minister refuses to perform the ceremony based on religious beliefs?
Will those most apt to parrot the 'separation of church and state' ruse be there to defend the 1st Amendment rights of the church? Probably not, but I guess we'll see.
On a lighter note: it's amusing to have a Briton lecture America on human rights (especially relating to Blacks and slavery). Who was it that ruled America before 1776? Who was it that brought slaves into America long before she gained her independence? It's a tragedy of history, either way. But to blame only America is patently absurd, if not downright dishonest.
Will those most apt to parrot the 'separation of church and state' ruse be there to defend the 1st Amendment rights of the church? Probably not, but I guess we'll see.
On a lighter note: it's amusing to have a Briton lecture America on human rights (especially relating to Blacks and slavery). Who was it that ruled America before 1776? Who was it that brought slaves into America long before she gained her independence? It's a tragedy of history, either way. But to blame only America is patently absurd, if not downright dishonest.
Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:13 pm
Re: Dougs comments....
I would imagine each church can draw up its own set of rules as to what it wishes to perform. I don't see many catholics desiring to have a barmitzfa (that's a terrible spelling my appologies). The argument, Doug, is more along the line of the State intervening in personal rights.
As to your comments about me being a Briton and therefore unable to have any comments due to some vague association to things which happened 300 years ago, I'm not quite sure I follow your line of reasoning.
Please also note, Doug, that I mentioned blacks in relationship to a 'poor' class, and made similar comparisons to a problemic endemic to the Canadian aboriginy population.
Doug... if you wish to make attacks on me, as you have in a variety of other forums, please refrain from making an ass of yourself publicly and just send me hate-filled private messages. This forum doesn't need an injection of your brand of discrimination.
Keekanoo.
I would imagine each church can draw up its own set of rules as to what it wishes to perform. I don't see many catholics desiring to have a barmitzfa (that's a terrible spelling my appologies). The argument, Doug, is more along the line of the State intervening in personal rights.
As to your comments about me being a Briton and therefore unable to have any comments due to some vague association to things which happened 300 years ago, I'm not quite sure I follow your line of reasoning.
Please also note, Doug, that I mentioned blacks in relationship to a 'poor' class, and made similar comparisons to a problemic endemic to the Canadian aboriginy population.
Doug... if you wish to make attacks on me, as you have in a variety of other forums, please refrain from making an ass of yourself publicly and just send me hate-filled private messages. This forum doesn't need an injection of your brand of discrimination.
Keekanoo.
Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:30 pm
Wow, Keek, I directed NOTHING toward you. I must apologize for not having read your post.
I know you're not British. That comment was directed to a comment made on page 1 of this discussion, and not by you.
Otherwise, I was only asking a general question about civil rights and what people rightly or wrongly call the 'separation of church and state.' To my knowledge I hadn't seen the church's rights discussed yet within this context (of homosexual marriage).
Nothing hateful was directed toward you or anyone.
We've had our disagreements - they were long ago, but I certainly wouldn't classify any of them as 'hate-filled.' In fact, I always considered them rather benign. I told you back then, when I was still playing RTCW, that whether we agreed or not, I'd still give you health or ammo or revive you, etc.
If memory serves, the worst I ever did was jokingly accuse you of being Anton. I guess that could be considered hate-filled, LOL.
I know you're not British. That comment was directed to a comment made on page 1 of this discussion, and not by you.
Otherwise, I was only asking a general question about civil rights and what people rightly or wrongly call the 'separation of church and state.' To my knowledge I hadn't seen the church's rights discussed yet within this context (of homosexual marriage).
Nothing hateful was directed toward you or anyone.
We've had our disagreements - they were long ago, but I certainly wouldn't classify any of them as 'hate-filled.' In fact, I always considered them rather benign. I told you back then, when I was still playing RTCW, that whether we agreed or not, I'd still give you health or ammo or revive you, etc.
If memory serves, the worst I ever did was jokingly accuse you of being Anton. I guess that could be considered hate-filled, LOL.
Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:18 pm
Actually, I am British. Owing to a strange twist of fate I share duel citizenship with Canada and England. I thought we'd gone over this in the thread on 'Should we invade Iraq' (or something like that).
And, for the record, Anton and I are very different people. He is a writer (political essays usually) and a mathematician. I am a writer (mostly fiction) and can barely figure out bank statements.
Keek.
And, for the record, Anton and I are very different people. He is a writer (political essays usually) and a mathematician. I am a writer (mostly fiction) and can barely figure out bank statements.
Keek.
Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:03 pm
It's been a while, so I guess I did forget about your dual citizenship (my apologies). Still, my comments were not directed toward you in any way. Perhaps I should have been more specific.
And yes, I know you and Anton are different people. (yeah, right) j/k
I am disturbed, though, that you considered any of my comments toward you to be 'hate-filled.' It certainly was not my intent. Ever. Please enlighten me with examples if I'm grossly mistaken.
Anyway, I'm glad that's somewhat cleared up. <----intentionally ending a sentence with a preposition, just to be annoying to you as a writer.
Oh, as far as bank statements go, we're in the same boat. I let my wife tend to that crap.
And yes, I know you and Anton are different people. (yeah, right)
j/k
I am disturbed, though, that you considered any of my comments toward you to be 'hate-filled.' It certainly was not my intent. Ever. Please enlighten me with examples if I'm grossly mistaken.
Anyway, I'm glad that's somewhat cleared up. <----intentionally ending a sentence with a preposition, just to be annoying to you as a writer.
Oh, as far as bank statements go, we're in the same boat. I let my wife tend to that crap.
Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:42 pm
Oh...and thanks for that "heart warming" PM you sent me kurith...I really appriciated it! asshole
Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:51 pm
Post it! Post it!
Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:58 pm
Originally posted by cashcow
Post it! Post it!
Sure...
all he said was
"Never post a thread again"
I mean common...
Are you going to back up your statement by saying all I post/say in TS is a bunch of garbage?
Yes...
I have (sometimes)
babbled on in TS or made a thread that makes no sence..
but common man!
Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:28 am
Keekanoo, you raised an interesting issue. It may be off topic, but the original topic is pretty much dead anyway.
You decry the loss of "labour" jobs, pointing out that they have been in steady decline for decades. I will make the assumption that by "labour" you are refering to un- and low-skill craft jobs, such as assembly, construction, manufactuering, etc. And I wonder why you see the loss of these jobs as being a bad thing?
Over two hundred years ago, there were groups of people who went around destroying mechanized looms and other textile machines, because they feared they were putting people out of work. Would you prefer that weaving and spinning still be done by hand now? Wouldn't you agree that the mechanization, and then automation of these machines benefitted not only society as a whole, but also the lower classes?
People tend to be short-sighted when it comes to automation and mechanization. All they see are a loss of jobs. They do not realize that "jobs" do not come from a limited pool, but are created wherever their is an opportunity or need to provide an additional commodity or service.
Say you have a village of 100 people. Without tools, it takes all 100 to tend the fields to produce all the food, with only a small amount left over for sale. With the use of mechanization, now it only takes 40, say, to tend the fields. Are the other 60 "out of a job"? Yes, and no. Because the village as a whole now produces everything it used to, and so has the same income, the others are now free to manufacture other goods, or to expand the amount of land being farmed, for more income. Mechanization increases productivity, and productivity increases everyone's wealth.
I would argue that the loss of unskilled labor jobs is a good thing, a great thing even! It means less people are being employed in some of the worst jobs. Our challenge is not to keep these jobs, but instead to create educational institutions that allow people to find better work. Adn from what I've read, the US is already much better at this than much of the rest of the world, with our community colleges, technical schools, etc.
You decry the loss of "labour" jobs, pointing out that they have been in steady decline for decades. I will make the assumption that by "labour" you are refering to un- and low-skill craft jobs, such as assembly, construction, manufactuering, etc. And I wonder why you see the loss of these jobs as being a bad thing?
Over two hundred years ago, there were groups of people who went around destroying mechanized looms and other textile machines, because they feared they were putting people out of work. Would you prefer that weaving and spinning still be done by hand now? Wouldn't you agree that the mechanization, and then automation of these machines benefitted not only society as a whole, but also the lower classes?
People tend to be short-sighted when it comes to automation and mechanization. All they see are a loss of jobs. They do not realize that "jobs" do not come from a limited pool, but are created wherever their is an opportunity or need to provide an additional commodity or service.
Say you have a village of 100 people. Without tools, it takes all 100 to tend the fields to produce all the food, with only a small amount left over for sale. With the use of mechanization, now it only takes 40, say, to tend the fields. Are the other 60 "out of a job"? Yes, and no. Because the village as a whole now produces everything it used to, and so has the same income, the others are now free to manufacture other goods, or to expand the amount of land being farmed, for more income. Mechanization increases productivity, and productivity increases everyone's wealth.
I would argue that the loss of unskilled labor jobs is a good thing, a great thing even! It means less people are being employed in some of the worst jobs. Our challenge is not to keep these jobs, but instead to create educational institutions that allow people to find better work. Adn from what I've read, the US is already much better at this than much of the rest of the world, with our community colleges, technical schools, etc.