| Welcome to Coffeetalk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Please Explain ...; Need help understanding RANDOM ... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 11 2008, 05:34 PM (428 Views) | |
| Regullus | Apr 11 2008, 05:34 PM Post #1 |
|
Reliant
|
New Deal Nostalgia Ok, I get the gist of the article. I don't disagree with the general premise that the New Deal wasn't all that but then I get lost. Her parents were uneducated, living in a cave with two toddlers and the New Deal comes along and their children become college educated and presumbably moderately prosperous. Her father was forced from farming due to the depression and then is forced never to return due to the military/industrial complex? Soft imperialism, I get but I hardly find it historically unique. Why is capitalism the root of all evil? Why has capitalism killed more people than anything else (I'm quoting Ken Livingstone here)?Perhaps I'm a pragmatist but reward seems like a good motivator and I think I can safely say we all enjoy the fruits of capitalism. Isn't human nature geared not to one idealogy but a mixture of many idealogies? Forinstance, a mix of capitalism, socialism and communism? Isn't the optimal a balance, a harmonius mixing of many ideaologies? What movement did the New Deal interrupt? Isn't that an example of false notstalgia not to mention highly hypothetical? Is the US (or the Americas) built on the back of genocide, racsim and inequality? Sort of. It's certainly something one can say however is it unique or ultimately accurate? Isn't history comprised of displacement? Discrimination? Inequality? One culture influences, decimates another, time and again. To me discrimination is a human universal (I'm sure there must be exceptions. ).Why is the US the "the main problem for humanity today?" Is it unilateralism or consumption or what exactly? Ok, I won't say how about Canada :D but what about x, y, or z? Some of my questions, ultimately I didn't think the article was very good or the arguments well made BUT I may be wrong. She's a passionate, well educated and articulate woman and I, except for the gender, are none of those things. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Inky | Apr 12 2008, 02:41 AM Post #2 |
|
Thai
|
My understanding? She's trying to make sense and failing. She contradicts herself often, sometimes in the same paragraph. Her thesis is vague and she backs it up with unrelated claims. I give it a C-. At least she has proper spelling and grammar. |
|
_____________ Jobbar du naken? | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Apr 12 2008, 03:02 AM Post #3 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Nah, she's a wanker. It pains me to speak ill of a lefty, but this kind of claptrap is what gives us commies a bad name. The author credits her father, an uneducated struggling farmer who suffered terrible hardship and blamed Roosevelt for it, with more knowledge and understanding of events than historians and economists who have studied the whole story from every viewpoint. I'm not blaming her father for being bitter towards Roosevelt: you should have heard what my grandad used to say about Lloyd George: but the idea that her father may have had an unreasonable bias against him doesn't seem to occur to her. The Depression was caused by the collapse of capitalism. The whole system of production had broken down. Subsistence farming wasn't going to solve people's problems.(Return to the Dark Ages, anyone?) Roosevelt diverted water from the Dust Bowl? That was no doubt an unpopular decision with the people there. I bet the people who got the water were pretty keen on it though. As for resuscitating capitalism through the New Deal, well, since that was the system the country operated on, it kind of made sense at the time. Maybe the author would have been happier with farm collectivisation? She makes a whole lot of statements but provides no footnotes. Exactly when did Roosevelt say he wanted to resuscitate capitalism? Was it a plot against The People, or was it so the country could start feeding itself again? The article is an illogical rant, full of personal bias and skewed information. F.
|
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 12 2008, 05:31 AM Post #4 |
|
Reliant
|
:) Thanks. I followed a link from a Libertarian site and I was expecting an interesting and cogent critique. I was left wondering why it was linked. I'm sure I've posted more than one link that left people scratching their heads too. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Apr 13 2008, 01:40 AM Post #5 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
If that woman is really a libertarian, I would appreciate it if she would stop pretending to be a commie. That's false advertising. There's an awful lot of stuff on the InterNet preaching to the converted. You don't need to explain your beliefs, or put forward any evidence supporting it, because the presumption is everyone agrees with you. Very annoying behaviour. Now that we have a "Please Explain" thread: I have a question I would appreciate others' insights on. Polygamy. What in the name of all that is good and beautiful is going on there? It's illegal, but accepted in parts of America? Women willingly participate in shared marriages? And have a child every year? Men want families with 22 children? This is a ticket to heaven? Revelations? Is everyone insane??? These first two sites have been created by people who are not doing a good job advocating for polygamy. http://www.absalom.com/mormon/polygamy/faq.htm http://www.christianpolygamy.com/ This is a more official site, and explains the past more clearly. http://www.mormon-polygamy.org/polygamy_and_women.html This one discusses the economic benefits to women. (I'm not convinced.) http://www.slate.com/id/2136453/ This one suggests it isn't a good economic or social idea. For men. <_< http://www.reason.com/news/show/117323.html These are the stories of some polygamist women. The first one seems to have found polygamy instead of feminism: the second one lives in a REALLY big house in a REALLY rich area, and seems to be the woman talked about in the first two links. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/66/story_6652_1.html http://www2.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/20071..._20071026.jhtml There was one story by a polygamist woman describing how her husband and her sister wives all slept in the same room, in a double bunk bed, with the not-in-use wives in the top bunk, listening to their husband and the in-use wife go at it. Not-in-use wives sleep with their arms outside the bed, because any lesbian activity would be a sin. I'll let you find that one yourselves. That the women in Warren Jeff's style communities don't break away, I kind of understand: that's their world, the only one they know. But it's so awful: how can anyone find living such a rigid life nourishing? I perfectly understand how having another couple of women living with you is a big help in organising your life, but 8 children each? I see what's going on in the heads of the men in Jeffs' community - and a right bunch of bastards they are. But the ordinary regular polygamist policemen??? What are they thinking? "Yep, I need 22 children to support." And as for the people saying they want polygamy legalised... I confess all this is making me think we have too much religious freedom. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 13 2008, 04:55 PM Post #6 |
|
Reliant
|
I can't explain it. Sorry. I have no insight into this subject. I can tell you female polygamy is correctly called polyandry. All I know is it horrible! My friend has a theory that mothers and children should live together and the men/husbands are kept in a harem and visited when the need strikes. As to the article, no, no, she isn't a Libertarian, she is a Commie or certainly appears that way , the article was linked from a Libertarian site.Edit: Removed as. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Bex | Apr 13 2008, 09:16 PM Post #7 |
|
puppet dictator
|
Polygamy isn't mainstream acceptable by any means, and the Mormon church quit supporting it decades and decades ago. It's only the splinter Mormon Fundamentalists who practice it to my knowledge, and the main church doesn't acknowledge them as "Mormons" per se. Anyway, Mormon Fundamentalist communities are really insular. It does seem to be a matter of not knowing any different. |
|
I belong to one of those families that does not speak to or see its members as often as we should, but if someone needed anyone to fall on a sword for her, there would be a queue waiting to commit the deed. -Min Jin Lee | |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Apr 25 2008, 04:10 AM Post #8 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7..._religious.html I wish to update my previous comment:
To:
It's right to scrutinise the behaviour of government bodies: without accountable government you don't have democracy. But I'm finding the plethora of comments exactly like this very disturbing. The writers invariably make a brief statement about how bad statutory rape is, and then go on to criticise the government bodies involved for baseless persecution of this group. This is about religious freedom, they say. If the government is so concerned about child welfare, they say, go take a baby from a teenage crack mother. These people are just good decent trying to live the way they think is right, they say. I haven't been able to identify why this isn't sitting well with me. It seems clear that the members of this group have moved beyond protecting their children from messages they believe are harmful, and are now imposing a harmful way of life on them. They are ignoring the law meant to protect young women, and I really don't understand why anyone is objecting to some dramatic action being taken. I have identified the paradox. The message is: people should be free to deny freedom to their children because of their religious beliefs. It is a religious right to keep members of your religion in ignorance. If, in order to maintain your religion you must deny education, knowledge and experience to your children, this is OK. I'm sure it's not. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | Apr 26 2008, 03:01 AM Post #9 |
|
Reliant
|
First They Came for the Toddlers... |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Apr 27 2008, 12:24 AM Post #10 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Exactly the kind of article I'm talking about. By all means examine such an extraordinary action. But examine, don't just denounce. Where does the author get his information from? How does he know how many young women are in the group, and that they are all of an age to consent? Doesn't bother telling us. The government has not acted in secret: if they have stuffed up, they'll pay, we can bet on it. Why the paranoid ranting?
|
![]() |
|
| Eral | Apr 30 2008, 01:12 AM Post #11 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/teen-p...9234861945.html 31 out of 53 girls aged 14 to 17 are pregnant or have a child.
|
![]() |
|
| Eral | May 17 2008, 11:35 PM Post #12 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/texas-...0765250692.html Do I look embarrassed? ![]() http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/18/polygamy.custody/ The judge agrees with me, though. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | May 24 2008, 01:58 AM Post #13 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/court-...1183103800.html I figure from the resolute silence you are all maintaining on this subject that it is either horribly uninteresting, or there is some issue with Mormons that I do not understand. However, I am fascinated. Taking children from their families is wrong. But those families are wrong. How will it all end? Texas has tried to cover itself by saying the law states all children in an abusive situation have to be removed: 400 was always going to be a stretch. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | May 24 2008, 03:03 AM Post #14 |
|
Reliant
|
If g'lain was here, she would say, "They Are Not Mormons!" g'lain was, if you recall, a Mormon.Speaking for myself, it's not that I find the subject uninteresting, it's just that it's a farked up cult and I just can't either explain it or do I have more of a comment than, "Dang, that's farked up." We could discuss the clothing and hairstyles of the women and how it reflects badly on men in general and cult leaders in particular. Here's something else that needs explaining: A Surprising Antidepressant No, not that, I just happened across that, this: Penis theft Harper's has an interesting article up about it but it's not available to non subscribers. Needless to say this is a common fear throughout history. Hey, maybe it's one of those universals or at least for men. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | May 26 2008, 02:13 AM Post #15 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
There is no explaining the fear of penis theft. Men are just strange. In all seriosity, belief in voodoo curses shows you how powerful the human imagination is. Australian Aborigines have one called "pointing the bone." If your tribal elders decide you have gone over the line, they have a ceremony which ends with a bone being pointed in your general direction, and you are duly informed. You sicken and die after that. As for semen being an anti-depressant, they so made that up. :rolleyes: It's a blatant ploy. To return to my obsession momentarily: I can understand why Mormons are cross about them. Catholics feel the same way about people who want a return to the Latin Mass. Just as we've convinced everyone we're totally normal (nobody mention the Inquisition, OK?) along comes a group just ready to burn some heretics. *sigh* I have always wondered what Mormons believed in. This has not been a positive educational experience. Revelations?
:( The interdict requiring modest dressing has meant that religious groups down through the ages have vied for the position of Ugliest Get-up. FLDS is coming through as this century's winner. The hair is fascinating: they never cut it, and the quiffs are meant to advertise how much hair they have. Women with the most hair are the sweetest. Hence the extravagance of the styles. Goes to show that the women have got some individuality. In a tragically limited way. I think it's the same impulse that leads religious observant Jewish women to have extravagantly beautiful wigs, and wear half a tonne of gold jewellery along with their long sleeves and ankle length skirts.
|
![]() |
|
| lara | May 26 2008, 02:20 AM Post #16 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
What, Eral? No one has ever tried to give you the Book of Mormon? Have the Mormons not left this continent? A summary of my understanding: After he died in the Middle East, Jesus revealed himself to aboriginal Americans, and gave further instruction that is in the Book of Mormon. I don't have a problem with the Old Colony Mennonites (the ones who drive black buggies), but I did find it highly amusing in my younger years to occasionally tell someone an outlandish tale about my church and upbringing. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | May 26 2008, 02:33 AM Post #17 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I have assumed my ignorance was due to embarrassment on the part of Mormons to let people know how it all began. They don't mind telling Africans, though. Must have something to do with the prevalence of belief in voodoo there. If they believe in that... *Sorry, Mormons. I am a very bad woman.*
|
![]() |
|
| Nibsi | May 26 2008, 02:48 AM Post #18 |
|
Te zijner tijd
|
No Voodoo in Africa. They mostly have what is called 'traditional religion'. They believe in angry spirits in trees and stuff. Yeah I know that sounds really demeaning XD |
| -Nibby | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | May 26 2008, 03:07 AM Post #19 |
|
Reliant
|
Mainstream Mormons or properly Latter Day Saints (LDS) seem to me a little touchy about polygamy. I had a conversation with glain at PPG that touched on Mormonism and she was very admamant that there are no Mormons who pratice polygamy. Mormons who desire to practice polygamy are in essence excommunicated or disfellowshipped or whatever it is Mormons do. David Koresh was an offshoot of 7th Day Adventists who are in turn an offshoot of Prostestantism and you didn't hear Protestants getting defensive about DK. SDAs on the other hand might have been a bit defensive. List of Famous (and some infamous) LDSs |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | May 27 2008, 02:16 AM Post #20 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
There is voodoo in Africa. The top west bits, anyway. See penis theft above. I only found out David Koresh and the Branch Davidians were SDA's while reading about this group. Kept that quiet, didn't they? And when I looked up what Koresh actually preached, the article talked about his belief in having a lot of guns and didn't mention anything about God. I must go look up what SDA's believe in. Gotta be good. EDIT: they believe that people do not burn in hell: they are annihilated completely. Harsh. No explanation for why Koresh thought he needed guns for The Last Day.
There's two or three things that seem to be constant when you look at religions: - the idea of being the Holders of The Golden Ticket, and God's Bestie are so often the central belief of religious groups. "I'm going to heaven and you're not". It's not an attitude that encourages tolerance in others. -infighting and power struggles and nit-picking about interpretation of bits from Ezekiel and Daniel. Particularly odd behaviour in Christian groups. -the requirement that members of the community cease to hold independent thought. What is it about passive acceptance that people find so compelling? Thinking is just too hard?
:(
|
![]() |
|
| Eral | May 28 2008, 12:49 AM Post #21 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
This thing people have about the end of the world: where does it come from? I am greatly pleased to find a neurosis that I don't have, and assume this must be caused by Protestantism. (Look! Something the Catholic Church isn't to blame for! ) |
![]() |
|
| Inky | May 28 2008, 01:00 AM Post #22 |
|
Thai
|
Hm, should probably put this in random links, but that's too good a segue. www.vhemt.org |
|
_____________ Jobbar du naken? | |
![]() |
|
| Nibsi | May 28 2008, 01:12 AM Post #23 |
|
Te zijner tijd
|
I'd support their cause, if not for the one question that often makes these things kinda useless in my eyes. Why? |
| -Nibby | |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | May 28 2008, 12:48 PM Post #24 |
|
I haz powah!
|
And just who were they protesting against??? So I'm afraid the Catholics take the blame for that too. Sorry. |
| "Well, ‘course dis one’s betta! It’s lotz ‘eavier, and gots dem spikey bitz on de ends. " | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | May 28 2008, 02:59 PM Post #25 |
|
Reliant
|
Population control. What to say? Westernized society have cut their repro considerably. My maternal grandmother had two children, they in turn had 4 children (one died without reproducing). My maternal grandfather had 8 children, they had 8 children, 5 reproduced. Great grandchildren number 6. You'll probably notice two things, my maternal grandfather had more children than my maternal grandmother and the reproduction has decreased. In theory if my grandparents offspring had reproduced themselves there would a minimum of 16 grandchildren and 32 great grandchildren. A large Irish/Catholic family I know had 10 children, they should have a minimum of 20 grandchildren at 0 growth, instead there's 10 grandchildren and so far no great grandchildren. My friend comes from a family of 3, in theory, 6 grandchildren, they are 2 and that's all there will be. Now as to a US child consuming 60xs (?) more than an Indian child, well, let's not forget about pollution, you know, India's deadly cloud in the environment thread and of course the 3rd World (I've always found that term offensive) are moving up the consumption chain. China is now the world's largest pollution offender. Also isn't it more likely that a privileged (read:energy consuming child) to come up with solutions to problems than a child with no opportunities (Regardless of global location)? Now as to man causing mass extinction. Nature has caused quite a few mass extinctions. Probably more than man has and if one wants to get technical man has actually prevented extinction in cases. A brief foray into extinction: isn't evolution about survival? If a species, a culture, cannot survive under prevailing circumstance, should it survive? Take the mass extinctions of the Americas. Yes, there was violence but the main reason cultures were wiped out was disease. In other words, nature. The black plague, nature. Human living conditions didn't help but nature ultimately. Cultures have been destroyed thru drought. The little ice age of the UK in the 16th c. 9 (or 15th c.) not only killed people, but animals. The potato blight that was in part responsible for the Great Irish Famine was nature. Nature doesn't worry about inequities. Nature has no feelings. In other words, for every argument the link had there is a counter argument - a kinder counter argument. Really what they're saying is saying that any human with the potential to have a good life should not breed, leaving a poor, non-energy consuming individuals who will have short and brutal lives. Look at life expectancy. I suggest while I don't disagree with all their points, there are perhaps better ideas. If you look at the three examples I gave you will see people are voluntarily practicing negative population growth. The reason these people are able to do so is because of humanity's inventions. If we only followed nature, we would be stuck with the rythm method, abstinence and certain herbal remedies of uncertain efficasiousness. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Table 32 · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2



).



F.
I'll let you find that one yourselves.
But the ordinary regular polygamist policemen??? What are they thinking? "Yep, I need 22 children to support."

g'lain was, if you recall, a Mormon.
)

4:31 PM Jul 13