Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

You Evil Parents!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
    OK, so I take it you are linking Marx and Communism to classical liberalism.
    Nah, I'm just saying that as classical liberalism to contemporary liberalism, so Marxism to Communism: the utopic vision leads to the resultant mess.

    (OTOH if democracy is one side of modern Égalité, Marxism is the other but that's a different tangent.)

    I always thought that Mosaic law was Jewish legal law rather than divine law. Stoning was the legal punishment for breaking the moral law
    The Law was given as a whole, which includes punishments for transgressions.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
      No it's not. In the article from the ABC, the philosopher in question says:

      ‘You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods.’

      Swift makes it clear that although both elite schooling and bedtime stories might both skew the family game, restricting the former would not interfere with the creation of the special loving bond that families give rise to. Taking the books away is another story.

      ‘We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life.’

      So he actually isn't advocating that parents stop reading to children. That was just an idea that occurred to the journalist who was interviewing him.

      Do you even bother to read the threads you post in?

      Also, you apparently missed the part where I said "I find it surprising that Darth Ovious is so quick to negatively broad-brush an entire side." Even if a few people considered to be liberals actually did advocate that parents stop reading bedtime stories, they are so obviously in the extreme minority. Yet D.O and you act as if every left-leaning person in the world wants parents to stop reading to their kids, as if the official platform of some liberal party officially decrees "Thou shalt not read stories to your offspring."
      The thing is, it's the nuts like this that usually have the power/influence to enforce it. In fact, there are places where things like this are being enforced. An example I lived through would be where they kept the smarter kids out of class under the guise of "advanced classes" so that the other kids had a chance to catch up.

      Then there's the fact that he thinks private schools can't be defended because of how badly they effect the imbalance, but bedtime stories are even worse according to these "philosophers". Either he's stupid and doesn't realize this(and shouldn't be a philosopher at all), or he does, but doesn't like where his own methodology leads. Although, I suppose there's an option where he does know, and just doesn't want other people to know just how far he's really willing to go.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
        See, I've heard the discussion around the word "bossy," but it's in a completely different context from the one you seem to be describing. What I observed was something like "You know, if you think about it, the people who are described as 'bossy' tend to be women. People hardly ever describe men with that word. Instead, men who act like 'bossy' women are usually called 'assertive' or 'bold.' That seems a bit odd, doesn't it? Like there might be an inconsistent, unfair standard?" And then I think about it, and it occurs to me that yes, it does seem like the people who are called "bossy" are usually women, and that I really can't think of many instances of men being called bossy. So then I nod and go "Huh. Yeah, that actually seems to be an accurate observation. That's interesting. I'll try to keep that in mind." I have never seen anyone come across as "policing" anyone's language--never seen anyone say that people CAN'T use the word "bossy," just that it'd be preferable if they didn't use it to describe women while similar men were being called assertive.
        The point is if you are going to let a word and complaint like bossy stop you from obtaining a profitable career with a reasonable amount of responsibility then you probably do not deserve that position in the first place. Now lets talk about what men are called and we still don't let it affect our sensibilities. We get called rapists, abusers, pigs, patriarchal, controlling, creeps, nerds, geeks, etc, etc. Need I say more?
        “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          Nah, I'm just saying that as classical liberalism to contemporary liberalism, so Marxism to Communism: the utopic vision leads to the resultant mess.

          (OTOH if democracy is one side of modern Égalité, Marxism is the other but that's a different tangent.)
          Fair enough. I think any ideology has the potential to be abused in such a way. The way to safeguard against that is keep free speech and open discussion of ideas in order to keep our ideas refined. However we all know what modern liberals think of free speech.


          The Law was given as a whole, which includes punishments for transgressions.
          The ten commandments did not include punishments. Part of the reason why punishments were harsh were because it was civilisation just born out of anarchy. Also the Jews were a nomadic desert wandering tribe. They didn't have any jail cells. Even modern day Jews understand Mosaic law as being legality of the divine laws.
          “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
            Fair enough. I think any ideology has the potential to be abused in such a way.
            Nah, not every ideology goes like classical liberalism (and its spinoffs, including libertarianism): "let's create a power vacuum and just hope more malevolent groups/individuals won't take over".

            The ten commandments did not include punishments.

            The Law given to Moses wasn't limited to the ten commandments.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              Nah, not every ideology goes like classical liberalism (and its spinoffs, including libertarianism): "let's create a power vacuum and just hope more malevolent groups/individuals won't take over".
              It's not a power vacuum if you still have a government though, even if it's small government that only guards against violence and upholds protection of property.



              The Law given to Moses wasn't limited to the ten commandments.
              That may be the case but the punishments for said laws were not. Unless of course you wish to believe that stoning people for their sins is still a viable punishment. Do you not as a Christian believe that Jesus came to fulfil the law? What do you think this means?

              Mat 5:17

              “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."


              Notice Jesus goes into the Ten Commandments after saying this. So what do you think Jesus fulfilled here with the passage about the adulterous woman?

              John 8:3 to 8:11

              The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
              “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                It's not a power vacuum if you still have a government though, even if it's small government that only guards against violence and upholds protection of property.
                Smaller government means that the government exercises less power and in fewer areas; in these areas a vacuum is created though there is no absolute vacuum in every area.

                Also,

                ^ Not at you but at me. I suppose I'll have the discussion after all.

                That may be the case but the punishments for said laws were not.
                Nonsense. The laws, together with the punishments were given by God.

                Unless of course you wish to believe that stoning people for their sins is still a viable punishment.
                It was. Curiously many Christians seem to shy from such an obvious observation.

                Do you not as a Christian believe that Jesus came to fulfil the law? What do you think this means?

                Notice Jesus goes into the Ten Commandments after saying this
                He also discusses more some of the Ten Commandments, eg giving to the poor.

                The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.
                The Mosaic Law contained punishment of stoning for certain crimes, this Law given by God through Moses. Who knew?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                  That may be the case but the punishments for said laws were not. Unless of course you wish to believe that stoning people for their sins is still a viable punishment. Do you not as a Christian believe that Jesus came to fulfil the law? What do you think this means?

                  Mat 5:17

                  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
                  But it would not be unjust to apply the death penalty to what they were applied to in the OT.


                  Notice Jesus goes into the Ten Commandments after saying this. So what do you think Jesus fulfilled here with the passage about the adulterous woman?

                  John 8:3 to 8:11

                  The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

                  These passages were probably not in the original text, but were later additions.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_a...en_in_adultery
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                    The point is if you are going to let a word and complaint like bossy stop you from obtaining a profitable career with a reasonable amount of responsibility then you probably do not deserve that position in the first place.
                    That's another thing--I have never seen anyone say that somehow just using the word "stops women from obtaining profitable careers." My observations have always been that some people are just pointing out an apparent cultural inconsistency. I suppose someone could argue that if people consistently call girls who act in a certain manner "bossy" while calling boys who act in the same manner "assertive," it might ultimately discourage girls from acting in the actual assertive manner needed to fight for better positions (especially those of leadership), but that link is hardly obvious.

                    Now lets talk about what men are called and we still don't let it affect our sensibilities. We get called rapists, abusers, pigs, patriarchal, controlling, creeps, nerds, geeks, etc, etc. Need I say more?
                    If I'm understanding them correctly, I think some women take issue with the usage of the word "bossy" because they think it implies that women acting assertively (that is, displaying power) is negative and undesirable. I can see where they're coming from--"bossy" does have negative connotations, while "assertive" has positive connotations, and boys who display power are often called the positive term while girls who display power are often called the negative term. So it seems that the ultimate issue, then, is that they perceive the word's usage as a reminder (reinforcement?) of the long-lasting dynamic of women not having any power. But since men as a whole generally have not had to deal with being denied positions of power or representation, comparing the two seems a bit off.

                    That said, here's my personal position on the word. While I believe it's overused, especially in regard to women who are really just being assertive, it does describe something real--a type of domineering behavior that ignores the ideas and feelings of others, that's more concerned with pushing other people around than legitimately displaying power in a way that leads. That's rightfully something negative, and both women and men can be genuinely guilty of being bossy. So I don't think people should stop using the word; rather, they should work towards rightly and discerningly using it.
                    Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                    I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                      If I'm understanding them correctly, I think some women take issue with the usage of the word "bossy" because they think it implies that women acting assertively (that is, displaying power) is negative and undesirable.
                      It is.

                      I can see where they're coming from--"bossy" does have negative connotations, while "assertive" has positive connotations, and boys who display power are often called the positive term while girls who display power are often called the negative term. So it seems that the ultimate issue, then, is that they perceive the word's usage as a reminder (reinforcement?) of the long-lasting dynamic of women not having any power. But since men as a whole generally have not had to deal with being denied positions of power or representation, comparing the two seems a bit off.
                      "Men as a whole" make any position of power or representation possible, via little things called discipline and subordination and heirarchy. Also there's this thing called cameraderie or comradeship or a spirit of fair play that tends to enable the first three. Without the last three, any assertiveness by a woman is going to come off as off-putting at best or disgusting at worst. A woman is defined mainly by the single man she submits to. Often, she very much wants the "bossiest" man, although that word would never be used as the primary descriptor.

                      That said, here's my personal position on the word. While I believe it's overused, especially in regard to women who are really just being assertive, it does describe something real--a type of domineering behavior that ignores the ideas and feelings of others, that's more concerned with pushing other people around than legitimately displaying power in a way that leads. That's rightfully something negative, and both women and men can be genuinely guilty of being bossy. So I don't think people should stop using the word; rather, they should work towards rightly and discerningly using it.
                      Yes, like in noticing that it describes women far more than men. Calling one who's a natural boss by temperament 'bossy' is redundant, he is assertive or deferential or mercurial or ineffective as his performance in his job reflects.

                      Calling someone who has no real idea of how leadership works but tries to play-act it in a way that isn't natural for them "bossy" is an excellent word choice, much like calling the news-twisting performances of Steven Colbert or John Stewart for the purpose of making liberalism look good "truthy".

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        Smaller government means that the government exercises less power and in fewer areas; in these areas a vacuum is created though there is no absolute vacuum in every area.
                        Do you not think this is better than a large government intruding in your personal life?


                        Nonsense. The laws, together with the punishments were given by God.
                        Mark 10:17 onwards says otherwise.

                        As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.”

                        Notice here how Jesus points to the commandments. Not Mosaic law.

                        It was. Curiously many Christians seem to shy from such an obvious observation.
                        So why did Jesus not do it to the adulterous woman? He could have just said to the Pharisee's to go ahead and do it. Also Jesus forgave the woman and told her to go and sin no more. So not only did he not stone her but he forgave her actions as well.


                        He also discusses more some of the Ten Commandments, eg giving to the poor.
                        Yes Jesus had more to say, but it's the Ten Commandments under Mosaic law that are important, not the legal punishments that were attached by the Israelites. It's quite clear that stoning is a punishment and not the moral law itself. Stoning is not a moral code to follow by itself, since that would be counted as murder.


                        The Mosaic Law contained punishment of stoning for certain crimes, this Law given by God through Moses. Who knew?
                        Did you notice how the Pharisee's said that Moses commanded to stone such women and NOT God?
                        “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                          That's another thing--I have never seen anyone say that somehow just using the word "stops women from obtaining profitable careers." My observations have always been that some people are just pointing out an apparent cultural inconsistency. I suppose someone could argue that if people consistently call girls who act in a certain manner "bossy" while calling boys who act in the same manner "assertive," it might ultimately discourage girls from acting in the actual assertive manner needed to fight for better positions (especially those of leadership), but that link is hardly obvious.

                          If I'm understanding them correctly, I think some women take issue with the usage of the word "bossy" because they think it implies that women acting assertively (that is, displaying power) is negative and undesirable. I can see where they're coming from--"bossy" does have negative connotations, while "assertive" has positive connotations, and boys who display power are often called the positive term while girls who display power are often called the negative term. So it seems that the ultimate issue, then, is that they perceive the word's usage as a reminder (reinforcement?) of the long-lasting dynamic of women not having any power. But since men as a whole generally have not had to deal with being denied positions of power or representation, comparing the two seems a bit off.

                          That said, here's my personal position on the word. While I believe it's overused, especially in regard to women who are really just being assertive, it does describe something real--a type of domineering behavior that ignores the ideas and feelings of others, that's more concerned with pushing other people around than legitimately displaying power in a way that leads. That's rightfully something negative, and both women and men can be genuinely guilty of being bossy. So I don't think people should stop using the word; rather, they should work towards rightly and discerningly using it.
                          Personally I think it's because these particular women who are complaining about the word bossy actually are bossy. I'm sorry to say this but the reason why not a lot of men are called bossy nowadays is because they either get called a lot worse or they just aren't being bossy.
                          “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                            Personally I think it's because these particular women who are complaining about the word bossy actually are bossy. I'm sorry to say this but the reason why not a lot of men are called bossy nowadays is because they either get called a lot worse or they just aren't being bossy.
                            I know some men whom I'd consider genuinely bossy but aren't called that.
                            Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                            I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                              I know some men whom I'd consider genuinely bossy but aren't called that.
                              I never heard anybody use the word bossy until feminists started crying about it.
                              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                                Do you not think this is better than a large government intruding in your personal life?
                                The point is that it will inevitably lead to a large government because the vacuum will be filled.



                                Mark 10:17 onwards says otherwise.

                                As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.”

                                Notice here how Jesus points to the commandments. Not Mosaic law.
                                This doesn't say anything about whether the punishments weren't part of the Law.

                                So why did Jesus not do it to the adulterous woman? He could have just said to the Pharisee's to go ahead and do it. Also Jesus forgave the woman and told her to go and sin no more. So not only did he not stone her but he forgave her actions as well.
                                I don't think argument from the Pericope Adulterae alone is going to be very firm, given the scholarly doubt over its authenticity.

                                Yes Jesus had more to say, but it's the Ten Commandments under Mosaic law that are important, not the legal punishments that were attached by the Israelites.

                                Let's set aside for now the question about which parts of the Law apply after Jesus came, since the first point to establish is that before He came the Law, including the punishments, fully applied.

                                It's quite clear that stoning is a punishment and not the moral law itself. Stoning is not a moral code to follow by itself, since that would be counted as murder.
                                This distinction doesn't matter. In the Law was included the command that people were supposed to stone certain transgressors.

                                Did you notice how the Pharisee's said that Moses commanded to stone such women and NOT God?
                                As part of the basic Jewish story the Law was given by God. Where on earth did you get the notion that God gave just the ten commandments, and the rest was thought up by Moses?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X