Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?

[Ben Kenobi]

Well I just wanted to explain why the clarification was important.

[Asher]

What a loser, Ben, jesus christ.

It's a simple question that you cannot bring yourself to answer. Man up and admit what we all read into your pathetic and insulting meandering.

[aneeshm]

Condescending strawmen... FTL!

Read what he wrote. This wasn't meant to be condescending, it was honestly what I thought when I read it.

No it doesn't. Unless your aim is to keep women down, which I'm convinced yours is.

Again, you're ideologically committed to the idea that it doesn't require someone's dedicated time, because if it did require time like this, a hard choice would have to be made. For you, truth doesn't enter into it, nor do divergent views.

I have no "aim" in saying this, because I'm not lusting for power - I wouldn't take the damn thing if you offered it to me on a plate. I'm not trying to remake the world in my image of it. I'm not an activist every moment of my day, "defender of the good", or anything like that. I'm simply telling you what I think happens to be a correct perception of reality. You're free to disagree, but it would be better to do so by stating clearly that you disagree instead of attributing malevolent motives to me. When I discuss anything here, it isn't a form of political combat, I'm genuinely trying to simply sit down and talk, nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know how to tell you this, because you're convinced that I'm some sort of a monster, but I have no problem with whatever choice is made. If a woman chooses to sacrifice her home so that she can have a career, that's perfectly all right. She's a free human being. She can do whatever she wants, and reap the rewards of that, and forgo the opportunity costs, just like everyone else.

In my view, your stance is like saying that a corporate job is something you can "juggle" between two people. For extremely obvious reasons, you cannot. In the same way, there are some things which cannot be divided this way, and I consider the job traditionally done by a housewife one of them. I have no problem if couples are happy with neither doing that job. If someone chooses to forgo the benefits of having a home, for whatever reason, it's all right in my book - it is, after all, their life. What I would want is that they at least be aware of the choice they're making.

[aneeshm]

I've no idea WTF you're takling about w.r.t "ganesh".

And "caste" is a clear reference to aneeshm's legendary threads speaking of lower castes in India with disdain, and his general support for the caste system.

I don't remember having done so.

May I have a link to this thread?

[Asher]

No.

[aneeshm]

No.

In that case, isn't this a ridiculous and unsubstantiated assertion? You might as well accuse me of advocating the eating of babies.

[Ming]

In the same way, there are some things which cannot be divided this way, and I consider the job traditionally done by a housewife one of them. I have no problem if couples are happy with neither doing that job.

What an insult to many couples... Assuming that a good loving couple can't "do the job" because they both BALANCE family and careers is a load of crap. Sure, some can't do it, just like some stay at home moms can't either. Your comment that neither is doing the job and happy with it is just a slap in the face to people who have and can do it. Just more BS to support your sexist views that woman should stay pregnant and barefoot and be locked in their homes. Because if they don't, the "job isn't done".... What a joke.

[Asher]

In that case, isn't this a ridiculous and unsubstantiated assertion?

No.

[aneeshm]

What an insult to many couples...

Their hypersensitivity to others' opinions is not my problem.

I've made it clear that what I mean by a "home" is not what they mean by it, so if they're happy and think that they have a good home, great, by their definition it's a job well done. By mine, it isn't. Nothing for them to feel insulted about, unless they think that they have to meet everyone else's standards in everything - a patently ridiculous and unrealistic goal.

Assuming that a good loving couple can't "do the job" because they both BALANCE family and careers is a load of crap.

If you're going to continue to talk past me, fine, go ahead.

I've made it clear that what I mean by the word "home" (or "family") is not what you understand it to be. Unless you want to clarify further what you mean by it, there is no point in continuing the discussion here - we will continue to talk at cross-purposes.

Sure, some can't do it, just like some stay at home moms can't either.

Now this is just insulting to stay-at-home mothers. What makes you think that it is an inability to do something "normal" in your view, rather than an extra commitment to something above and beyond your "normal", which makes these women choose this particular path?

I'm saying that these women are doing something which it is not possible for anyone to do except as a full-time commitment.

Your comment that neither is doing the job and happy with it is just a slap in the face to people who have and can do it.

Again, as usual, you continue to talk past instead of to me. These people who do as you say have reached a place where they are content. They genuinely believe that they have a good home. Good for them. I have no problem with that. I am, however, going to say that given my way of perceiving what a good home is, they don't have it.

Is that insulting? Unless you think my opinions are universal commandments to which you must live up, I don't think so. You're free to think that my perceptions are skewed or simply incorrect - and I could say the same of you.

(The difference, of course, is that I have pretty much the whole of human history to back me up, with numerous successes and almost everything achieved till now to its credit. You have an untried theory, the full implications of which are yet unknown, which you are implementing on a massive scale out of your religious fervour. Let's see in whose favour the ultimate blind judge of Reality decides, shall we? It'll be interesting to re-visit this conversation after twenty and fifty years.)

Finally, if they're so sensitive, that's really their problem. I don't take the opinions of every random person seriously, and if they are secure in their convictions, neither should they. If they feel insulted or "slapped in the face" because of what I said, they need to get a thicker skin and a bit more sturdy sense.

Just more BS to support your sexist views that woman should stay pregnant and barefoot and be locked in their homes. Because if they don't, the "job isn't done"....

This thread seems to be filled with fetishists lusting after barefoot pregnant women in some hypothetical kitchen. I don't know why, irrespective of whatever I post, you only see a woman who is "pregnant and barefoot", even though I've made it clear I'm politically close to libertarianism and wish everyone free to do whatever they choose.

And as I will tell you once again, (assuming that the previous five times wasn't enough), I define "the job" in a way that does not coincide with the way you define "the job". In my case, "the job" is much bigger and more comprehensive, requiring more time, effort, and commitment.

Let me put it in your terms. Even if two people are equally educated/trained and qualified, with equal amounts of experience, is it possible for both of them to get jointly employed at two places simultaneously, in such a way that they "balance" the two jobs between them? (I'm presuming you'd say no - if you say yes then there are far, far bigger problems here that have to be dealt with.) If it is possible for a workplace job to be indivisible and to require the full-time commitment of one person, why do you think that the same may not be the case for the commitment made by a housewife?

Instead of cursing everyone you disagree with, you would do well to listen - you may, maybe by accident, learn something new.





On that note, I find it fascinating how, instead of asking me just what exactly I meant by a "home", and why I think it requires the indivisible commitment of one person, so that the discussion could continue on the merits of what is said, people continue to attempt to attack my character instead. This in spite of the fact that I repeatedly said that this is one option among many, which can be chosen by those who are happy with it, and have similar views/predispositions, and that it isn't really a norm for anyone else.

It seems that the modern progressive pietists and purists are as intolerant of attitude as their namesake forebears.

[Lorizael]

Assuming it's one of the friends that I trust?

1 and 2 would be no issue whatsoever. We'd be of like minds.

Actually, the scenario was that you disagreed fiercely, not that you were of like minds. Or are you saying that you could only fall in love with someone if they also had the exact same thoughts on where to live and what house to buy?

3, would probably be the only one. I personally do not like public schools.

Maybe you're extremely poor and can't afford private school. You just got married, she's paying off college debt, that sort of thing. But, oops, you have a kid and he needs to go to school.

[Ming]

Instead of cursing everyone you disagree with, you would do well to listen - you may, maybe by accident, learn something new.

I am listening... listening to your warped opinions that unless people do things your way, they aren't doing the job right. You're the closed minded one here. I've never once said that your view of a traditional stay at home parent is evil or bad parenting... However, I did say some housewives are unfit and can't do the job... which is true. I can see how doing it different ways can lead to the same success... the ability to provide a loving home that protects and nurtures the children, while providing a strong family relationship for all. It all depends on the the individuals, not some automatic forumula.

While you admit there are multiple ways, you make it very clear that your way is best and the others are simply parents not doing their jobs, directly insulting every parent that has chosen a way different than yours by insinuating that they are bad parents. And then you attempt to take the high road by claiming that everybody is attacking you, yet you are the one starting it by your insulting opinions and holier than thou attitude, just like Ben.

Everything is black and white to you, and you ignore that it's all about the individuals and how they deal with things, not an automatic cookie cutter solution. To you, a loving couple who try to balance careers is inferior to a stay at home mom... without even considering the individual circumstances. You simply believe because of your warped view that since it was done that way in the past when women were treated like slaves/property, that it must be the best way. They had no choice and had to stay at home because society didn't give them equal rights in the world. Well those days are gone, and so should be your sexist attitudes that the only good parents are the ones that follow your opinions...

Instead of sprouting insulting and sexist opinins, you would do well to listen - you may, maybe by accident, learn something new, and maybe join the right century.

[Lorizael]

aneeshm can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he said that a perfectly good family situation would be one in which the man was the stay at home mom and the female worked. I think he simply believes that one full-time parent is superior to two part-time parents.

[Ming]

Yep... he is blind to the fact that there are many situations where two part time parents are far superior to a full time parent. He is resting his opinion simply on traditional arrangement vs looking at the individual situatins... insulting all good parents simply because they don't follow his opinions. Sure, he claims that people should do what they want and all the other BS to cover his ass... but his point of view is obvious. If you don't do things his way, you are not good parents... you are inferior...

So he is simply an arogant and closed minded ***. Just like somebody else we know around here

[Lorizael]

I really, really think you've got the wrong attitude here. Pretty much everyone on the planet places values on their own ideas, which almost inevitably means that they value their ideas above other people's. This isn't some terrible thing, especially when you don't try to enforce those values on other people and you don't pass judgment on those that have their own values.

As aneeshm said, he has no problem with people doing their own thing, and he doesn't want to change everybody else so that they follow his way of thinking. He just happens to think his way of thinking is right.

Just like you do. Just like I do.

Consider, for example, that I think families are an obsolete phenomenon and that children should be created through combining various sets of DNA until you find a good (or interesting) match, and then having that child raised by robots and computer simulations that brainwash it into questioning everything, loving knowledge, and being open-minded.

You probably don't think this is the best way to do things. That's okay. I'm not insulted. My robots aren't insulted.

[Drake Tungsten]

Hitler is insulted at your attempt to take the standard of eugenics from him, however.