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

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben and aneeshm are perfect examples of bigots and sexist pigs that try to hide their outdated views behind senseless posts and misdirection and blantant lies. While their whole attitude is one of judgement and insults. I'm more than willing to have honest discussions with people who are open minded and civil... but they aren't. So they they will be treated in kind. As long as it's ok for them to sprout their kind of bigotry and sexism, don't be surprised if people respond to it. It's not like this is the first time this has happened

Who's the closeminded person here, Ming? You or us? As far as I can tell, there's only one person here in the thread who isn't willing to consider the opinion of other folks valid, and that's you.

I've merely stated that it is my preference to have a wife stay at home, while I go to work. WRT to my family, it was a two parent working family. I've seen that, and I know how it works, and I'd be far from saying that it was an arrangement that was automatically unsuccessful.

Personally, I'd also be ok with the reversal, me staying at home and watching kiddos, while the wife works. My ideal, there's that word again is for the opposite. Does that mean I'd whine and moan if things were otherwise? No. It means that I would make it work whatever the situation were to arise.

As for arguing on a absolutist bent, do I think that wife staying at home is the better option for everyone in all situations? No. Do I think that the majority of cases it would? Yes, I would argue that it does. I would argue that on average that it would lead to better options, but with the caveat on average. There are many, many situations where it will not work well.

[Japher]

[Wezil]

Don't do it Ming. It just isn't worth it.

[Ming]

Being as how an ass is a poorly defined insult amongst English-speaking humans that has changed meaning and usage over the course of its existence, it is literally meaningless to say that someone is "objectively" an ass. It makes no sense as a statement.

Clearly the statement is based on the current interpretation of the usage of the term "ass". If you don't understand what it means, feel free to look it up in a dictionary so that you will be able to understand. So your statement is the one that doesn't make any sense since it is a defined and acceptable concept

And your point that since it's interpretation there can be no objectivity is also a crock. Since EVERYTHING is a matter of interpretation (your brain responding and interpreting input), your point would mean that objectivity isn't possible at all. It's actually quite easy to be objective and see when somebody is acting like an ass

In his case, he not only states an opinon, but then degrades/insults those that don't agree. That's being an ass, and not a person looking for civil discussion.

[Wezil]

Doh!

[Ben Kenobi]

So what you're saying is that, even if your wife were a better decision-maker than you are, you'd only let her decide issues you're equally qualified to decide if it weren't important to you.

Where I live is very important, and it's crucial. Let me put it this way, there are folks I would trust to have better judgement than I do, and I ask them important questions, such as for work, and stuff, because I want their opinion. When it comes to a decision such as, "where should I work?" "should we stay put or move elsewhere," I would be inclined to trust their opinion before my own, and if they felt we should go, then we would go, pack up and move, even if I had a solid position where we were.

For important issues (such as private school and church), you would ultimately make the decisions, but for unimportant decisions (such as where you're living), you'd let her decide.

Church is a non-negotiable that would be decided before we got to that point. If she wasn't happy with it, we'd have to talk about it. I'm not an ogre. I don't think church stuff should be burdensome or difficult, and if it is, something needs to be worked out. Again, I'd have no problem testing out parishes till we found one that we liked, I would find that far more prefereable than going alone. But in the end, I would be going to mass regardless.

Answer me this, then: Is there any decision that is important to you that, if the two of you were equally qualified to make the decision but she was a better overall decision-maker, you would still let her make the final decision?

Private schools are a sticky wicket. Would I be willing to defer on the point? Yes. Would I be happy about deferring here? No. Would I give on other things to get private schools? Yes, and that's probably what would happen.

[rah]

Don't do it Ming. It just isn't worth it.

Doh!

Yes, it's not worth it. It's not like he's ever going to change his mind or admit he was wrong.
And he rarely answers the question asked. He changes it to one he can answer, and he doesn't even do that very well.

[Boris Godunov]

Holy ****, Ming, I can't stay out of this one:

The only objective definition of an "ass" would be a donkey. That is indisputably an ass.

For people, it's an opinion about someone's behavior based on how you feel, so is inherently not objective. Just because you think someone's being an ass doesn't mean squat--another person can easily say in their opinion, he isn't being an ass, and neither is objectively right. That's because there's no standard, fact-based criteria of what it is that makes a person an ass, any moreso than there is for someone being a ****head, dickwad, ****stick, etc.

[Lorizael]

Holy ****, Ming, I can't stay out of this one:

The only objective definition of an "ass" would be a donkey. That is indisputably an ass.

For people, it's an opinion about someone's behavior based on how you feel, so is inherently not objective. Just because you think someone's being an ass doesn't mean squat--another person can easily say in their opinion, he isn't being an ass, and neither is objectively right. That's because there's no standard, fact-based criteria of what it is that makes a person an ass, any moreso than there is for someone being a ****head, dickwad, ****stick, etc.

ohthankgod. Can you carry the torch?

[Boris Godunov]

No, that's all I'm doing. If he continues, it's hopeless.

[Drake Tungsten]

Ming is an idiot. This has been clear for years.

[Ming]

Holy ****, Ming, I can't stay out of this one:

The only objective definition of an "ass" would be a donkey. That is indisputably an ass.

For people, it's an opinion about someone's behavior based on how you feel, so is inherently not objective. Just because you think someone's being an ass doesn't mean squat--another person can easily say in their opinion, he isn't being an ass, and neither is objectively right. That's because there's no standard, fact-based criteria of what it is that makes a person an ass, any moreso than there is for someone being a ****head, dickwad, ****stick, etc.

While I'm hearing what you are saying, and see your point of view, I would argue that somebody who insults others while stating a opinion is a "standard" for being an ass... That there are behaviours that can clearly be defined as being uncivil and "acting like an ass". I think it goes beyond a simple "opinion".
If somebody acts in a fashion contrary to good social behavior, such as being rude and insulting, they are indeed being an ass as defined. Now, if you want to claim that being rude and insulting isn't acting like an ass, that's one thing. But clearly here, the person was, therefore, he's an ass

[Lorizael]

Ming is an idiot. This has been clear for years.

Shht! Out!

While I'm hearing what you are saying, and see your point of view, I would argue that somebody who insults others while stating a opinion is a "standard" for being an ass... That there are behaviours that can clearly be defined as being uncivil and "acting like an ass". I think it goes beyond a simple "opinion".
If somebody acts in a fashion contrary to good social behavior, such as being rude and insulting, they are indeed being an ass as defined. Now, if you want to claim that being rude and insulting isn't acting like an ass, that's one thing. But clearly here, the person was, therefore, he's an ass

Ming, I'm sorry, but the word "objective" is a far more precise word than you believe it is. Objective doesn't just mean "really true." You can only make objective statements in fact- and rules-based systems. You can state objectively that "1+1=2" because there's a clear rules-based system that defines arithmetic, and this rule system can be translated in multiple ways while still maintaining meaning.

There is no rules-based system for human feelings or perception, and the rules of language are extraordinarily loose, such that not even linguists would tell you that statements based on feelings, insults, etc. are objective.

If an alien visited the Earth and watched mathematicians at work, those mathematicians could theoretically explain the rules system behind arithmetic to the alien, and the alien would then understand that "1+1=2." But if that same alien were to observe the argument you and aneeshm were having, even if we were to explain the complicated cultural differences and linguistic parsings that went into that argument, the alien would only really understand that aneeshm is being an ass if it could feel what you're feeling. Thus, the statement, "aneeshm is an ass" can only ever be subjective; it cannot be objective.

[Boris Godunov]

Furthermore (I know I said I wouldn't...), since determining something as being "rude," "uncivil" and "insulting" are emotion-based values, they are also subjective, and can't be used to define being an "ass" as objective.

[Drake Tungsten]

Heretountoforthwith, we could objectively determine that Ming is indeed an idiot if he were to take an IQ test and give us a low value with which we could label him as "retarded" via a rules-based system, but if he won't take such a test, all our claims that he is idiotic could only be subjective.