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

[Elok]

Way to pile on there, Drake.

I don't hate anyone, Drake. Not even you.

Ahem. BK?

[aneeshm]

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.

It would be quite an aberration, and a couple like this is probably extremely, extremely rare, but yes, I would have no problem if that is how they are happy.

[aneeshm]

I am listening... listening to your warped opinions that unless people do things your way, they aren't doing the job right.

That is incorrect.

You define the job as something.
I define it as something else.

If you're happy with your definition and what it means, great, I have no problem with it. That's the way you are, and there are lots of different types of people in the world - I'm not the Universal Determinant of Definitions of the word "Home", and I have no wish to be. I'm just saying that your definition of the job isn't mine, so by my definition, you aren't doing it (whereas by yours, you are).

That's it.

Decisions about what "home" means to someone, under what sort of home environment a couple would be happy (both individually and together), and so on, are all subjective, and dependent on the people in question. This is because we, as members of the human species, with great bio-diversity and biological and psychological variation, are all born fundamentally different.

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...

No. You said that I was evil.

However, I did say some housewives are unfit and can't do the job... which is true.

So all who cannot fit your definition are unfit or incompetent? That's quite a bit worse than what I'm saying, which is that they're built differently.

I can see how doing it different ways can lead to the same success...

And here we come to the crux of our disagreement.

You're saying that there are many ways to climb one mountain.
I agree - and add that we're trying to climb different mountains.

It all depends on the the individuals, not some automatic forumula.

Absolutely.

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

No.

I'm saying that others as parents are simply not doing my job - the job as defined by me. They may well be doing theirs, as they see it, and quite well, too. It's just not mine.

directly insulting every parent that has chosen a way different than yours by insinuating that they are bad parents.

Wow.

I'm saying that every parent has to make two analyses:

a) What is the best possible home environment, and
b) How far they are willing to go to create it.

Everything has costs and benefits. Living in a physically perfect and aesthetically pleasing (not merely functional) home is meaningless if the person responsible for it is miserable, and doesn't like doing that work. Of course, I'm of the opinion that a wife who doesn't like that work and isn't happy with it won't be able to do it anyway, because lots of things which define it are intangible and depend on her being happy as a pre-requisite.

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.

I don't see this. Unless I have ever stated or implied that my way of thinking of the home is universally applicable, there is no reason for anybody to feel insulted. I think it is the best way, but I'm capable of recognising that this is a subjective judgement, and that therefore, no matter what my instincts may say on the matter, it is possible for someone to disagree and actually be right insofar as they are concerned - they'll simply be built differently in that case.

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.

Again, incorrect. I've tried to make this clear abover.

To you, a loving couple who try to balance careers is inferior to a stay at home mom... without even considering the individual circumstances.

If circumstances force both parents to work, I would say that it is tragic that though they want to be able to have a home (as I define it), they cannot. Life is often cruel and capricious.

If, however, they have a choice, and both decide to "balance" the life of the home, then there is simply no grounds for disagreement - they're trying to climb a different mountain. I will say that I like my mountain better, and I think they would be better off trying to climb mine than theirs, but that has to be the case - otherwise it wouldn't be my mountain in the first place. This disagreement is so fundamental that there isn't really very much scope for moral judgement or condemnation or questions of superiority or inferiority - the things we value are so different that discussion is futile.

I will add that I think it better for the all concerned if the couple (or, in the aberrant example, the stay-at-home husband) happily chooses my way, but the disagreement cannot extend beyond this point - there is simply no common ground there. If they're unhappy with doing it my way, then there's no point in my saying anything - the reason I think the way I do is because I genuinely think that this is the way to happiness. If it doesn't work for them, what's the use? Why even talk? They'll have to find their own path, climb their own mountain - they're simply different.

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.

What a way to generalise. History, too, is more than black-and-white cardboard cutouts.

Second, you're implying that I think it is the best way because women were treated like slaves or property. I don't think I need point out how that sounds when I've made it explicit.


Let me rephrase those words for you: "You like to drink water from containers. 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 and had to serve you water in containers, that it must be the best way to drink water."

See how it sounds now?

The treatment of women as slaves or property has nothing to do with your method of drinking water. Similarly, my conceptions of what a home (and the happiness I consider results from its fulfilment) is don't have much to do with the treatment of women in former times.

In general, if it works well and everyone is happy with it, I don't care whether it was invented by Hitler or the Cute Kittens Association.

I must say here that I am of the opinion that treating a woman that way (slave/property) runs counter to my idea of the home. A home is built by a wife, not a slave. It cannot be built by a slave. You're talking as if everyone treated their wives that way in those times. My idea of a home has come from those who didn't.

They had no choice and had to stay at home because society didn't give them equal rights in the world.

And what exactly does that have to do with what I said? I'm talking about what progressives call a "lifestyle choice" in today's 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...

I've covered this extensively in what went before, so I won't go over it again.

When you define the home differently, everything changes, so there is no common ground from which to disagree or judge "goodness" or anything like it.

You're discussing the relative merits of the different ways of climbing the Alps. I'm outside the discussion - I'm interested in Everest.

[DaShi]

I don't see this. Unless I have ever stated or implied that my way of thinking of the home is universally applicable, there is no reason for anybody to feel insulted. I think it is the best way, but I'm capable of recognising that this is a subjective judgement, and that therefore, no matter what my instincts may say on the matter, it is possible for someone to disagree and actually be right insofar as they are concerned - they'll simply be built differently in that case.

Also, I think that the best way to reduce crime in America is to lock up all black people. However, I am capable of recognizing that this is a subjective judgment, and that therefore, no matter what my instincts may say on the matter, it is possible for someone to disagree and actually be right insofar as they are concerned - they'll simply be built differently in that case. Also, I'm not a racist.

[ZEE]

Every human being is evil. Its just a case of how well they decide to mask it.

[aneeshm]

I don't see this. Unless I have ever stated or implied that my way of thinking of the home is universally applicable, there is no reason for anybody to feel insulted. I think it is the best way, but I'm capable of recognising that this is a subjective judgement, and that therefore, no matter what my instincts may say on the matter, it is possible for someone to disagree and actually be right insofar as they are concerned - they'll simply be built differently in that case.

Also, I think that the best way to reduce crime in America is to lock up all black people. However, I am capable of recognizing that this is a subjective judgment, and that therefore, no matter what my instincts may say on the matter, it is possible for someone to disagree and actually be right insofar as they are concerned - they'll simply be built differently in that case. Also, I'm not a racist.

What you're talking about involves a universal generalisation to members of a group - something explicitly disavowed by the first part of the quotation. Secondly, this generalisation involves coercion, whereas mine does not, so they're not comparable in any case.

In your attempt to parody what I said, you've contradicted both the logic and the spirit of it, and because of the incommensurabilty this introduces, the attempt fails abjectly.

[DaShi]

Right, you're not a sexist because you say you aren't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

WTF happened to this thread? To sum up: I think aneeshm's positions while seemingly non-malicious are simply pretexts for his misogynistic views (as Arrian pointed out, it was quite obvious he was anti woman a few years ago... he's learned to hide it better). Sure he indicates he'd be ok if the man stayed home, but how often does that really happen in our society? And Ben... well, he's Ben. 'nuff said.

[Ming]

If you're happy with your definition and what it means, great, I have no problem with it. That's the way you are, and there are lots of different types of people in the world - I'm not the Universal Determinant of Definitions of the word "Home", and I have no wish to be. I'm just saying that your definition of the job isn't mine, so by my definition, you aren't doing it (whereas by yours, you are).

So... explain your definition of home. Mine would be a place that provides a loving, caring, safe and educational environment that allows children to grow up to be the best they can be. And the "job" is providing that envirnoment. Please explain how yours is different and why a stay at home parent is required and why a couple can't balance career and family.

If your response is that they can't do both, please prove it. If your proof is that they aren't there when their children need them, I will say BS. Both parents can work and enjoy their careers while ALWAYS providing the needed attention/love and supervision when the children are at home. So explain why having a person that doesn't work and is always there for their children is different than two people who provide the same attention?

And here we come to the crux of our disagreement.

You're saying that there are many ways to climb one mountain.
I agree - and add that we're trying to climb different mountains.

What's different... we are both talking about raising children and providing a home.
There are different ways to climb the mountain, but it's still the same mountain.

I'm saying that every parent has to make two analyses:

a) What is the best possible home environment, and
b) How far they are willing to go to create it.

And what does this have to do with the difference between a stay at home parent vs a working couple that provides the identical support? It's the same for all couples.

If, however, they have a choice, and both decide to "balance" the life of the home, then there is simply no grounds for disagreement - they're trying to climb a different mountain.

Again... the same mountain... raising a family and providing a home.

I will say that I like my mountain better, and I think they would be better off trying to climb mine than theirs, but this disagreement is so fundamental that there isn't really very much scope for moral judgement or condemnation or questions of superiority or inferiority - the things we value are so different that discussion is futile.

And this is the problem... you are making a moral judgement... the whole they would be better off doing things your way. And why would they better off? The implication is that your way is the right way and their way is the wrong and worse way. You talk about values... please explain what value is so different. We both want to provide the best for our family... how does how we do that mean different values? How does having a stay at home parent mean a different value then a working couple that provides the identical support for their family. That's not a "VALUE"... that just a different way to claim the same mountain. At the end, we both get to the top of the mountain.

I will add that I think it better for the all concerned if the couple (or, in the aberrant example, the stay-at-home husband) happily chooses my way, but the disagreement cannot extend beyond this point - there is simply no common ground there.

There you go again... with the better stuff... implying that people that don't do it your way can't do it as well you do. PROVE IT!
Again... please explain why there is no common ground. All I see is a bunch of people trying to do the exact same thing.

What a way to generalise.

Gee... you are the one that likes to generalise... the whole stay at home is better than woriking couple is a broad stoke... and totally ignores the individuals involved.

When you define the home differently, everything changes, so there is no common ground from which to disagree or judge "goodness" or anything like it.

One last time... please define home so that we can see if there is a difference beyond simply you can't have a home unless there is a stay at home parent. And if that is your only difference, please try to explain why it is required, and why two working parents can't provide the exact same support and love.

[KrazyHorse]

WTF happened to this thread? To sum up: I think aneeshm's positions while seemingly non-malicious are simply pretexts for his misogynistic views (as Arrian pointed out, it was quite obvious he was anti woman a few years ago... he's learned to hide it better). Sure he indicates he'd be ok if the man stayed home, but how often does that really happen in our society? And Ben... well, he's Ben. 'nuff said.

Aneeshm's like the Indian Fez.

Then again, you're just a giant ***** who used the term "womyn" for a while.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Felch]

The OTF is such a mindfield now of personal attacks, that most of the people that did like civil discussion have left. The majority of remaining posters now just have fun insulting people they disagree with. There is very little serious discussion left... Nothing wrong with that... whatever turns people on... People create threads, and people respond to them in a manner that entertains them. But that's the way it is now.

I don't think it's so bad. It's certainly less formally moderated than it was when you and MtG were cracking the whip. But everybody knows each other better. Many of us have contact outside of the forum. So when it's a lot of silly jokes and wacky discussion, it's okay.

Personally I don't hate anybody here. Ben and Asher are both nice people. Even MOBIUS, who I see as one of the biggest *******s on the board, is probably a nice guy. Folks just need to keep in mind that what's said here is just internet bull**** anyways. Most people are exaggerating and throwing out crazy thoughts just to keep things fun. So if something really offends you, you should just take a step back and breath deeply for a few seconds.

[KrazyHorse]

I am 100% serious all the time.

[Felch]

[loinburger]

It's nothing but dickgirls from here on out.

Amended: dickgirls and lolcats