Snowden/Irami had this statement to make to me during a discussion about drugs in which I also brought up why I don't think that anyone does anything in isolation.
quote: Amka,
I'm not a self-perpetuating baby factory, whose goal is to make more babies who will make more babies until the sun burns out. I'm a thinking, acting, person, in a sense, and end unto itself, and that's deeper than my ability to produce viable material offspring. A person's family is a special thing, but it isn't something you attend to like an automoton in a factory. The entire world isn't centered around a family. Everything you do isn't with respect to your family. I'm a great believer that you can live a fulfilling life without offspring, and further, you can raise offspring who all have jobs doing something else and kept your nose to pumping out baby grindstone that your life has passed you by and you've denied your being, your causa finalis, because you've spent too much time attending to your causa materialis.
It is statements like this that made me lose a lot of respect for the professors of my honor's courses in college.
You seem to think that motherhood, because it is so common and (you assume) so easy, is inferior. You seem to think that motherhood is all about mindlessly following instinct. You seem to think that unless you put self first, your life will be pathetic.
Even a little ageism has crept into your intellectualization of selfishness. Is it really true that after 40 or 50, "life has passed you by"? Tell that to my mother, who is currently writing lyrics very successfully.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, Irami.
I'm not just defending myself. I'm defending millions of women who are mothers, and religiously so. Many of them are much better mothers than I. But every mother is more than that.
I'm a writer. I'm a computer programmer. I'm a graphics designer. I'm the secretary of a non-profit corporation. I’m a school volunteer. I’m a church volunteer. I’m a wood worker. I'm a seamstress. I'm a musician. I'm a student. I'm a damn sexy woman.
and
I am a mother.
It is of no concern to me whether you choose to procreate or not. But it is of concern to me when you think you have no obligation to the society around you other than to serve your own desires.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I love it when someone stands up for mothers so eloquently. I agree that there is often a very warped viewpoint towards moms.
space opera
Posted by Jess N (Member # 6744) on :
Amka:
Thank you for saying everything we as fellow mothers might have thought to say. What an awesome statement. Made me feel powerful just reading it.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Thanks, Amka.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Perfect.
Kwea
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hmm. I don't know. I see both sides...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wonderful, Amka!
And to this quote of Irami's:
quote: A person's family is a special thing, but it isn't something you attend to like an automoton in a factory. The entire world isn't centered around a family. Everything you do isn't with respect to your family.
I say, how sad! Perhaps our world would be a far better thing if it WERE centered around families.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
we should be centered around families, friends and community I think Balance should be achieved... A woman who wants to seek out things outside of her family that makes her happy in addition to it should not be looked down upon As long as people are doing the best they can and raising their kids well, it shouldn't matter. We all are different... I just hate it when single women pick on married women or married women look down on single women and mothers who work outside of the whole fight with mothers who stay at home and visa versa... If they are doing whatever they are doing well, and it makes them feel complete than nothing else matters. Achieving a balance between self and community is a good goal. *likes the middle ground*
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:You seem to think that motherhood, because it is so common and (you assume) so easy, is inferior. You seem to think that motherhood is all about mindlessly following instinct. You seem to think that unless you put self first, your life will be pathetic.
None of that is actually in the quote. You've assumed it's all implied, which I don't think is a safe assumption in this case.
Saying that "the entire world isn't centered on the family [and having babies]" (which is basically what he said in that statement) is very different from any of the three claims you attributed to him above.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Sigh. I don't think being a mother is "inferior". However, I have reached a point where I've gotten very tired of people telling me (and people have told me this) that I am inferior and unnatural because I have chosen not to have children.
Case in point...I was taking a cultural geography class one time, in which we were talking one day about cultural attitudes toward having boys versus having girls. Because it was a small class, the instructor asked each student in the class which they would prefer to have as a first child - a boy or a girl. When my turn came, I said that I would prefer to have neither. Well, one of the women in the class just came unglued. She started yelling at me (literally; this is not an exaggeration for storytelling purposes) that I was just selfish and horrible and unnatural and that it was my duty to have children. The instructor finally had to tell her that she needed to either calm down or leave class.
To this day, I don't understand why she was so offended that I had made a choice not to have children.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
What Tres said.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Also, I don't see where you're getting this from:
quote:It is of no concern to me whether you choose to procreate or not. But it is of concern to me when you think you have no obligation to the society around you other than to serve your own desires.
Is that what someone's doing if he doesn't focus on his family? Why? There's more to the world than family. There are friends and there are strangers. There is the greater good, if you believe in it. Just because you don't bring any new people into the world to care for doesn't mean you don't care for the people already in it.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
If one donates time and money in exchange for a license to be self-righteous, can it still be considered altruism?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
What ae said.
And what Amka said.
There is room for both in this world. Many people choose not to have children BECAUSE they want to help the world. They think there are too many people in it. (and some are actually quite militant about this-forget what the group is called, but they are going for zero population growth?)
I also want to add that men stay home, too. Lots of them.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
So what obligations do I have to the society?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Kama, you must continue to feed ducks in the rain. I think that about covers it.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I agree with ae and tres. The quote from Irami didn't seem like an attack on motherhood at all to me. It's simply a statement that his life doesn't revolve around having children, not that no one's should.
I think it's a little odd that so many mothers feel under attack, when my experiences are far more in line with those of littlemissattitude's. While my parents and in-laws are ok with my husband's and my decision not to have children, I have had colleagues and acquaintances give me much grief about it. For example, we had a search committee for a new faculty member last year. The grad students took all the candidates to lunch each time. At one of these lunches, we were discussing one of the grad students whose wife had recently had a baby. I said something to the effect that I would never want to have children while I was in school.
The candidate looked at me and said, "But of course you want children some day, right?" I said, embarassed, "Um...no, not really." (pause--he's obviously waiting for me to explain further here) "I just don't think it's right for me." He replied, "Oh, but I've heard that children help focus your professional life tremendously!" He was pretty intent on pursuing the subject, but at this point, a friend of mine (god bless her) changed the subject.
Now, this is an extreme example, and this particular fellow was completely tactless, but obviously the view that women SHOULD be having children is still out there in some substantial form. I have a great deal of respect for mothers; I just don't think I want to be one. My reasons are a little different than those mentioned in Irami's post, but I think that parenthood is just NOT RIGHT for some people. And, I don't think that anyone should have to explain that decision unless they want to.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think it's downright rude for a person to say to someone who doesn't want to have children, "Why, what's wrong with you? It's selfish not to have kids." How? I think it's worse to be forced to have kids before a person is ready for that responsibility. I also think it's honestly none of their business and that goes for people who say, "How can you stand having so many kids? Isn't it stifling?"
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Those who want children should have them. Those who don't want children, shouldn't.
A great variety of problems arise when this simple two-sided truth is not adhered to. That's how we get people who are sad because they can't have children, or haven't had the opportunity. And it's also how we get abused kids living in homes with people who never really wanted them in the first place.
Sadly, we can't always solve the medical/biological and even social barriers to having children for those who really want them. But I think we could do better than we do now.
We shy away from stopping people from having children when they don't really want them. Much to the detriment of the kids, I think.
And the only answer I can give anyone who is worried about what other people think about their choices (to have or not to have children) is that you should know yourself and realize that the ignorance of others is not a reflection upon you or your choices.
The argument reflected in this thread is specious. Both sides have created paper tigers to attack without acknowledging that the folks on the other side DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY what they are accused of saying.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Ooh! A lynching!
or, what Bob said.
[ September 19, 2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Irami never said that motherhood was easy, inferior, mindlessly following instinct, or that a mother's life is pathetic. He also is stating that its possible to let life pass you by if all you do is pump out babies, he never said all mother's let life pass them by.
Amka, you should be ashamed of yourself for eloquently defending motherhood by attacking a strawman argument and attributing that argument to a fellow member of hatrack.
WOW I am asleep.
[ September 19, 2004, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think y'all are talking past each other.
I also think neither really cares and are using the situation the bang the drum on the soapbox to your own aggrandizement.
With that as the goal, knock yourself out. Saying what y'all did is its own reward.
[ September 19, 2004, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
bang the drum . . . on the soapbox . . . ?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It gets worse, Icky.
Bang their OWN drum on the soapbox.
Added: Oh, maybe you wanted an explanation.
*shrug* Both think their life choices are right, but either insensitive to others when laying it or else wildly need approval for them.
There's another way to put Irami's argument: "The world is bigger than a tiny blood circle, and our obligations to make this a better world are more encompassing than that tiny circle. If no one outside those you are related feels your influence, you have let that larger world down."
A few years ago, the General RS presidency told the women of the church that it was time for the larger world to feel our influence. It was insistent enough and loud enough that my step-mother was roused to run for the local city council. She did it, and she did it well, but honestly the only reason she did was because she felt like it was then part of what she should do. And that's okay! It's even nice, because she really wasn't getting anything out of it personally. But the positive side of what Irami is saying is something that even the church has said.
I think the positive aspect of what Amka is saying is that it doesn't matter how big you think if you neglect your own - that no earthly success can compensate for failure in the home, and just because the home is the primary focus, it doesn't the rest of life is a failure. If you are going to have kids, then it does take a lot of time and focus, and there's often not a lot left for the rest of the world then.
-----
That's the positive aspects. There's a lot of pride and elitism mixed in with both arguments, and I don't think either is listening.
[ September 19, 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by miles_per_hour (Member # 6451) on :
As long as you bang it slowly...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is also a conflict of religious points of view.
I think Irami's causa finalis is a better world, in this world.
Amka's causa finalis is the human race sealed to one another in a family circle, and this world isn't the end of it.
Of course they disagree on the methods to get there - they aren't going to same place.
Added: That's even what Irami said:
quote:Now if families are God's plan and God's end. Well, then, that's something that only the Lord can deal with.
Don't get mad at him because he doesn't believe in your goals.
[ September 19, 2004, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:A few years ago, the General RS presidency told the women of the church that it was time for the larger world to feel our influence.
Do you know of any particular talks for this? I'd like to read them.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The tales of women who spent their lives expecting motherhood for the sake of motherhood to be their end, then slip into postpartum depression are much more heart-breaking, but strangely similiar to those men who go through mid-life crises and do all manners of destructive things. Being a person is more than what you do, and responsiblity is attending to what you are, including and besides, what you produce on your list at the top of this thread.
Your list on other thread concerning drug users didn't approach that user like a person, but like a family instrument. Instead of dealing with drugs as in how they may be harmful to a family, it's more appropriate to speak about drugs as centrally destructive in depreciating the value of what we are, as we are, attacking that with makes us human, and may be through that violence, their effects on the family.
We are more than what we do, and those responsiblities we put upon ourselves are in service to Being, and not the other way around. The strange and beautiful character of the statement "I am a mother," isn't the mother and it's not the I, it's the 'am.'
[ September 20, 2004, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Perhaps I should have quoted the entire thread. Much of what I said was in reply to the general theme of what Irami was saying.
But the baby factory and automaton comments were highly insulting, and fairly personally directed. This comment by Irami "kept your nose to pumping out baby grindstone that your life has passed you by and you've denied your being," is also very insulting to motherhood. Those statements do, in fact, imply the inferiority of motherhood.
Many other assumptions have been made about my argument. First of all, that I think my choice is better than his.
I specifically stated that whether he chose to have children or not was of no concern of mine. I know people who don't want children and recognize it can be a valid choice, and I've even supported people in that choice. No one should ever have kids for the wrong reason.
Second of all, that my own argument that motherhood is far more than what Irami was saying, implies that I think that Irami should follow my own religious convictions about an after life and what God expects. I do not expect him to do that, but I do feel there is a moral ground that is quite apart from religion. It isn't about family, although for those that have a family, it becomes centered there.
It is about understanding that personal choices have an impact on the world around you. It is the fact that even if you choose not to have kids, you should not act in a manner that makes society more harmful to children.
This isn't because they are innocent little creatures that need to be protected (though that is true). It is because they will grow up. What they have been given today is what society will become tomorrow, whether they were your kids or not.
The culture of selfishness has hurt children a great deal, and it is only when we look past ourselves that we will begin to heal the hurt we've made to society.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:This comment by Irami "kept your nose to pumping out baby grindstone that your life has passed you by and you've denied your being," is also very insulting to motherhood. Those statements do, in fact, imply the inferiority of motherhood.
Actually, Irami was talking about himself not being a baby factory. And since I'm pretty sure he's male, he was clearly insulting fatherhood, if anything.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
That was my read, too, Frisco. However, it isn't something I have a lot of emotional investment in myself (unlike so many other things!), so I don't know how someone from a different background would naturally read it.
If I could be so forward as to paraphrase Irami (my read, my interpretation, FWIW): having nothing to your life other than being a baby factory is not a good thing for you or for the world. Babies grow up and move out, and even while you are producing and raising babies, their lives can be more enriched by your having other broader interests, too.
Of note (in my mind) is that he made no claim in the thread as far as I could see as to whether those broader interests should be financially gainful, involved in specialized and formal fields (such as higher education), or the like. I took him to mean that it would be good for mothers and fathers to read up on history, to listen to radio that was thoughtful and thought-provoking, to discuss world events with one another, to be involved in local politics, to study nature (and share it with their children, as does Jenny Gardener), etc.
I think Irami doesn't equate being a mother or father with "just [pumping] out babies," but rather sees one style of parenthood as going down that road. This, at least, seemed obvious to me at first read, and it seemed a perfectly sensible thing to say. On the other hand, were I someone who in my personal life was made less of just for even having kids, I might have been more likely to read him differently.
[ September 19, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Pumping out babies is not a phrase usually said in regards to men, and he was talking to a woman. But I agree. I think he has insulted fatherhood as well.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
(just a note that I edited as Amka was posting)
I'll reiterate: I'm not sure where the equation of parenthood to "just [pumping] out babies" came from. I think he was criticizing the latter, not the former, although I can't speak for him conclusively.
[ September 19, 2004, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
What he said was in response to me saying that I felt that a drug user who harmed his family was a bigger enemy to society than a drug user who was simply unproductive. I then when on to another argument about why I thought that "two consensual adults makes it okay" was a philosophy that I thought was harmful to society. I listed STDs, single parents left in that condition because of deadbeat parents, and single parents who have multiple partners not caring how it affected their children.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
So, do you think he could have been saying that in order to get a full idea of what the ill impact was, one should look to more than just the impacts on families? That is, could he have been agreeing that these are bad things, but pushing for a bigger list of bad things (since there are things which are bad in the world, over and above whether they have an impact on families -- although impacts on families can be bad things, too)?
I think he was objecting to just framing things in terms of families, not that they couldn't be framed in terms of families as part of the story. Just not the whole story.
Just as a life may include parenthood, but it also (by necessity) includes citizenhood and being a member of the local community and adding to the grand discourse of life. [Those latter roles] can impact on and be informed by parenthood, but parenthood doesn't exhaust them.
I propose this with the understanding, Amka, that if it touched on a point in my on life about which I was sensitive, in my current state of mind I would have gone ballistic. I don't even have kids, so it isn't sensitive, but if it was about not having kids, things would be different for me in the reading of it.
[ September 19, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Sara,
If he had said the same without resorting to such insulting language, I would not have had a problem with the argument.
We both agree drugs are harmful, but he thinks it is more because it degrades the user and I think it is more because it harms those around the user. For me, actually, that is a fine line. When I made my decision not to use drugs, I had no husband or children, and I didn't really care what anyone thought of my actions. I just thought it was not wise to give up control of my facilities to illegal drugs or alcohol.
But now that I'm older, I realize that we make no decisions in isolation. This is more pronounced if we have a family, but it is true even if we don't have a family. We are all part of the larger picture, whether we want to be or not.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
See, I've found your posts to be equally insulting. You speak in absolutes, and instead of expressing opinions, you make it clear that your way is the right and only way and when we're older and wiser, we'll understand that.
I think you're both being condescending, and Hatrack is the last place on Earth that'll fly.
There are very few things that even a majority of the board takes as a given. I think the only thing we've all agreed on so far is that puppies are cute.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
But cable is better than puppies.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Well, Frisco, I'm open to you giving me a good argument as to why this statement isn't true:
quote: We are all part of the larger picture, whether we want to be or not.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Well, Frisco, I'm open to you giving me a good argument as to why this statement isn't true:
I don't disagree with your (vague) statement, just with your ideas on what diminishes society. Also, I think there's a larger picture than the one you're selling as paramount.
I don't disagree with quite a few of your statements. If I could figure out what they meant in the context of this discussion, however, I think I would.
[ September 19, 2004, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yozhik, I'm not sure. I remember hearing it once - in General Conference or the women's meeting, I think - but I remember it more because of my step-mother retelling it and the story of how it spurred her to action. I'll have to look it up.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Cable is NOT better.
Puppies are much better than cable. You can love cable, and you can love a puppy, but only one of those will love you back.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
[quote] Cable is NOT better.
Puppies are much better than cable. You can love cable, and you can love a puppy, but only one of those will love you back[quote] But I'm not allergic to cable!!!
Goody
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Here is my quote:
quote:I'm not a self-perpetuating baby factory, whose goal is to make more babies who will make more babies until the sun burns out. I'm a thinking, acting, person, in a sense, and end unto itself, and that's deeper than my ability to produce viable material offspring. A person's family is a special thing, but it isn't something you attend to like an automoton in a factory. The entire world isn't centered around a family. Everything you do isn't with respect to your family. I'm a great believer that you can live a fulfilling life without offspring, and further, you can raise offspring who all have jobs doing something else and kept your nose to pumping out baby grindstone that your life has passed you by and you've denied your being, your causa finalis, because you've spent too much time attending to your causa materialis.
Here is what I really meant: I'm not a self-perpetuating baby factory, whose goal is to make more babies who will make more babies until the sun burns out. I'm a thinking, acting, person, in a sense, and end unto itself, and that's deeper than my ability to produce viable material offspring. A person's family is a special thing, but it isn't something you attend to like an automoton in a factory. The entire world isn't centered around a family. Everything you do isn't with respect to your family.
Now here when it could have been confusing:
I'm a great believer that you can live a fulfilling life without offspring, and further, you can raise offspring who all have jobs doing something else while you've kept your nose to pumping out baby grindstone and your life has passed you by and you've denied your being, your causa finalis, because you've spent too much time attending to your causa materialis.
Now after I said, "I'm a great believer that you can...," I was speaking to the general you. You as any idle reader. I thought that was clear from the sentence structure, but that's the nature of the beast.
Katharina is right. I am talking about here in this world. I don't deal in the next one, and to tell the truth, I think it makes me take this one all the more seriously, but that may be another debate.
I think people ought to think really hard about what it means to be a person. And that doesn't mean come up with answers or give themselves rules or plans or schedules, but that they should think really hard about this condition we are in, consider the problems not as something to be solved immediately, but to be considered honestly and not forced into an expedient answers. Quick answers to why we study history, english, math, science, chemistry, or philosophy, and why ought not do drugs and why we ought to praise marriage, is the reason why we are so bumfuzzled when we approach speaking to, laying these matters out before, people to be taken to heart.
In my mind, the people who rattle off a bible quote and don't think about what sense it makes are just as bad as people who quickly dismiss religion, that bond between humans or the holy, as hocus-pocus, as is if studying a kind of thing that ties us is a waste of time.
I know that this is tricky business, which is why the fact that anyone who teaches well is deserving of awe.
______________________
Sara said:
quote: I think he was objecting to just framing things in terms of families, not that they couldn't be framed in terms of families as part of the story. Just not the whole story.
Just as a life may include parenthood, but it also (by necessity) includes citizenhood and being a member of the local community and adding to the grand discourse of life. [Those latter roles] can impact on and be informed by parenthood, but parenthood doesn't exhaust them.
That's what I said. I said it more forcefully and with less art and more artifice, but Sara understood precisely the sense of what I said.
quote: I took him to mean that it would be good for mothers and fathers to read up on history, to listen to radio that was thoughtful and thought-provoking, to discuss world events with one another, to be involved in local politics, to study nature (and share it with their children, as does Jenny Gardener), etc.
_________________________
This is where I'm going to become a little more strong than Sara ventures. We've mastered the earth, death and natural disasters aside, we've got the earth licked. But we haven't taken the time to seriously think about the enormity and responsibility of such dominion or what that means for how we get along with ourselves, that we just keep plugging away, like a program in a loop. And now we have these wars, too. We don't think of what we are as we are, so instead of thinking about it, we speak in terms of a cost benefit analysis. Except instead of Brazilian rainforests, we tear down and commodify entire cultures without regard. Now I'm not saying this Wal-Mart is wrong, but I don't like the kind of reasons I hear for why it is right.
This is where I go even farther, and I'm still reading and thinking and it may these thoughts may not be ready for primetime, but I think that Christendom is ossified. Not Christianity the faith, faith isn't something that belongs to time. Faith is a another kind of quality. It's got a special place within our suprasensual powers. I don't even know where to start, it's something else.
Christendom, I'll call that stuff between the arranging of the Gospels/the Councils and today is a little outdated, and it's been outdated for a while. It didn't matter. As if you were driving down a road and the breaks went out, it wouldn't matter until you tried to slow down. Well, now we are asking questions that require us to slow down and Christendom needs to square itself with Thor, and when it's done, square itself with Islam.
Nobody should be surprised that this can happen to a historical religion. Christendom bursted apart with Martin Luther, and he was an effect of a system, not the cause, just as the Magna Carta was an effect and not the cause, and the French Revolution was and effect and not the cause. 400ad Islam is being busted up as we speak.
The dangerous part is in the Revaluation. That's the hard work. That's where we need the minds. Rethinking values doesn't mean throwing them out wholesale, rather refining and reflecting and constituting values with extreme honesty and responsibility because mouthing the old values like a 1st grader in a Catholic school mouths the Our Father and a 6th grader in a public school mouths the Pledge has nothing to do with thinking, attending to that which calls for thought. This is a problem because it's like building a boat when while we are at sea, thinking about thinking and being what we are as we think about being what we are.
It's a whole lot easier to think about cable, puppies, beer, and sports, and it's even easier to ignore the questions in favor of the simple answer, or put everything into some calculus determined by our interests, hoping nobody notices our poker face when we say that that is politics.
Frisco, I speak from conjecture, belief, or from knowledge. Depending on what I know vs. what I believe. False modesty is silly, and healthy true modesty is somthing different, though. If you tell me that Sara is a kindly young woman in the midwest, I'll say you are telling the truth. If you say that Sara is right here on my computer screen, I'll say you are telling the truth. But if you say Sara is a 60 year old man in outer-Mongolia, I'll say you are not telling the truth. There are different senses of the truth, correct judgements concerning the essense of a being, but come on, let's take ourselves seriously.
Paul:
quote:Irami never said that motherhood was easy, inferior, mindlessly following instinct, or that a mother's life is pathetic. He also is stating that its possible to let life pass you by if all you do is pump out babies, he never said all mother's let life pass them by.
yep.
_______
Katharina,
quote:There's another way to put Irami's argument: "The world is bigger than a tiny blood circle, and our obligations to make this a better world are more encompassing than that tiny circle. If no one outside those you are related feels your influence, you have let that larger world down."
I don't think that's it. It's not even that one's being is bigger than the blood circle, as much as I think that they are a different kind of thing. What you, as the brother of so and so, is a different kind of thing than what you are as a person. It's a different character of responsibilities, I imagine that these would be more manifest if you were a member of Hatfields or McCoy's. Or just as if you had to judge over your sibling's tormentor, or even worse, if you were the sibling of a tormentor.
[ September 20, 2004, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote: But if you say Sara is a 60 year old man in outer-Mongolia, I'll say you are not telling the truth.
Ratfinks! Foiled again.
*crabby 60-yr-old man noises
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What you, as the brother of so and so, is a different kind of thing than what you are as a person...."
I'll tell you something, though, Irami.
What I am as "Tom Davidson, father of Sophia," is NOT a different kind of thing than what I am as a person. In fact, I would argue that the fastest and most accurate way to understand what kind of person I am is to observe what kind of father I am.
This is certainly not universally true -- but you should recognize, I think, that it's a fairly common and not inaccurate sentiment.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote: It's a whole lot easier to think about cable, puppies, beer, and sports, and it's even easier to ignore the questions in favor of the simple answer, or put everything into some calculus determined by our interests, hoping nobody notices our poker face when we say that that is politics.
Ouch.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shakes head* Don't take it personally, Kama. Irami only speaks in absolutes.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:What I am as "Tom Davidson, father of Sophia," is NOT a different kind of thing than what I am as a person. In fact, I would argue that the fastest and most accurate way to understand what kind of person I am is to observe what kind of father I am.
This is certainly not universally true -- but you should recognize, I think, that it's a fairly common and not inaccurate sentiment.
I think it's a mistake to talk of "what you are as a person" as if it were some independent entity floating in space. There is no "what you are as a person" outside of what you are as a father, a brother, a friend, and so on. And, I suppose, what you are when you're alone. What you are as a father may be what you want to think you are as a whole if you're a good father, or a bad father who likes to pity himself, but wishing don't make it so.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Human beings are social animals. By taking then entirely out of that context and trying to find who they are alone, the answer, save for the exceptions, wouldn't amount to much.
You can measure a person by how they treat children and animals.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Not true, I think - I know good people who really dislike children and animals.
I don't think you can measure a person (in an absolute sense) by any given standard, except perhaps their own.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's one thing to dislike them, another to treat them badly.
In fact, how you treat someone you dislike says a lot about how good you really are.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Dag--yeah, exactly.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, I know some good people who don't treat them very well too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then I would say they're not good people. They might be good except for how they treat children and animals, but they're not good in an unqualified sense.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No one is perfect. What are some acceptable caveats? Everyone is "good, except..."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree no one is perfect. Doesn't change the fact that someone who mistreats children is not "good."
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then no one is good, because everyone fails in some area.
What about someone who is nice to children but spreads gossip about their boss? Do you feel the same way?
Posted by miles_per_hour (Member # 6451) on :
Well, if the gossip's about my boss... Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
People who mistreat children perpetuate cruelty and pain in this world.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Who doesn't perpetuate cruelty and pain in some way?
As I said, I know people who treat children and animals in ways I wouldn't consider too nice, but I've observed that those people are still good people. Thus, to define good people as only including people who treat children and animals well would be wrong. And since I don't agree with that conclusion, I'm not going to be convinced if you say my observations about them being good people are wrong because good people would treat children better. That'd end up circular.
[ September 20, 2004, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What if they are kind to children but perpetuate cruelty in other ways?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kat, I'm refuting one particular statement, that someone can mistreat children and still be good. I never claimed everyone who is nice to children is good.
Xap, then you have a strange definition of good.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know. And I'm asking you to expand on it - if one malevolent act makes a person unfit to be called good, can anyone ever be? Since no one is perfect, what malevolent actions can be taken that will not disqualify someone from the "good" label?
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
There is not a person on the face of this earth who is _unqualifiably_ good. Everyone has flaws. Some of those flaws are considerably worse than others.
It isn't up to us to decide whether someone is good or bad. That is between them and God (insert 'their own moral code' if you do not believe in God) It is up to us to determine when and how to help people, and when those people have become so detrimental to the community that they must be removed or at least restrained.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I know. And I'm asking you to expand on it - if one malevolent act makes a person unfit to be called good, can anyone ever be?
It's not one act - I think a person can commit almost any act once and still be good (or become good at a later time).
But Xap described said these people "don't treat [children] very well" as if it were an ongoing pattern. It's the ongoing nature that keeps them from being good.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Xap, then you have a strange definition of good.
Strange does not imply incorrect.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is anyone good? No one treats anyone around them perfectly - can anyone ever be called good?
Posted by the master (Member # 6788) on :
people keep trying to tell my i'm good. i think those people have a strange idea of good.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know kat. If no one can be called good, then this doesn't matter because Xap's still wrong.
Mistreatment of children is a serious moral failing and indicates a moral gap in the person doing the mistreating. It's not a minor thing.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But being benign towards children isn't the ultimate measure of a person's goodness, either.
What if the person is indifferent towards children altogether? Not particularly fond, and therefore doesn't have any and stays out of the way when he runs across them. You could not say he was kind to children, but it isn't impossible for this person to be good.
[ September 20, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
That person still isn't cruel to children.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:If no one can be called good, then this doesn't matter because Xap's still wrong.
Again, you said my definition was weird, not wrong. I can accept that, but it's still right.
To find out, we'd need a list of people who are to be considered good. Go around and ask people who they know that is good - I bet many of them will be people who aren't necessarily the kindest towards children and animals. I know I've heard Slash claim, for instance, that he can be, eh, grumpy towards kids, to put it one way.
[ September 20, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But he also isn't kind to children. You can't judge him by how he treats them, because he does his best to not treat them any way at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But being benign towards children isn't the ultimate measure of a person's goodness, either.
Of course not. I haven't said it was. Not mistreating children is necessary, but not sufficient, to being good.
Dagonee
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote: What if the person is indifferent towards children altogether? Not particularly fond, and therefore doesn't have any and stays out of the way when he runs across them. You could not say he was kind to children, but it isn't impossible for this person to be good.
You pretty much just described me there But I do like animals quite a lot, am raising a bunch of them, volunteer at a shelter, and do my best to intervene on their behalf when I see them abused or neglected.
I pretty much agree with the assessment that how a person treats children and animals speaks to their general character. I'd actually expand it to say "anyone/anything less powerful than them." If someone is a model citizen in all respects except that they get their jollies by, say, tormenting homeless people, I wouldn't say they're a good person.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:You can measure a person by how they treat children and animals.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
There is a big difference between being grumpy around children, and even grumpy towards them, and being cruel to children.
I think it isn't about "if you aren't kind to children, then you aren't good," but it is about "if you are cruel to children, then you aren't good."
One involves a neutral behavior, and the other involves active harm.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And you can measure them that way. You can also measure them by how they react to being cut off in traffic, whether they hold the door open for others, and how much they give to charity.
Just like I can measure a desk with a ruler, or with a scale, or by seeing how much water is displaced. Each gives you certain information, all related to the matter that comprises the desk.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Amka's got it. When you cause intentional harm to someone over whom you've got power, that excludes your character from being good.
...and Dag, too.
[ September 20, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
As long as we know it's one of many possible measures.
[ September 20, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Feel free to name some more if you wish.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Whether or not they treat the other person in a debate with respect.
Posted by Dread Pirate_Smith (Member # 4780) on :
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Arrrrr.
Posted by Dread Pirate_Smith (Member # 4780) on :
Gue?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
So what you are saying is, if I see anyone who has power over someone else intentionally cause harm to that person, and make a habit of it, I can judge that person as a bad person?
That would make almost everyone I know a bad person, including many on this forum. How many people here have repeatedly attacked newbies coming to this forum, for instance?
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Then we are all going to hell, aren't we. Here, let me hold the door open for you, kat.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
but amka, I sorta liked my handbasket.
It has pretty ribbons.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Amka, are you implying I'm going to hell?
I'm horribly insulted.
[ September 20, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dread Pirate_Smith (Member # 4780) on :
Arrr, I live in hell, little miss, where the winds of sulfer blow, and tear at the skin.
Round here, they call it Utah.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Xap,
Yes. But I'm not sure I've seen anyone habitually attack newbies around here. Every once in a while someone new has clearly been a troll, and every once in a while a newbie has had some pretty outrageous behavior and been put down. But I don't think anyone has ever been attacked simply because they are newbies.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And there was much discord and gnashing of teeth.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
quote: where the winds of sulfer blow
And this weekend, that hasn't been a joke, eh dread pirate?
*plugs her nose*
(note: for those of you that don't know, Mr. Smith and I live near a salty, briny lake and we've had a lot of very windy storms.)
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Hey, its hailing here too...
Posted by Dread Pirate_Smith (Member # 4780) on :
Indeedly so.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
"For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die."
Yeah I know it is a random Bible quote, but it kept popping into my head while reading this discussion. Not telling you where it is found either. <Grin>
AJ
Maybe I just like the word peradventure.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I didn't even know that was a word. o_O
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But I'm not sure I've seen anyone habitually attack newbies around here.
There's some fun newbie doings going on today, that's for sure.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Is that quotation differentiating betweena righteous man and a good man?
Seems so. That righteous doesn't automatically mean good (Pharisees) and good doesn't automatically mean righteous (Samaritans?)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe it's just a comment that we like our heroes a wee bit flawed.
I like that, AJ. I had to look up peradventure and plan on using it tonight.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:But I'm not sure I've seen anyone habitually attack newbies around here. Every once in a while someone new has clearly been a troll, and every once in a while a newbie has had some pretty outrageous behavior and been put down. But I don't think anyone has ever been attacked simply because they are newbies.
First it's "not be nice." Then it's "mistreat." Then it's "mistreat more than once." Now it's "habitually mistreat" and only when the people they are mistreating don't deserve it?
Truthfully, I've even seen it to that extreme here with some.
But, if you don't like that example, consider grade school kids. If that's all it takes to be a bad person, almost ALL grade school kids, from 8 to 16, are bad people. I've known a great number of kids in that age range, and almost all of them consistently and repeatedly mistreat some younger or less popular people who don't deserve it. I've witnessed it. Are you saying ALL of these kids are bad people?
And if so, why do so many people, including parents and friends, so often claim they are good kids?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Or perhaps there is a difference.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*considers* I think we do like our heroes a wee bit flawed.
I had a conversation once with a(n atheist) Hatracker who said that he liked the Jesus of The Last Tempation of Christ a thousand times better than any other depiction he had seen, because this one seemed...real. Flawed and human. That he'd be more willing to follow that Christ than the perfect person usually depicted.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Is there a difference between good and righteous?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well I took it out of context, the passage actually compares "righetous", "good" and "sinners", cause the next verse is:
"But God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."
(The verses are Romans 5:7-8)
AJ
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I would think someone could be called righteous but not good if they did the right thing but for the wrong reasons.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: But, if you don't like that example, consider grade school kids. If that's all it takes to be a bad person, almost ALL grade school kids, from 8 to 16, are bad people. I've known a great number of kids in that age range, and almost all of them consistently and repeatedly mistreat some younger or less popular people who don't deserve it. I've witnessed it. Are you saying ALL of these kids are bad people?
I'd say they were immature and don't quite know how to be good people yet. I admit that there were times when I was in that age group when I mistreated others. Now I look back and realize that back then, I was a bad person. Now I can strive to not be that person again. I don't know if I'd consider myself a "good" person yet, but I like to think that I've improved since I was fourteen.
That's what I think isn't being factored into this...The fact that at any time a "bad person" can make a concious decision not to be "bad" anymore. Then they cease to be a "bad person" for as long as they cease to do "bad" things.
I'll need to think of how intent fits into the above, but right now, I'm tired.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the simple fact is that "good" is not a stable state, any more than "hot" or "sexy."
Someone can act sexy most of the time, and can make a serious effort to be sexy, but will still -- in the opinions of a few, or under certain circumstances -- fail to be universally sexy. That does not mean that we cannot, as shorthand, say that "X is sexy;" it just means that we must be willing to accept that X does not have to be sexy all the time in order for our description to apply.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I liked The Last Temptation of Christ because it explored Jesus' exploring his situation, and not with confidence or bumbling ineptness, but with fear, courage, and humbled awe. He wasn't human in the sense of lustful or beastial, he was human in the sense of an intellectual hunger to figure out the import of the situation, while genuinely anxious about his decisions. His life was problematic, and there were no answers, but he couldn't deny that which was being thrown forth. The sermon on the mount scene was perfect.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i'd just like to point out that those of use who, like irami, have no interest in having a family or participating in the "normal" flow of life are often looked down upon as well, and i would say that on the whole are the more often disparaged members of society (due to our smaller numbers).
people who aren't married are looked at as undesirable and unsuccessful, people who don't have a family are looked at as either not serious and reliable or selfish and disconnected from the "real" world. there's also a significant religious element to this treatment, as the traditional family structure is so strongly integrated into christian doctrine.
i'm not saying parents or spouses should be looked down on, just pointing out that it goes both ways.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Kerinin,
[/uote]i'd just like to point out that those of use who, like irami, have no interest in having a family or participating in the "normal" flow of life are often looked down upon as well, [/quote]
Having a family would be nice, in time. I'm still young, and I'm not about to force it, though. As to the "normal" flow of life. I don't know what that means, and if it means what I think it means, it's not for me.
___
About the Last Temptation of Christ, the sermon on the mount was perfect because Jesus put all of this thought and care in crafting his message. It was full of nuance and love, and at the end, all of the listeners misunderstood because they weren't paying attention. It was great. It all happened so fast, then Jesus was left on the mount trying to figure out what went wrong as his followers somehow thought it was a call to arms.
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
Cable is NOT better. ![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
We don't think of what we are as we are, so instead of thinking about it, we speak in terms of a cost benefit analysis. Except instead of Brazilian rainforests, we tear down and commodify entire cultures without regard. Now I'm not saying this Wal-Mart is wrong, but I don't like the kind of reasons I hear for why it is right.![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But I do like animals quite a lot, am raising a bunch of them, volunteer at a shelter, and do my best to intervene on their behalf when I see them abused or neglected.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)